The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 29, 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 G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; and William "Bill" H. Good. Others present were: Frank T. Gaylord, County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance and Audit; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Commr. Hanson discussed with the Board any changes or revisions that needed to be made to today's agenda. She stated that, if the Board was in agreement, Tab 4 regarding the First Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for 1995 would be heard first, and then the Board would continue with the rezoning cases.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the following Minutes, until December 6, 1994, the next regular scheduled Board meeting: September 27, 1994, Regular Meeting; October 18, 1994, Regular Meeting; October 25, 1994, Regular Meeting; and November 1, 1994, Regular Meeting.

COUNTY ATTORNEY/LANDFILLS/COUNTY PROPERTY

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, requested that, under Reports, Tab 14 regarding the update on the Phillips Land Acquisition for the Lady Lake Landfill, be continued until December 6, 1994, the next regular scheduled Board meeting.

No action was needed by the Board on the request.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 1995

Mr. Barry Brown, Planner I, Planning Division, appeared before the Board and stated that, under the direction of the Board, the Economic Development Initiative Committee was formed and charged with producing an Economic Plan, from which County staff drafted an Economic Element update. Mr. Brown explained that this was truly a community project that involved over 100 community and business leaders in the effort. He stated that the document before the Board says that, for Lake County to have a strong, diversified stable economy, it has to be able to retain the businesses that are here and grow them, and to attract new businesses, and you do this three ways: you create a desirable living environment; you create the desire for business environment; and you have an economic development program and business incentives. At this time, Mr. Brown took the opportunity to highlight some of the key policies in the Economic Element.

Mr. Brown stated that, on November 2, 1994, the Economic Element was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to changes made in Policy 11-1.2; Policy 11-1.3; and Policy 11-2.5, which were provided in the backup material for the Board's review. Mr. Brown informed the Board that, subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff realized that the policy for tax abatement, which staff had drafted, was not adequate; therefore, further language was developed.

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, appeared before the Board and explained that the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission were circulated to all of the 100 plus members, and after receiving comments from Committee members, further changes were being recommended. It was noted the Memorandum from Mr. Alvin B. Jackson, Jr. dated November 15, 1994, contained all recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Economic Development "Action" Committee.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting on the Economic Element.

Mr. Jack Nelson, President of Golden Gem Growers (GGG) appeared before the Board and discussed the expansion mode that GGG has proposed for the future, and the company's decision to stay in Lake County. Mr. Nelson encouraged the Board to support the Economic Element.

Mr. Ray Gilley, Lake County Area Manager, Florida Power Corporation, appeared before the Board and stated that he was involved as a facilitator, as well as worked with several of the Committees in developing the Economic Element. He stated that he supports the Element being presented.

Ms. Leslie Little, Economic Development Director, City of Leesburg, appeared before the Board and stated that everyone should be particularly proud of the process that evolved this particular document, and of the people that were involved in creating it. Ms. Little encouraged the Board to support the Element and stated that the City of Leesburg was very proud to be a part of it.

Ms. Patricia Mayhill, Development Services, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and commended Mr. Jackson for his very important work on the Element. Ms. Mayhill stated that the City had been concerned with the incentives for the Main Street program and the tax abatement including the municipalities. She stated that voters just passed the tax abatement incentive, so the City would be working diligently in this process. She further stated that the City looks forward to continuing working with the County, and all of the municipalities, on this important Economic Element.

Mr. Ken Bragg, Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education, appeared before the Board and stated that he served on the Education and Manpower Development Sub-Committee during the Economic Development study. He stated that he was here to encourage the Board's support of the Economic Element of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, with particular reference to Policy 11-5.3: Job Growth Incentive Fund. Mr. Bragg stated that his involvement and commitment, on the part of manpower training and utilization of the Quick Start Program through the Vo-Tech Center, has been committed and stands ready to assist at any point in time that business and industry needs quick start and manpower training. Mr. Bragg stated that he supports the Plan and encouraged the Board's support.

Mr. Steve Richey, President, Leesburg Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Board and stated that he served on the Action Initiative Committee. He stated that he was before the Board to request that it not pass the Plan, or modification of it, unless the Board was serious about what the Plan means or does. Mr. Richey stated that the Plan guides and controls the County and provides an initiative that would be consistent and contemporaneous with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Richey challenged the Board to take the document and modify it, but not to pass it, unless the Board was serious about following through with what the document mandates.

