A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 17, 1994, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton C. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Others present were: James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance & Audit Department; Frank Gaylord, County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
The Reverend F. Fraker, First United Methodist Church, Tavares, gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Discussion occurred regarding the items on the County Manager's Consent Agenda. It was noted that Tabs 12 and 19 needed to be pulled from the agenda. Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that Tab 7 needed to be pulled for further discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 14, 1994, Special Meeting - Town Hall, as presented
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of April 19, 1994, Regular Meeting, with the following change being made:
Page 20 - Line 28: Amend to include "particularly for the State of the County Address, the Student Government Day and the Volunteer Reception".
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 19, 1994, Regular Meeting, as amended.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of April 26, 1994, Regular Meeting, with the following change being made:
Page 1 - Line 15: Delete the language indicating that Mayor Gorgas was participating in the Student Government Day.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of April 26, 1994, as amended.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution expressing appreciation to Mr. J. Cecil Shumacker for his contributions to the community through his leadership of Sunrise ARC of Lake County.
Commr. Hanson presented the Resolution to Mr. J. Cecil Shumacker.
CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following:
Bonds - Contractor
5295-95 Russell Howson Plumbing (Plumbing)
5296-94 Don Poss (Roofing)
5297-94 Robert L. Mott d/b/a Mott, USA (Sign Sub-Contractor)
5298-94 Watson's Air Conditioning & Heating (Heating & Air Cond.)
Request for approval and signature authorization on the following:
1. Case No. 90-27-CJ, David G. Evans (a child), Tina M. Evans, in the amount of $50.00.
2. Case No. 89-940-CJ, David G. Evans (a child), Dicie Helms, in the amount of $50.00.
3. Case No. 92-1356-CF, State of Florida vs. Michael Bolling, in the amount of $250.00.
Request for approval and signature authorization on the following Satisfaction of Assessment Liens:
E. J. Morgan $ 956.64
Robert C. & Donna Colwell 1,552.78
Astor Forest Campsites
John T. & M. Patrici Wilbur $1,636.79
Robert Stephenson 2,715.69
Richard L. Watkins 2,080.10
Joe J. & Ida D. Fleming 1,392.05
Julie D. Rawlings Rawlings,
Chad Emmett Rawlings & John L.
Loreen D. & Jo Huffstutler 1,857.65
John W. & Franc Rutherford 2,258.10
Clyde & Mabel K. Repass $1,271.00
Paul E. & Anna E. Gilliam 2,542.50
Robert J. Weber 635.50
Florida Fruitland Park Tropical Homesites
Susan Curtis $2,330.17
St. Johns Waterfront Estates-Manhattan
Perry Woodrow & Frances Ann Strait $1,329.89
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following: Before the Florida Public Service Commission, In Re: Resolution by Lake County Board of County Commissioners for extended area service (EAS) from the Mt. Dora, Eustis, and Umatilla exchanges to the Deland exchange - Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Application for Transfer of Certificate No. 522-W from Lake Griffin Utilities, Inc. to Harbor Hills Utilities, L. P., received from the law firm of McLin, Burnsed, Morrison, Johnson & Robuck, providing service to the following described territory in Lake County, Florida: Harbor Hills Unit 1, Harbor Hills Unit 1A, and Harbor Hills Unit 2A, less existing right-of-way for Lake Griffin Road (District 1-7611), Griffin View Drive (District 1-7212) and Sullen Road (District 1-7316).
Mr. James C. Watkins, Clerk, informed the Board that Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance and Audit Department, would be introducing the external auditors, Ernst & Young, who would be reporting on Lake County's 1993 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Ms. Lehman presented opening comments and introduced the following staff members of the Finance Department, who prepared the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and extended her appreciation for their efforts: Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Ms. Tracy Zeller, and Mr. Kevin McDonald.
Ms. Lehman introduced Mr. John Vodenicker and Ms. Carrie G. Hall, Ernst & Young, who would be presenting an overview of the Financial Report.
Mr. Watkins extended his appreciation to the staff members for their outstanding job on preparing the Financial Report.
Mr. Vodenicker appeared before the Board to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1993. Mr. Vodenicker read into the record the opinion stated on Page 23, Paragraph 3, as follows:
"In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Lake County, Florida, at September 30, 1993, and the results of its operations and cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles."
Mr. Vodenicker stated that this continues to be a clean opinion on the Financial Statements. He referred to Page 32 and explained the results of the General Fund budgetary operations, which indicated an 8.9% increase in the revenues over the previous year. Mr. Vodenicker discussed the expenditures and stated that the County under expended $2,320,000.00. Therefore, the County has a favorable budget variance of $3,369,000.00. The Fund Balance at the End of the Year was $5,556,987.00, which is 14.6% of the General Operating Budget compared to last year, which was 15.6%.
Mr. Vodenicker presented the Board members with a handout entitled Financial Overview, which consisted of the following information: Balance Sheets; Revenues (All Governmental Fund Types and Expendable Trust Funds; Taxes; Expenditures All Governmental Fund Types; and Landfill Enterprise Fund.
Mr. Vodenicker complimented the Board by stating that, as a Commission, it has made significant improvement in the operations of the landfill. He referred to Page 125, Enterprise Fund - Landfill Fund, which showed how the County had improved in its Cash Operations. Mr. Vodenicker commented on the Internal Service Fund - Insurance Fund, as shown on Page 128, and stated that, as the Board gets into its budget deliberations for next year, it should look into trying to build a retained earnings in this fund rather than just funding the current claims.
Commr. Hanson complimented staff on the work it had done in making a document of such substantial size to be clear and understandable.
Mr. Watkins extended his appreciation, once again, to staff and all who were involved in putting the Financial Report together.
Commr. Hanson presented a Resolution to Ms. Cora Fulmore, for the time she spent in Lake County setting up the Affordable Housing Program.
The Chairman announced that the time had arrived for the public hearing on the Ordinance Providing for the Repeal of Ordinance No. 1992-8 Which Established the "Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children".
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, was present to answer any questions of the Board.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, explained the proposed ordinance before the Board.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1994-7, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 1992-8 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE "LAKE COUNTY CITIZENS' COMMISSION FOR CHILDREN"; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/PUBLIC SERVICES/MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and stated that, on January 10, 1994, staff met with the Impact Fee Committees and distributed to the cities information concerning the previous history about the pennies associated with the revenue that is brought to the County and cities. The Board approved, in January, 1994, to proceed with the two cent local option tax, to be renewed in 20 years, and letters were sent out on February 1, 1994 informing the cities. The County Attorney has since sent out a resolution based on transportation expenditures. Mr. Stivender stated that the County's expenditures ten years ago were approximately 69%, and it is now 62%, with the cities' distribution being the other portion up to 100%. He stated that, as of last Thursday, there were concerns by some of the cities that the distribution of the transportation expenditures was not fair to them, and they wanted to look at pursuing the option of population, which is a viable alternative. The Board has already approved the authorization through the County's portion of transportation expenditures, however, the cities still have the option of going either way. Mr. Stivender noted that there is a "drop dead" date of June 1 to enact this, so that it is reenacted as of October 1 for another 20 years. He stated that the next two cents have been approved for 30 years, from 1985, which was transportation expenditures across the Board, and the last two cents of the local option of six cents was approved in 1986, with the cities opting to go with population.
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, informed the Board that a revision of the ordinance has been presented to the Board, which has the incorporation of the statutory language in Section 4 as follows: "Ten (10) years from the date of the enactment of the enabling Ordinance, the proportions shall be recalculated based upon the transportation expenditures of the immediately preceding five (5) years." It was noted that the revision was sent to the cities.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tony Otte, City of Tavares, appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Bob Williams, Attorney, will be passing out some suggested language to amend the interlocal agreement with the cities using the alternate method of population. If the interlocal agreement with this language is not received at the end of the month, the fall back would be the transportation method. Mr. Otte stated that he had a meeting where all 14 cities were invited to discuss the gas tax and this methodology, and as a result of that meeting, there were seven cities in attendance, which requested that some language be inserted to speak to this issue. He noted that the language does not affect the County portion, but only how the cities' portion would be allocated. By allocating on a population basis the share of ten of the 14 cities' improvements, those ten cities that would get improvement are Astatula, Clermont, Fruitland Park, Groveland, Howey, Lady Lake, Mascotte, Montverde, Tavares, and Umatilla. Mr. Otte stated that there are a number of cities that have concerns on the transportation expenditure method since what is added into that figure may be somewhat open to interpretation. The language being presented is in compliance with the Statutes, it benefits ten of the 14 cities improving their share, and does not affect the County's allocation, and he submitted the language for the Board's consideration. Mr. Otte stated that, by using the latest estimate from the University of Florida, those ten cities represent just barely a majority of the incorporated population. It was noted that the cities that would not benefit include Leesburg, Eustis, Mount Dora, and Minneola.
Mr. Jim Myers, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and suggested that the formula remain the same, because he questioned whether or not the ten cities stated actually represent a majority of the population in the incorporated areas. He stated that the formula that has been presented by the County certainly gives an opportunity for those monies to be distributed based on the formula, and shows how you are spending those dollars and how many other dollars you are spending as well. As an example, Mr. Myers informed the Board that, over the last five years, the City of Eustis has spent over 6.6 million dollars in transportation dollars. Of that, the City has received a little less than 1.5 million dollars in the local option gas taxes. The City of Eustis took a stand knowing that there are needs out there over and above what the City is able to collect in gas taxes imposed on one mill ad valorem tax, which would generate approximately 1.5 million dollars, with another 3 million dollars coming from other financing sources. Mr. Myers stated that he did not feel there was a correlation between the way this money should be distributed in population. He encouraged the Board to leave the formula the way it currently exists.
Commr. Swartz referred to Page 3 of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, Section 4, which stated "This Agreement may be modified if agreed to in writing by County and municipalities representing a majority of the population of the incorporated area with Lake County, Florida." The proposal presented by the City of Tavares puts the issue up front, as opposed to coming in and changing the Agreement.
Mr. Bob Williams, Attorney representing the City of Tavares and the Town of Lady Lake, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue. Mr. Williams informed the Board that both Tavares and Lady Lake would benefit from the population basis and are both in favor of this calculation method. He stated that, after reviewing the Agreement, he felt it would be unfair, because the allocation formula would not be revisited for the 20 year period of the Agreement. Mr. Williams stated that Lady Lake has been experiencing rapid growth over the past three or four years, with a tremendous population growth with a lot of development streets being put in by development dollars, and the significant road expenditures are going to come down the line. Mr. Williams suggested that the ten year period be shortened even further. He addressed the deadline date of June 1, and stressed that many of the cities have had their last meeting and will not meet again until the end of June. The ability to get the Interlocal Agreement entered into on a population basis is difficult, and one possible option would be to allow this allocation formula to be revisited again in a short time period, perhaps again next year, which would give him the chance to really discuss the allocation basis with the other cities and get accurate population figures, and transportation figures. Therefore, Mr. Williams suggested that the Board give the cities a one year reallocation window to allow more time to debate this again next year.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the information was submitted to the cities in January, and the Board has made an extra effort to be accessible to the cities and answer their questions. He stated that the issue is now before the Board.
Mr. Williams explained that the language provided to the Board regarding the population proposal will not hurt the County or the cities in any way, because if there is not a majority by June 1, it will default back to the transportation expenditures allocation formula.
It was noted that the last two cents that was allocated in 1986 was done by population, as decided by the cities. The cities were provided with information which showed the difference for each two cents that was approved.
The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Cadwell explained that he liked the formula where, if you spend the money, you get the money. He discussed the Lady Lake situation and stated that he has no problem with adding the proposed language that would allow the cities to make that decision amongst themselves. The time constraints are going to be a problem, but can be worked out, because of provisions in their charters that allow them to call special meetings. Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not feel there was a great need to shorten the time any further than the ten years, and therefore, he would support the proposed language presented by the City of Tavares, with the revision from 20 years to 10 years.
Commr. Gerber expressed a concern as to the population figures and which figures will be used, and stated that this issue needs to be made very specific.
Mr. Gaylord explained to the Board that the Florida Statutes address the issue of population. It was his opinion that it would revert back to the last census, if the language did not specifically state otherwise.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the liaison Commissioner of the League of the Cities make his motion to incorporate the language for a review at ten years, and the language which gives the cities the opportunity before June 1, if the majority of them can make the decision, to be allowed to use the population formula. As far as what census numbers are used, if it is not in a Statute, the cities will make that determination.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1994-8, as follows by title only, with the proposed amendment presented by the City of Tavares, and the amendment to Section 4 changing the 20 years to ten years:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REIMPOSING A TWO (2) CENT LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX IN LAKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 336.025; PROVIDING FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A DURATION OF TWENTY (20) YEARS FOR SUCH TAX; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, reiterated that Tab 12 and Tab 19 have been withdrawn, and Tab 7 needed to be pulled for further discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests, with the exception of Tabs 7, 12, and 19:
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers
Request to approve the following budget transfers:
1. Fund: Transportation Trust
Department: Public Services
Division: Special Services
From: Contingency $55,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $55,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0156
2. Fund: General
From: Contingency $10,000.00
To: Trans/Law Enf-Other Exp. $10,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0167
3. Fund: General
Department: County Attorney
From: Personal Services $47,000.00
To: Operating Expenses $47,000.00
Transfer #: 94-0172
Accounts Allowed/Resolutions/State Agencies
Request to approve a Resolution requesting that the General Fund for Fiscal Year 1993/94 be amended in the amount of $50,000.00 in order to receive unanticipated revenue from the Florida Boating Improvement Program for improvements to the Johns Lake parking lot.