Mr. Larry Lenox, Clermont, President of the South Lake Development Council, and President of the United Chamber of Lake County, appeared before the Board and stated that both groups, which he represents, have endorsed the program and urges the Board to pass it. He stated that, besides the County Industrial Park, absolutely nothing else has been done to help economic development in the County.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he has voiced his pro-economic development position, and the County now has an opportunity to do something about it. The Element commits the County to an economic path, which would make commitments for this Board, as well as future Boards, just as the Comprehensive Plan does. He addressed the comments made by Mr. Nelson about GGG, and stated that the County would be helping people like GGG, but the County would really be helping the people with the jobs that are going to be created. Commr. Cadwell encouraged the Board to support the Element being presented.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was supporting the plan before the Board, under the direction of Mr. Jackson, and asked that the United Chamber publish the newsletter that the Economic Development "Action" Committee had wanted the County to do, in order to get the Chamber to be more of an entity that works for business in the County. Commr. Gerber stated that she would like to see the United Chamber become a moving force in the business community. She informed the Board that the 1993 Leadership Class had taken on as its goal the monitoring of the Plan, and a letter of support had been received from the President of the Class.

Commr. Good extended his appreciation to those who had a part in the development of the plan. He addressed Policy 11-3.4: Provide Infrastructure, and stated that he had suggested to staff that, instead of "The County shall ensure the provision of infrastructure", which he feels places a bit of a burden on the County, that the language be changed to read "The County shall cooperate with private industry to make available the provision of infrastructure". He stated that this would focus on the direction of cooperation between private industry and the County rather than placing the burden on the County to ensure the infrastructure.

It was noted that the Board members had no objection to the change proposed above by Commr. Good to Policy 11-3.4.

Commr. Good addressed Policy 11-6.9: Eliminate Unnecessary Regulation, and suggested striking the entire Policy.

Commr. Cadwell felt that Policy 11-6.9 implies that the County would continue to monitor its rules, as more rules are made, and that the program would identify any problems, if they existed. He felt that the language needed to remain in the Element.

After further discussion, it was noted that the language proposed would remain in the Element.

Commr. Swartz stated that this was a transmittal hearing and, between now and the time that comments were received from the State, he would like to see the Board sit down and discuss some of the issues being proposed, so that there would be a clear understanding of the wording. At this time, Commr. Swartz addressed many of the areas in the Element, which he felt needed to be clarified.

Several of the areas of concern expressed by Commr. Swartz were presented to Mr. Jackson, who explained the underlying goal established in each policy in question.

After an in-depth discussion of the language in the Element by Commr. Swartz, he suggested, once again, to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), for their review, the document before the Board, with the changes that had been recommended, and that the Board, over the next 30-60 days, meet in a workshop with staff and members of the group that served, to get a complete understanding of the language.

Commr. Cadwell encouraged the Board not to burden the Element with what should be in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). He did not have a problem with a workshop being scheduled, but explained that he was quite comfortable with what was being presented at this time, and that he did not want to do anything that would take away from what was being proposed.

Commr. Hanson discussed the time that she spent working with individuals to develop a Vision, and that part of the Vision was an Economic Plan. It was decided that the Economic Summit needed to come first, which was part of the total Vision. She stated that the County cannot have the quality of life in Lake County, if it does not have the strong economic activity it takes to pay for it. She further stated that this would be a commitment to a long term plan, and commended Mr. Jackson and the people who worked on the Committee.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to transmit the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and to set a workshop with Mr. Alvin Jackson and staff to answer any questions the Board members might may have during the transmittal period.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

REZONING

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planner III, and Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that there had been five postponements on the rezoning agenda, which the Board took action on, as follows:

PETITION #44-94-1 Joe Swiderski Tracking #87-94-Z

No one present wished to appear before the Board to discuss the request.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Petition #44-94-1, Joe Swiderski, for 30 days, until December 20, 1994, as requested by the applicant.

PETITION #46-94-2 Thomas Turner Tracking #93-94-CFD

It was noted that a gentleman in the audience was present, in behalf of 50-60 people, who indicated that he was in favor of the postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone Petition #46-94-2, Thomas Turner, for 60 days, until January 24, 1995, as requested by the applicant.

PETITION #48-94-3 Cox Holding Corp. Tracking #91-94-Z

It was noted that Mr. Harlow Middleton, Attorney representing the applicant, was present in the audience. No one present appeared to speak in opposition to the request for postponement.

Commr. Swartz requested that the Board members, applicant and interested parties be supplied with a detailed analysis on the request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to postpone Petition #48-94-3, Cox Holding Corporation, until December 20, 1994, as requested by the applicant.