Request to approve Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1994-47 Regarding the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children.
Request to approve the appointment of Peter F. Wahl, County Manager, as Custodian of Public Records for the Lake County Board of County Commissioners except for those records which are legally maintained by other governmental agencies.
Fire and Emergency Services/Municipalities
Request to approve to transfer title of two fire trucks from Town of Astatula to Lake County Fire/Rescue.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Fire and Emergency Services
Request to approve Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreement for Fire Protection and Rescue Services Between Lake County and City of Orlando.
Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions/Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Request for Final Plat approval of Royal View Estates, acceptance of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $9,588.00, and acceptance of the following roads into the County Maintenance System: Katherine Circle (#2-1145F) and Olesen Court (#2-1145G) - Commissioner District 2.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Roads-County & State/Zoning
Request to accept and execute an Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Walter Roenbeck and Marsha Young for a Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a travel trailer on property located on Unity Drive off of Lake Unity Nersery Road while the conventional home is being built - Commissioner District 1.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds:
Preston Land Partners
Lyston M. and Norma E. Trimm
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Committees
Roads-County and State/Municipalities
Request to approve the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the Community Redevelopment Agency, Mount Dora relating to sidewalk construction, curb and gutter demolition and construction, and expansion joint maintenance on Highland Street (Old 441) in Mount Dora; and approval to encumber and expend funds in an estimated amount of $90,000.00 - Commissioner District 4.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Road Projects
Request to approve to award C-445A/SR-19 Intersection Improvements Project No. 9-94, Bid #B-5-4-49, to Professional Dirt Service, Inc. and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $46,543.45 from the Road Impact Fee Fund. Benefit District 1 - Commissioner District 4.
Request to adopt a Resolution and execute a County Deed to the State of Florida Department of Transportation, for a portion of State Road 46, Section 11130-2521, Parcel No. 100 (intersection of Round Lake Road).
Request to approve and authorization for Chairman to sign Certified Budget for Arthropod Control for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Amended According to Mid-Year Audit.
Request to approve for posting "No Diving, No Fishing From Bridge" signs on four bridges in the Clermont area. Bridge numbers are 114077, 114045, 114046 and 114013.
Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements
Request to accept the following Deeds:
Statutory Quit-claim Deed:
L. Kelly Wallace and Sallie D. Wallace
Yale Circle, #5-7043
Statutory Warranty Deed:
L. Kelly Wallace and Sallie D. Wallace
Yale Circle, #5-7043
William Edward Moran and Judith L. Moran
S. Buckhill Rd., #2-2439
Perry E. Blessing and Terri J. Blessing
Blue Sink Road, #3-2928
Minnie Lee Williams
Blue Sink Road, #3-2928
Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds:
Joseph D. Moldovan and Olive M. Moldovan
Sunset Dr., #4-8589A
G. Malcolm Dykes and Marilyn Steingart
Lindel Howell and Constance J. Howell
Cross-Access Easement for State Road 46
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 756 by Guy Grayford to vacate road, Sec. 24, Twp. 19, Rge. 25, Leesburg Area - Commissioner District 3.
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 757 by James and Linda Connelly to vacate street (6th Street), Craig's Addition to Sorrento, Sec. 30, Twp. 19, Rge. 28, Sorrento Area - Commissioner District 4.
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 759 by Robert and Nova Scott, and Basil and Rosemary Beardsley to vacate streets and lots, Glendale Subdivision, Sec. 1, Twp. 18, Rge. 26, Umatilla Area - Commissioner District 5.
Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 760 by David and Florence Mann to vacate drainage easement, Myers Cove, Sec. 26, Twp. 22, Rge. 26, Clermont Area - Commissioner District 2.
Request 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; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to Seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services.
1) SOLID WASTE $35,000.00
Authorization to seek bids and award to the low most
responsive bidder for the purchase and installation of
dedicated monitoring pumps and related equipment required for
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual
Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids.
1) SOLID WASTE $56,700.63
BOBINGER INTERNATIONAL/Authorization to piggy back off of the
existing Bid #B-2-4-37 and issue a Purchase Order for one each
1994 6 x 4 Diesel Cab and Chassis Fifth Wheel. The original
bid was Board approved 2/1/94.
2) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $4,700.00
ABBOTT FENCE/Authorization to issue change order #4 for
$4,700.00 for a total purchase order amount of $29,110.00 for
additional perimeter security fence and concertina razor wire
for the new Main Jail. The Board approved the award of
Proposal #P-5-3-20 for $4,930.00 on December 14, 1994. All
change orders for fencing are per the request of Sheriff
Discussion occurred regarding Tab 7, the appointment of members to the Lake County Citizens' Commission for Children.
Commr. Swartz requested that the appointments from District 3 be postponed, until staff has the opportunity to verify that all applications are within this District.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following appointments, as recommended by each District Commissioner, with the additional appointment from District 3 being postponed, as requested by Commr. Swartz:
At Large Members District 1 District 2
Robert Froeman Joan Brown Linda Lewis
Sandra Green Barbara Sobko Teresa Schwingel
District 3 District 4 District 5
Carla Mitchell Jose R. Gonzalez, M.D. Beth Ann Scovil Moore
Felix Ramirez Sue Pait
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Commr. Hanson announced that the Board would hear questions, comments, and concerns from the citizens of Lake County at this time. There being no one present wishing to address the Board, the Chairman continued with the scheduled agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SERVICES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/INSURANCE
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, addressed the Board on the request to approve the contract with Merrill Insurance Group to provide Special Risk Life and Health Insurance Coverage for County Probation Clients Ordered to Perform Community Services. Mr. Smith informed the Board that he had contacted several different insurance companies who had offered this coverage to other counties, and the other counties had contracted with Hartford Insurance Company. He stated that he contacted Ms. Kelly Soucy, Purchasing Manager, who informed him that, since the request was less than $5,000.00, he could contract with them.
Commr. Swartz expressed his concern with staff not getting a quote, or a bid, from others that could supply this insurance rather than just selecting one.
Mr. Smith stated that the cost for the insurance this year would be $1,900.00, but next year it would cost $3,800.00.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff should have at least gotten quotes from those who might provide this coverage. He explained that there were plenty of insurance companies who probably represent Hartford Insurance Company. He questioned whether letters, or some other type of communication could have been used to contact other companies.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that staff can, under the existing Purchasing Policy, go with a telephone quote, if that is the desire of the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board tabled the request for approval of the contract with Merrill Insurance Group, as stated above.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/HUMAN RESOURCES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented the request to the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the one new limited term, full-time position of Clerical Assistant III, Pay Range 119, in the Office of Purchasing, effective upon approval.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/OUTDOOR RECREATION
Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, appeared before the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Lake County Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program Long-Term Project Funding Criteria and authorization to solicit projects, review them and recommend projects to the Board for funding. Mr. Pula noted that the Board had before them a very basic list of criteria, which he reviewed briefly. He stated that he would like to go ahead and notify the cities and towns in writing, and any non-profit organization, of the long-term project funding criteria, and to promote the program through the media, to encourage participation and support of the program.
Commr. Bailey discussed the more active type recreation, as opposed to what has been presented in the criteria which keeps the projects more general in nature. He stated that the County needs more active youth oriented recreational facilities, which is why he
supported the Leesburg Soccer Complex, and he would like to see the Board put emphasize on countywide and regional impact. He addressed the Rails to Trails Project, which he felt was an active project, but not necessarily for young people. He further stated that he would like to see first priority placed on the areas having to do with active youth recreational type projects, such as Little League Baseball, basketball, and more organized type events.
Commr. Hanson encouraged Mr. Pula to work with the Citizens' Commission for Children, because they have gotten the same type of requests that Commr. Bailey has mentioned.
Mr. Pula stated that Mr. Jim Myers, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, was present in the audience.
Mr. Pula discussed the issue of charging fees, or whether there should be a duel fee structure, and stated that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee felt that this would be a decision to be made by the Board. It was noted that this item would be coming before the Board at a later date.
Commr. Swartz addressed the comments made by Commr. Bailey and questioned whether he meant to pursue such projects with the participation of a city, or some organization, that would handle the costs of operating those active leagues and such, or was he considering the idea of the County building a structure and beginning such operations.
Commr. Bailey stated that it would be easier to pursue the projects with the cities, or organizations, but eventually the County would have to address the issue of handling such projects.
Commr. Swartz indicated that this would be an issue that the Board would need to discuss at the appropriate time, but it has been recognized by the Board that it has been far less expensive to work with the cities, because they have ongoing operational programs, where the County would have to provide facilities so that those programs could be implemented.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Lake County Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program Long-Term Project Funding Criteria and authorization to solicit projects, review them, and recommend projects to the Board of County Commissioners for funding.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PUBLIC SERVICES/LANDFILLS
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented the emergency request to the Board to quote, award, encumber and purchase the necessary clay, labor and transportation of same for the construction of the stormwater management basins within the ash monofill, at an estimated cost of $70,000.00.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, and Mr. Ron Roche, Director of Solid Waste Management Division, were present to answer questions of the Board, and to provide information about the use of the clay.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the emergency request, at an estimated cost of $70,000.00, for the purchase and hauling of clay for the construction of the stormwater management basins, as stated above.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, referred to Tab 2, the Ordinance that was approved imposing a Two Cent Local Option Gas Tax, and requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the Interlocal Agreements.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request made by Mr. Gaylord, County Attorney, as stated above.
LAW AND LEGISLATION/COURTS-JUDGES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed Administrative Order No. L94-23 that the Board received from Don F. Briggs, Administrative Judge, Lake County, as it related to the letter the Board received from Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. Under the Administrative Order, a total of seven bailiffs will be transferred to the Lake County Sheriff's budget, and the remaining eight bailiffs will become "court officers". Upon reviewing both of them, he has concluded that this is a dialogue between the Sheriff and the Judges. Mr. Gaylord recommended to the Board that they resolve the problems amongst themselves, or go through court, if necessary. In addition to the Administrative Order issued by Judge Briggs, there was another Administrative Order issued by William T. Swigert, Chief Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, which was presented to the Board by Mr. Gaylord for review.
Commr. Bailey questioned whether the Board can obtain an Attorney General's Opinion on the legislative intent of the legislation that has been passed.
Mr. Gaylord explained that the two parties involved can go through the Appellate Court, if necessary, to appeal the Administrative Order. He stated that the Board is not a resolution process for this agreement between two constitutional officers.
Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. appeared before the Board and explained that the dispute arose out of House Bill 2087, which was introduced and passed by the Legislature. Sheriff Knupp stated that he did not draft it, nor did he lobby for it. He further stated that he, along with his legal advisor, and the Florida Sheriff's Association, feel that the intent of the Legislature was for the bailiffs to come back to the Office of the Sheriff, as it has been for many, many years before the Special Act. Sheriff Knupp referred to his letter to Commr. Hanson dated May 11, 1994, in which he had requested that the 15 bailiffs currently at the Courthouse (Judicial Center) be turned over to the Sheriff. He explained that he did not feel that the argument over the bailiffs lies with just himself, or Judge Briggs, but it also lies with the Board, because the bailiffs work for the Board and the Board pays their salaries. Sheriff Knupp stated that the Administrative Order directs the Board to act and give him seven employees who will become members of the Lake County Sheriff's Office. He stated that the Order violates his constitutional rights as Sheriff of Lake County, and as he speaks today, his legal counsel is preparing a document to present to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. He further stated that he is going to abide by the Order and will not change anything within the Courthouse today, until after the judicial review by the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Sheriff Knupp addressed the issue of the courts operating for 22 years with approximately 15 bailiffs, but when the bailiffs are to go to the Sheriff, he questioned why only seven are to be transferred. He questioned why, over the past 22 years, has the Board been funding 15 bailiffs. He explained that, if Judge Briggs gets eight bailiffs, and he gets seven, there will be a redundancy in the courthouse. If only seven employees are needed, he questioned why the other eight are not terminated, which would save the taxpayers over $300,000.00.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board can very quickly decide what it needs to do today under the Administrative Order, and the Board will not be taking a position on what the Order may or may not require the Sheriff to do. That aspect of it is between the Administrative Judge, his Order and the Sheriff and how the Sheriff wants to respond to it. Commr. Swartz stated that the Sheriff has indicated that he is going to follow the Order, but he is going to challenge it, and it is incumbent on the Board to follow and put into place the things that the Judge has directed the Board to do. Commr. Swartz stressed that this was not a battle created by the Board. He stated that the Board will implement the requirements of the Order, the Sheriff will respond to the Order as he sees fit, and the Sheriff will get further judicial review of the Order, and this will be the ultimate outcome.
Sheriff Knupp explained that he handled this issue in the proper manner by sending a memorandum requesting that the bailiffs be transferred over to the Sheriff's budget.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Order requires the Board to do two things, and in the interim, the Sheriff will respond to the Order, and the Board will take action.
Sheriff Knupp stated that he feels the Board has an obligation to the people in the community. If it takes seven bailiffs to run the system, and not 15, and the Board has funded 15 employees, he should get seven bailiffs and the rest should be terminated, in order to save the taxpayers approximately $300,000.00.