PETITION #23-94-2 Harvey Erp Tracking #47-94-CP

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, informed the Board that this request went on appeal to a Hearing Officer, who had rendered a decision, and a request had been made to postpone the issue for 30 days, until December 20, 1994, when that phase would be over.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request for postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to postpone Petition #23-94-2, Harvey Erp, for 30 days, until December 20, 1994, as requested.

PETITION CUP#94/8/1-4 David & Barbara Shelley

Tracking #57-94-CUP

Commr. Cadwell declared a conflict of interest, because he has adjoining property that would be affected by the rezoning.

It was noted that no one present wished to speak in opposition to the request for postponement.

Commr. Hanson acknowledged that the request was in her district, and she was not in opposition to the postponement.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved to postpone Petition CUP#94/8/1-4 for 60 days, until January 24, 1995, as requested by staff and the applicant.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell declaring a conflict of interest and not participating in the discussion or vote.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that the Board had adopted 30 and 60 day postponements. Because of the change in Board meetings for the month of December, zoning cases would be held on December 20th, and not on the 27th. Mr. Wahl suggested that the Board restate the motions to indicate the "regular scheduled" meeting in December, and the "regular scheduled" meeting in January, so that there would not be a procedural difficulty involved.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board clarified that the following petitions would be postponed for 30 days, until the next regular scheduled meeting, December 20, 1994: Petition #44-94-1, Joe Swiderski; #48-94-3, Cox Holding Corporation; and #23-94-2, Harvey Erp; and petitions #46-94-2, Thomas Turner, and CUP#94/8/1-4, David and Barbara Shelley, would be postponed for 60 days, until the next regular scheduled meeting, January 24, 1995.

PETITION #47-94-2 A to MP Paul G. Faircloth

Tracking No. #92-94-Z

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. The recommendation was approval to MP (Planned Industrial), subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution. Mr. Stubbs stated that the Board might want to provide additional clarification of land uses, so that it would allow for similar uses to what was currently being utilized for storage on adjacent properties.

Commr. Hanson recognized former Commissioner, Don Bailey, who was present in the audience.

At this time, Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Bob Williams, Attorney representing Richard and Barbara Mack, Mack Concrete Industries, Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Mack, President of Mack Concrete, was present to answer any questions of the Board. Mr. Williams explained that the site would be used primarily for the storage of materials and finished products, due to the expansion of the site, which had resulted from the closing of the St. Cloud operation. He stated that the request received a unanimous vote from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Williams stated that he met with staff and had no objection to the staff's conditions, which included additional dedication of right-of-way along C-561.

Commr. Gerber questioned Page 2, 1. Terms, C. Buffering/Screening, which indicated that screening may be vegetative.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Barker presented an explanation of the requirement for vegetative buffers, as indicated in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and stated that the buffers are applied as they come through the Technical Review Committee (TRC).

Commr. Hanson called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the request needed to be tied to the existing site, under Land Uses, to storage and similar uses on the adjacent property. He stated that staff did not intend to include all of the MP and HM and LM uses.

Commr. Swartz requested that the Board consider, not specifically in regards to this case today, the issue of employment centers, and the concept as the Comprehensive Plan created employment centers, with regard to the concept of expanding employment centers. He stated that he had brought this to the Board's attention before, and he was troubled by the intent of the Board when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan and placed on the Plan an employment center and future employment center. Later an effort was made to insure that all of those properties zoned industrial, under a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that specifically says those industrially zoned properties, as of a certain date of adoption, would be vested, even if they were not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that this also appears underneath the map that says employment centers. Commr. Swartz stated that he would like the Board to take this issue up and absolutely clarify it with a Comprehensive Plan, if necessary, that all of those properties that were zoned industrial were intended as employment centers, because that was not what was intended then. He stated that he would like to place this before the Board as a discussion item for the Board and staff to review the employment center concept, as it was adopted by the Board in the Comprehensive Plan. Commr. Swartz stated that, with regards to the one before the Board today, assuming that the language was what the County was operating under, he would move for approval, but he wanted to make sure that, in addition to the review that would occur as a result of this rezoning, the Board insures that the provisions that were created with the previous rezoning across the road, would be complied with.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to MP (Planned Industrial) with LM (Light Manufacturing) uses, and with the clarification that Mr. Stubbs made above to Page 2 of the Resolution, in regards to Land Use, and with the conditions as outlined.

PETITION #42-94-2 A to CFD W. R. Hancock - Triple Lakes Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Ms. Melinda Bell appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Bell stated that she had a presentation to make, but would hold it, due to no opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz questioned Page 2, C. Buffering/Screening, which indicated that it had to be along the perimeter of the parcel.