Commr. Swartz explained that, if the Board accepted that premise, the Board has an Administrative Order before it that would be contrary to that action.
Commr. Hanson agreed with Commr. Swartz that the Board cannot go against the Administrative Order, and it will wait for the outcome from the Fifth District Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gaylord explained that, if the Board chose not to follow the Administrative Order, it would be held in contempt of court. He stated that, if the issues raised by the Sheriff are legitimate issues, according to the law and the system, the Board has redress, i.e. Court of Appeals.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board needed to take action to instruct staff to implement what Judge Briggs has indicated in Administrative Order No. L94-23. He noted that there are eight positions that are going to be designated as "court officers" that will be funded from the County Commissioner's budget, as they are currently being funded. The portion of the funds in the budget pertaining to the seven other currently employed bailiffs will be transferred from the Judicial budget and placed into the Sheriff's budget. Commr. Swartz clarified that Judge Briggs may be instructing the Sheriff to do other things, but the Board is not taking a position on any other issue but the transferring of the necessary funds, in response to the direction given to the Board in the Administrative Order.
Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to transfer the necessary funds from the Judicial budget to the Sheriff's budget for the funding of seven bailiffs, and to continue to fund, under the County Commissioner's current budget, the eight positions which will designated as "court officers", as directed by Administrative Order No. L94-23.
Under discussion, the Sheriff addressed the right that he, as well as the Board, has to take this issue to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. He stated that the Board has to abide by the Administrative Order, but it can appeal the Order.
Discussion continued regarding the total number of personnel that would actually be needed and who would be supervising the personnel. Sheriff Knupp explained that the decision had already been made on these issues according to the Administrative Order, and that he, as Sheriff, never made a decision, due to the fact that he has never had the opportunity to review these issues and make that determination.
Sheriff Knupp explained that he will abide by the Administrative Order, but he will not be bringing the seven bailiffs to his office as full time employees. He will leave all of the power over them as it exists today, until he gets judicial review from the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Commr. Swartz explained that he understood Sheriff Knupp as saying that all fifteen employees will be left under the current system as it currently exists, and deputized as they are currently deputized. He stated that this will be satisfactory for his motion, because all the Board is going to do initially is transfer the funding, as it has been ordered to do.
Mr. Wahl questioned the status of the seven bailiffs in the interim. Sheriff Knupp clarified that they will be temporary employees of the Sheriff.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:45 a.m, the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minutes recess.
STATE AGENCIES/PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Brady vs. Lake County negotiations. Mr. Gaylord stated that DCA has indicated the willingness to permit breeding farms, or breeding kennels, in the Wekiva, as long as the criteria that was setforth in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) would be consistent with the intensity of the use done as a result of a residential unit. He stated that Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, has presented a proposal, which has not been agreed to or disagreed to, but is simply a proposal of an attempt to come forward with a criteria that would be consistent with a residential intensity. Mr. Gaylord noted that there are existing greyhound breeders in the Wekiva that would be grandfathered in under these sorts of proposals. He stated that there is a pending Administrative Hearing scheduled for the first part of June. The DCA has indicated a willingness, if it is the Board's direction, to go forward with negotiations along the lines discussed, i.e. breeding farms only, no boarding kennels, and the intensity of the use would be consistent with residential use providing a CUP criteria that would have adequate buffer zones, sensitivity to environmentally sensitive lands, and an entire list that was discussed.
Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney for the Petitioner, addressed the Memorandum from Mr. Knight and offered the Petitioner's position on the issue, so that it can be taken into consideration in the County's deliberations as to how it wants to proceed. Ms. Campione urged the Board not to adopt the proposal that was presented by Mr. Knight, because it is too lenient. Ms. Campione took a moment to give credit to a Lake County resident, Ms. Janet Brady, who had the determination and commitment to initiate this rule challenge. Ms. Campione addressed the statement made by Mr. Gaylord that DCA was willing to accept an arrangement whereby breeding kennels only, not boarding kennels, would be considered a permitted use in the Wekiva. She stated that a huge stretch had been made to even allow breeding kennels. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan is clear on what types of uses are permitted in the Wekiva. It defines agricultural uses and any reference to kennels, or dog facilities, etc. is not included in that definition. She stated it was her opinion that, if the Commission had wanted to include that in the definition, it would have done so. Ms. Campione stated that it is her position that, if breeding kennels is going to be allowed, the most appropriate way to go about doing this would be to go back and address the Comprehensive Plan. If this gets by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedure, then the Board can go back and develop the appropriate Land Development Regulation (LDR). She stated that DCA did indicate a possibility of permitting breeding kennels, if it would satisfy the densities and intensities that were presented. She stated that DCA's proposal for densities and intensities was very far from the proposal that the County had formulated. Ms. Campione presented the Petitioner's Proposal, which she stated was very close to what DCA had suggested, as follows:
1. The following densities and intensities be followed with regard to the issuance of conditional use permits for
20 acres = 1/3 acre disturbed property or up to 20 dogs.
40 acres = 2/3 acre disturbed property or up to 50 dogs.
60 acres = 1 acre disturbed property or up to 75 dogs.
80 acres = 1 and 1/3 acre of disturbed or up to 200 dogs.
*Breeding kennels may be allowed in commercial districts
if said facilities meet the provisions set forth in the
LDRs regarding such facilities.
2. TDRs shall not be allowed to increase density, since the
receiving areas where TDRs are allowed are more appropriate
for residential uses. Breeding Kennels shall be restricted
to sending areas only.
3. The Board considering an application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a breeding kennel shall take into account the
proximity of existing residences and vested property, giving
special consideration to adjacent properties that are
homestead. This factor alone may be the basis for denial of
a Conditional Use Permit for a breeding kennel.
4. Sound attenuation shall be required at all times (not just at
feeding or breeding).
5. Kennels shall be located centrally on the property so as to
insulate neighboring owners to the greatest extent possible.
The existence of an existing structure on the property shall
not be a basis for waiving this requirement. The following
setbacks shall not be waived:
20 acres = 200
40 acres = 400
60 acres = 500
80 acres = 500
6. If granted, a Conditional Use Permit for a breeding kennel
shall be conditioned on compliance with all local, state and
federal regulations governing the disposal of waste generated
from the facility.
7. Visual buffers shall be required.
Ms. Campione stated that she and the petitioner would like to proceed to the Administrative Hearing as scheduled.
Commr. Hanson stated that the proposal being presented should be countywide rather than just for the Wekiva area. The problem is residential versus rural uses, and the residents are much more concentrated outside of the Wekiva. She stated that there are no commercial areas, or very few, in the Wekiva area, but she is a proponent of rural uses in extremely rural areas. She addressed agricultural uses and the issue of contamination.