Mr. Stubbs explained that the buffering and screening would be around the adjacent properties.

Ms. Bell stated that she met with Mrs. Woods, an adjacent property owner, to make sure her concerns had been addressed. An agreement had been made with Mrs. Woods to have the tower further away from her property.

The Chairman called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the placement of a 300 foot communications tower.

PETITION #43-94-4 R-1 to CP Claxon E. Parker

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request and approved the rezoning to CP and a variance from Section 9.05.05 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) for minimum connection spacing and median standards.

Commr. Swartz questioned what created the criteria of the neighborhood activity center.

Mr. Stubbs discussed the Land Use Map, and the "dot" system used in the Paisley area, which signifies neighborhood activity.

Commr. Swartz stated that discussion had occurred before with it being determined that the size of the "dot" did not necessarily represent the size of the neighborhood, but to strictly identify it. He encouraged that, if it was the feeling of the Board, staff look at this issue, even if it comes to looking at individual cases.

Mr. Stubbs explained that staff was looking at trying to draft criteria to give to staff, and to the Board, which would give a way to tie down the distances, in terms of the location of the "dot", because this had become a major problem. He stated that the criteria was taken to the LDR Committee, but this particular issue was not actually addressed, but was sent back to the Board.

Commr. Swartz requested that staff bring back to the Board options on how to handle the "dot" system, because the design of the size of the dot was immaterial, and should be looked at on an individual basis in each community.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that staff had been addressing this whole issue concerning the "dot" system, and staff was trying to do, on a case by case basis, a parcel specific analysis, as to where the boundaries of those "dots" could reasonably be placed.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board and reiterated staff's comment regarding the variance request and stated that staff was recommending denial of the request. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request due to the rationale of there not being much traffic on County Road 42. He stated that he did not feel that this would be an issue to whether the applicant complies with access management. The applicant owns the property to the north, and there was business on the property to the south. The Access Management Ordinance was written with responsibility where staff can work with the applicant to find a way to meet the requirements.

Mr. Stubbs noted that the applicant could still place the business on the property and meet the access management, and that, under Land Uses, staff had limited the request to neighborhood commercial uses, which was intended to mean C-1 uses; however, the Board had the ability to limit it to a beauty salon.

Mr. Claxon Parker, applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Parker explained how he saved 450 feet out of his frozen orange grove land for three 150 foot home sites on County Road 42. He further explained that he had a home on the north parcel. He stated that he did not put in a driveway on any of the three 150 foot parcels, but that he would like to have a drive for one of the three parcels. He explained that there was not a driveway off of County Road 42 onto any of those three parcels. There was access off of the roadway on the north side of the three parcels.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Access Management Ordinance does provide for some flexibility for looking at a variety of ways to incorporate access management, and to allow access for the parcels, but to reduce the number of points of access.

Mr. Griffey explained that there was always the capability in the ordinance for issuing a non-conforming connection that was contingent upon it being taken out, or removed, and modified when a conforming connection could be put into place.

It was noted that there was no opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request was in District 4, and she was not in opposition to the case, as long as the access management could be worked out to the satisfaction of Mr. Parker.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial), with C-1 (Rural or Tourist Commercial) uses, and with no variance on the access management.

Mr. Parker addressed the Board on the denial. Mr. Griffey explained that he would like to work with Mr. Parker on the options that would be considered through the process.

PETITION CUP#94/11/1-4 CUP in A Henry W. Ruppert

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff had been working with the applicant, and it had a revised sketch of where the applicant plans to place the cage for the birds. The applicant did not intend to house more than 60 birds on his property, and based upon the size of the property and the number of birds, the staff had no specific objection to the CUP and felt it would be consistent with the adjacent properties. Mr. Stubbs stated that the conditions deal with a 200 foot setback from the property line and recommended that the applicant place no more than 60 birds on the site, and that this condition be placed under Land Uses as a limitation for the CUP.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 2 of the Resolution, Paragraph E. Manure Disposal, with Mr. Stubbs stating that staff would rework the paragraph to where it would be a requirement as a condition, and would work with the applicant in developing a plan for the site. Mr. Stubbs responded to a question concerning the elevation of the cage, and noted that the height of the ground level would be determined when staff reviewed the site plan for the actual construction.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Henry Ruppert, applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Ruppert explained that he did not have a problem with limiting the number of birds, but requested that he be allowed to have the birds closer to the line, as he had for the past three years. He stated that the birds are approximately 250-350 feet away from any house, and the neighbors had given him letters stating that they had no problem with him having them closer.