Ms. Campione stated that the Comprehensive Plan specifically speaks to agricultural uses and makes it clear that it is a policy and goal of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage these uses in the Wekiva.
Mr. Gaylord questioned whether the Board wanted to direct him to proceed to try and negotiate with DCA along these lines, or whether the Board had another direction.
Commr. Swartz informed the Board that he had been supplied with copies of the correspondence between Ms. Campione and Mr. Charles G. Pattison, Director, Division of Resource Planning and Management, DCA. He stated that, at the last Animal Control Study Committee meeting, an initial draft was prepared of the definition of "kennel", and it is not like the definition being suggested as a negotiating point between the parties. Commr. Swartz stated that the language before the Board would be totally inconsistent with the language developed by the Committee, which would be countywide, and would go against the entire direction the Committee is trying to develop. Commr. Swartz stated that there will be some things that will be countywide, but there is language in the Wekiva amendment of the Comprehensive Plan that says that some of the definitions in the Wekiva control where there is inconsistency with other definitions and uses. He stated that he would not be comfortable adopting what has been recommended in the memorandum from Planning and Development and the County Attorney's Office, both because it is inconsistent with what the Animal Control Study Committee is doing, and it would be inconsistent ultimately with the Comprehensive Plan, which has definitions for agriculture which exclude kennels, whether breeding or boarding, and that Ms. Campione is correct that, if this Board wants to provide something in the Wekiva under that definition, then the definition of agriculture needs to include it, or there needs to be something specific, which would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Ms. Campione stated that she would be more than willing to sit down, as an option, and have a workshop and talk about the pleadings and review the documentation that has gone back and forth between DCA and the parties involved in the suit.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Animal Control Study Committee could establish a definition of "kennel" and it could be a countywide definition, but whether or not that would be an allowable use in the Wekiva may still be subject to whatever the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the Wekiva states.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not see the need for having a different criteria, other than environmental concerns in the rural areas, than you would have in other areas of the County.
Commr. Swartz discussed the draft of the definition of "kennel" and explained that there are two types of kennels, a "commercial kennel", or something that is not a commercial kennel, perhaps a "hobby kennel", that does not create the impacts of a commercial kennel and that would be the other type of kennel.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Committee will not have the definitions completed before the Administrative Hearing. He stated that the Board needed to change the LDR to be consistent with the language in the Comprehensive Plan, which clearly appears it is not, and DCA, in the interim, has indicated the same, or the Board needs to be prepared to go to the Administrative Hearing. He stated that he does not support what has been presented in the interim document.
Mr. Gaylord stated that the Board has several options, as follows: 1) negotiate; 2) to agree with DCA and eliminate the Administrative Hearing; or 3) go to the Administrative Hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that his proposed option would be to change the LDR and make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, remove the need for an Administrative Hearing, because the County would then be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which was the basis upon which the challenge is largely due.
Mr. Gaylord stated that he was of the understanding that the representatives from DCA have indicated that they would be willing to accept the residential intensity restrictions on breeding kennels.
Ms. Campione interjected by explaining that DCA would not commit to what Mr. Gaylord stated and that she submitted a letter in response to DCA's response to the County, and the Hearing Officer has not had the chance to take it back to Mr. Pattison and the Secretary of DCA, and he did not want to commit, because he did not know what their response to letter was going to be. She stated that he wanted her to go ahead and find out to what extent the County would be willing to negotiate, and in the mean time, he would take the letter back to Mr. Pattison. Ms. Campione stated that the Hearing Officer indicated that he would not commit as to the question of whether a Stipulated Settlement could be worked out that would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether the essence of the issue was whether or not a kennel, whether boarding, or breeding, or whatever, under the Comprehensive Plan definitions, is an agricultural use.
Mr. Gaylord stated that the direction he would need from the Board to go back to DCA would be whether or not the Board is willing to negotiate that the only "kennel" being permitted in the Wekiva would be a "breeding kennel", and that the intensity and density would be consistent with residential properties.
Commr. Swartz stated that this would still be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the issue is not amending the Comprehensive Plan, but amending an LDR, and then having an LDR that remains inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It was noted that the Administrative Hearing is scheduled for June 7, 1994. Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board will be meeting prior to this date, and at that time, can determine whether or not to continue to the scheduled hearing.
Commr. Swartz stated that the question is whether or not a kennel, under the definitions, is commercial or agriculture. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, it is not agriculture. He stated that the Committee does not view kennels as agriculture.
Mr. Mark Knight addressed the Board and stated that the basis for identifying kennels as agriculture is that the definition of agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan includes animal husbandry, and the second portion of the definition of Webster's Dictionary, for animal husbandry, includes domesticated animals in the breeding and raising of domesticated animals.
Mr. Gaylord directed the Board's attention to Page 4 of the letter from Mr. Pattison, which stated the following: "Therefore, dog and cat farms which are used for breeding and raising animals could be considered appropriate activities within agricultural land use categories provided that appropriate densities and intensities of use are established which ensure the continued rural agricultural nature of the area and which ensure protection of the natural environmental characteristics of the area and provided that appropriate land use compatibility provisions are established and implemented consistent with the allowable residential development densities and intensities."
Ms. Campione stated that Mr. Pattison made the above statement before he received her letter, and that he was operating on the premise that there was no definition in agriculture in the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion to instruct the County Attorney to continue to negotiate with DCA, with this issue being addressed again by the Board prior to the Administrative Hearing, to make a final decision.
Commr. Bailey seconded the motion for discussion.
Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the question comes down to whether or not a kennel, whether boarding or breeding, is a commercial activity or whether it is an agricultural activity.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that his motion gives the County Attorney the ability to try and bring the County in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support the motion, because it will lead to placing kennels in agriculture, which will be inappropriate and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".
COUNTY ATTORNEY/ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COURTS-JUDGES
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to pay costs in the case of the State of Florida v. James Allen Polston, in the amount of $264.86.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, addressed the Board to discuss Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) and Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs). He explained that many meetings were held with staff and many other departments, including the Sheriff's Department, to discuss these items. At this time, the following staff members were seated before the Board, in order to respond to questions: Chief Craig Haun, Captain Claude Gnann, Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director of Planning and Development, Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, Ms. Lori Webb-Paris, Engineer III, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services.
Mr. Wahl stated that the Board had expressed an interest in looking at the mechanism of utilizing MSBUs or MSTUs to provide the revenue necessary to support a presumptive increase in cost of services for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), or subdivisions that were outside, or away from urban or urbanizing service areas. He stated that there has been some emerging case law from the Florida Courts over the last several months, and Mr. Hoban has done a good job in reviewing the complexities of the issue. One of the problems, particularly with the MSBU funding for PUDs or subdivisions, is the ability to identify, for those restrictive geographic areas, a special or particular benefit inuring only to those residents and applying the cost only to those residents. Mr. Wahl stated that it works well for things that are specifically confined to that geographic area, for example, street lights, curb and gutter, and roadways. He explained that staff is faced with difficulty when it involves the provision of services, such as fire, law enforcement, or EMS, that are not necessarily provided only to the restrictive geographic area.
Mr. Hoban explained the procedures used by Palm Beach County to "buy" a sheriff's time.
Commr. Swartz extended his appreciation to staff for their analysis of MSBUs and MSTUs, and for the memorandum from Mr. Hoban, as well as the attachments from the other agencies. He stated that when you start considering the operational aspects of law enforcement, or fire operations, it would probably not be something that the Board could justify, and fairly and reasonably apportion among the property owners. He further stated that there are a number of services that are appropriate particularly in the areas, some of which are included in Mr. Griffey's comments, which deal primarily with issues such as stormwater, street lighting and sidewalks, as subdivisions are approved. Commr. Swartz addressed Mr. Barker's comments concerning maintenance of environmental easements, which has always been a problem as far as who is going to maintain them, and often falls back on the homeowners associations, which may not have the funding and, therefore, it never gets done. Some specific ground water monitoring, or surface water monitoring that may be a part of a specific project that requires it would be things that would clearly be allowable as MSBUs. He stated that he did not feel the Board would be on firm ground in dealing with the "rent a cop", or "rent a fireman" concept. He did feel that the Board should put in place, through MSBUs, those things which would provide the funding for the County to deal with the stormwater maintenance issues, the easement issues, street lighting and sidewalks in subdivisions, and those types of things.
Mr. Wahl stated that, if it is the Board's intent to move in the direction that Commr. Swartz is identifying, rather than restrict staff to those things that have been identified, there may be some geographic specific items that come up at a later date, or maybe even a unique subdivision that staff would need to consider, but they would all have to come within the geographic area and be fairly and reasonably apportioned. He stated that, if this would be the policy of the Board, staff can move forward with it.
Commr. Swartz stressed that the assessments would all have to be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive the special benefit. He stated that, if the Board is comfortable with moving forward under these types of issues, he feels the MSBUs should be done for all developments where the development has one of the criteria that is needed, and that they be done uniformly in the early approval process.
Discussion occurred regarding MSBUs being imposed through Developer's Agreements, as well as PUDs and large subdivisions. It was noted that the costs will vary with the density of the area.
Commr. Cadwell questioned if a MSBU for stormwater should be done in a particular PUD, and in the future the County has a MSBU for the whole unincorporated area of the County, would the property owners pay twice for stormwater.
Mr. Wahl explained that, in a development that has already paid its contribution for the creation of the maintenance of stormwater, the property owners would be exempted, or credited back against an area where there was a basin-wide MSBU, in the event that one was put into place. He stated that there are a number of subdivisions that have a Developer's Agreement, or a PUD Ordinance, that are coming back for final action, and the language requires that the County act, at that time, in creating the MSBUs.
Commr. Gerber questioned Chief Haun's letter, which indicated that the intent of the MSBU was to pay for "a higher level of fire protection". Chief Haun clarified the information he presented to the Board.
Mr. Wahl explained that the purpose of the MSBU is to provide, to a given geographic area, a particular benefit, which is why it cannot apply to fire, EMS, or law enforcement, because you cannot segregate service that is provided within the PUD to that which is provided to the individual right outside of the PUD.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Greater Construction Company, and the Lakeridge Club Homeowners' Association, appeared before the Board and stated that, after reviewing the staff's comments, he requested that, in Mr. Barker's area and Mr. Griffey's area, the Board look at the duplications of services that the County already has and what is already being done in the area of permitting, specifically the requirements of St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the Department of Environmental Protection, in terms of maintenance systems for stormwater. As the Board looks at uniformly applying the MSBUs, it needs to look at it with an understanding that there are already a number of regulations, which do not need to be duplicated. He discussed the Lakeridge Club, in which he maintains his own stormwater system, and stated that, if this was turned over to the Board, it would cost more for the County to collect the money than it would cost him to assess his residents.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board did not want to duplicate the services, but there are circumstances where associations and other entities are not doing a good job. He stated that where a funding source is clearly identified perhaps in the original approval, then the MSBU may not need to be imposed on that area.
Mr. Richey stated that there may be developments that will be free standing and have a benefit district that would support fire and police protection. He explained that in PUDs, or those types of major projects, for stormwater and environmental assessments, he requires through the permitting process, some substantial permitting and costs to be paid by the developer, and that the Board needs to show some sensitivity to the monitoring process. Mr. Richey stated that MSBUs are a way to provide and allow developments to carry their own weight, and he requested that the Board be sensitive to the other entities that are doing the very same thing as the MSBUs. He stated that he would like to make those individuals available to the staff who can assist in providing input on the issue of managing these type of procedures for the developments. Mr. Richey explained that what would be required in a development is controlled by the LDRs, but the issue of a MSBU for a five acre tract, which has been expressed as a concern by Commr. Bailey, has not been addressed, and he requested that the Board review this issue.
Commr. Swartz stated that he hoped staff would continue to address the issue of advertising, and whether the Board can cumulatively advertise these types of things rather than having single ads for each individual, because this was probably what impacted the cost more than anything else. He suggested that, if the Statute is not clear, the Board may want to approach the Legislative Delegation to reduce such costs.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and explained that none of her clients, at this time, are levying for services, however, all have had, whether through a Developer's Agreement, or a PUD, this particular condition for a MSBU. She questioned whether the MSTUs will be a replacement funding for General Revenue, and whether this is going to apply to existing development versus new development, because she has only heard about new development. She also questioned, if in fact the MSTUs are supposed to be of equal benefit, and someone is only paying their pro-rata share, how can you be sure there is no similar assessment for the base line of service made on all existing development versus on the new development, for things such as law enforcement, fire and EMS. She also questioned whether the Board is still considering impact fees in any of these areas for capital construction and looking at the MSBU or MSTU as a way to handle operational or soft costs in those particular areas, because an impact fee is paid by everyone. Ms. Bonifay stated that, if equity and fairness is the objective, she feels there are some inherent problems. She questioned the economic impact on those getting services today versus only those people who choose to move here tomorrow. She stated that the County's development review process does not break this down by size. Ms. Bonifay stated that no where in the LDRs or Comprehensive Plan does it say, in order to get straight zoning and subdivision approval in Lake County, you are required to do a Developer's Agreement to give up the same things that you would with a PUD without any of the benefit. She noted that this is a Board imposed policy and she is not comfortable with it.