Mr. Stubbs stated that the conditions in the CUP would be amended to indicate that, instead of 200 feet, the applicant could go to 40 feet from property line for the aviary structure.

Mr. Ruppert submitted two photographs, which were entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's Exhibit A.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion for the Board to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from for CUP in A (Agricultural) for raising of exotic animals with the addition of standard comments from Environmental Management, and amending the setback to approximately 40 feet from the property line for the aviary structure and maintaining 200 feet from all others.

Commr. Swartz seconded the motion, with the understanding that this was a portable facility, and if it should cause any problems in the future, the Board could reconsider it.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

PETITION MSP#89A/5/1-2 Amendment to MSP Jack Reiner, Jr.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and stated that this was a 40 acre parcel within the overall bog of the wetland area that had been mined over the years. He stated that the original parcel had a CUP and had a very good client record. He noted that their reclamation plans and reclamation standards were acceptable.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 3 of the Resolution, Paragraph 15. Conservation Easements will be required. Mr. Barker presented a brief explanation of the language, and informed the Board as to what should be expected after the reclamation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Jack Reiner, Jr., applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for an amendment to MSP#89/5/1-2 to add additional land for peat mining.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:23 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

PETITION CUP#94/11/2-4 CUP in A Robert & Clora M. Hutton

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. The staff had recommended approval of the request. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff felt the request was consistent with the intent of the Board, and in using the term "infirm". Mr. Stubbs noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the request based on the physician's affidavit.

Commr. Hanson explained that she had a brief ex-parte communication on the case, which she told an individual that she could not discuss the situation. She indicated that she would not have a problem making a decision on this case, as she was unbiased.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Board. At this time, she explained the health problems that existed with the applicants daughter, and stated that Mrs. Hutton was a registered nurse who maintained her license primarily to be able to provide for her daughter's needs. She further explained that the applicants are in their 70's and find it difficult to travel back and forth to Orlando to take care of their daughter, who was 38 years old. Ms. Campione stated that their daughter needed to maintain some type of independency for her well-being. She was not employed and was currently on disability, so there were some financial concerns.

Discussion occurred regarding the nature of the 20 acre parcel, with Ms. Campione explaining that this was pasture land, and a lot of record.

Mr. Stubbs stated that staff went to Environmental Management and asked for an evaluation, as to the submittal requirements on it before it was brought to the Board. He stated that staff had a memorandum from Ms. Paula Blazer, Environmental Management, who did the review.

The Board reviewed the aerial map and whether the applicants could have come up with enough points to do a family lot split. Mr. Stubbs noted that, because it would have been costly for the applicants to go through a survey, the applicants chose to go through the rezoning process, and because there were other existing mobile homes in the area.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request was in her district, and because the evidence was of the same quality as other requests that had come before the Board, she had no problem with the request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for a CUP in A (Agricultural) for the placement of a mobile home on site for the care of an infirm relative.

PETITION #177A-85-4 R-6 to CP Cecil & Dyanne Bodiford

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Stubbs stated that the conditions were in the backup that deal with the setbacks, and the uses for the site and the requirements for buffering/screening and lighting would be addressed at the time of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) review.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, addressed the Board and stated that there would be nothing specific to review at this time, because a site plan had not been submitted.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that the County Attorney's Office had recommended that the language pertaining to Transportation Improvements on Page 2 of the Resolution be stricken. Mr. Hoban stated that the applicants were indicating that they do not wish to dedicate right-of-way at this point, and that the issue would be addressed at the time the construction plans are submitted.

Mr. Griffey stated that staff would continue to identify the needs for right-of-way for each case. The concerns would be addressed through the site plan review and the access management review. It was noted that the construction plans had not been submitted.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Joe Hanratty, Attorney for the applicants, appeared before the Board and stated that the revisions to the proposed Resolution were discussed with Mr. Hoban, and he had no objections.

It was noted that the applicant had a clear understanding that certain land dedications may be required.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that the request was in her district, and she had no opposition to the rezoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that he could understand no conditions being established, if this was straight zoning, but he felt that there would be a need to do so with a CP (Planned Commercial) zoning.

Discussion occurred regarding the applicant having the option of submitting a site plan at this time.

Mr. Stubbs submitted a preliminary site plan, which was presented to him by the applicant, and entered and marked as the County's Exhibit A for the record.

Commr. Swartz encouraged the Board that, in the absence of any site plan, when the site plan is provided, that it be brought back to the Board for