Commr. Swartz explained that the problem is that the County is not performing any services, or stormwater maintenance of those older subdivisions. Under this proposal, those older subdivisions still would not get the benefit, but the new ones will begin to see that their stormwater maintenance systems are managed, conservation easements were properly managed, and there was street lighting, even if it was through a homeowner's association. He stated that eventually the County will have to go back to some of these developments and try and establish MSBUs, if the property owners want to receive the service.
Discussion occurred regarding the need to identify the revenue source and everyone paying their share rather than placing the liability strictly on new development.
Commr. Swartz stated that, for the last couple of years, the Board has put in the PUDs and Developer's Agreements language regarding the placement of MSBUs for certain services. He reminded the Board that the County is under deadlines on the issue of stormwater, and the Board may find that, by going to the subdivisions that are creating the most problem, it will help with cleaning up the lakes, which has been a serious issue in Lake County.
Discussion occurred regarding the North Lake Ambulance District having a MSTU for EMS, which the County is funding, and the countywide MSBU for fire, with it being noted that there is not one in place for police service.
Mr. Ron Roche explained that MSTUs are based on assessed value and MSBUs are based on the cost of the benefit.
Commr. Swartz stated that the comments made by both Mr. Richey and Ms. Bonifay are ones that the staff needs to continue to review, which include the cost of collecting the money, and staff needs to concentrate on those areas where the funding of the MSBU is appropriate, with each development being based on the real cost of the benefit that it is receiving. He stated that he is receptive of homeowners associations that are specifically and clearly chartered in a way that they have a dedicated funding source and they can maintain those systems. He stated that staff needs to begin bringing back to the Board specific MSBUs for those developments that have already been approved and include that language, for the Board to begin dealing with these.
Mr. Hoban stated that the time of the construction plan approval for a plat would be a good time to consider the appropriate MSBU.
Commr. Hanson explained that her approval of the larger developments was with the idea that the MSBU would be in place and the services would be provided, so that growth would pay for itself.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize and instruct staff to begin preparing appropriate MSBUs to be presented at the time of construction plan approvals for special assessments that would be related fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that are receiving that special benefit, and to begin bringing those to the Board at the construction plan approval phase, or if staff has some that have already gone through that and that have that language in it, to bring those to the Board as soon as possible.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the scheduling of a meeting date to hear reports from various Committees of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board scheduled the issue for June 21, 1994.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request from Sanna Henderson of the Historical Society to use the front and lobby of the Historical Courthouse beginning at 5:30 p.m., June 9, 1994, for the kick-off of Lake County History Book Sales.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution Supporting State Grant Monies to City of Leesburg for Restoration and Preservation of Mote-Morris House.
APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the reappointment of Mr. Tom Chapman and Mr. Dale Ladd as District 2 representatives on the Lake County Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commr. Swartz discussed several issues that had been brought to his attention involving the solid waste service. He questioned why individuals are having to come in to the office to get the card that is being issued to people who are paying the solid waste special assessment.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that the card was to be issued and mailed to the individual, and he would verify that this procedure was being followed.
Commr. Swartz discussed another solid waste issue, which involved solid waste haulers approaching households and informing them that, if they are paying their solid waste assessment, they might as well be getting collection. Then the people are being billed for the collection. The haulers need to be told that they should not misrepresent the collection service, and therefore, there should not be solicitation without full disclosure.
Commr. Swartz discussed another issue involving solid waste, which involved recycling containers being placed everywhere rather than just at those places where people have collection service.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/COUNTY POLICY
Commr. Swartz addressed the addendums being prepared for the Board meetings, and suggested that the items be reviewed, in order to determine their urgency. He felt most items could be placed on the regular agenda.
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board that Monday, May 23, 1994, is Umatilla Kiwanis Law Day, which will be held at 12 noon. Mr. John Mills, State Attorney's Office, Alachua County, will be the speaker and will be discussing a suit against the press regarding public records, in relation to the Danny Rolling's trial.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board of the invitation from the Agricultural Advisory Committee to participate in a tour of various Lake County agricultural businesses on Wednesday, May 18, 1994.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board the on June 7, 1994, from 8-9 a.m., prior to the Board meeting, the Affordable Housing by Lake will be sponsoring a continental breakfast in the Commission Office to introduce the new executive director.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that, at 10:30 a.m., on May 18, 1994, Wednesday, Representative Dean Saunders' Office would be having a Green Swamp Bill signing ceremony. This is regarding legislature relating to the purchase of development rights.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Carroll "Bud" Ward to fill the position of Agriculture Representative on the Lake County Environmental Protection Board.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. John L. Atwater to fill the position of Citizen Representative on the Lake County Environmental Protection Board.
These appointments will be for two year terms of office beginning June 5, 1994.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board of the letter received from Greene County, North Carolina with regard to proposed federal tax increase on cigarettes.
Commr. Hanson informed the Board of a letter received from Fruitland Park, in regards to reconsideration of differential fees to be charged by cities at recreation facilities.
It was noted that no motion was made to reconsider the issue.
Commr. Bailey informed the Board members that he would not be present for the afternoon session of the Board meeting. He did want the issue of livestock to be included in the proposed ordinance pertaining to "Dangerous Animals".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:42 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m. for the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance Relating to Dangerous Animals.
PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
At 2 p.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance Relating to Dangerous Animals.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and explained that the ordinance was prepared in response to a recent occurrence, in an attempt to solve a problem with the current ordinance that does not allow the destruction of animals which attack other animals, but only the destruction of animals which attack humans. The Legislature had passed a Statute which granted the local authorities the ability to enhance the statutory prescriptions and definitions of dangerous animals, and to enhance penalties that the local authorities may want to impose. There had been concern about the appellate procedure, and the Legislature has addressed this issue by passing a new ordinance, which becomes effective October 1, 1994. The ordinance before the Board follows along the appellate procedures that are in that Statute. The only difference between the ordinance before the Board and the Statute is that the Statute specifically provides appeals to the County Court after the Dangerous Animal Board of Appeals determines the animal to be dangerous. The ordinance before the Board indicates that the provisions of Chapter 120 will apply, which allows appellate procedures to the courts from State and County agencies.
It was noted that the reference to "dangerous dogs" had been changed to "dangerous animal".
Commr. Swartz stated that, at the last meeting of the Animal Control Study Committee, it voted unanimously to recommend to the Board that the language be adopted to incorporate, on an interim basis, and be a part of the overall language that they send to the Committee at a later date.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved and adopted Ordinance 1994-9, as follows by title only:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEFINING A DANGEROUS ANIMAL; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURE FOR CITING AN ANIMAL AS "DANGEROUS"; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF AN ANIMAL CONTROL BOARD OF APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS, FIERCE OR VICIOUS ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
It was noted that Commr. Bailey was not present for the discussion or the vote.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether there had been any request for the postponement of a Special Board Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 19, 1994, regarding Sugarloaf.
It was noted that staff had not received any such notice.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:08 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK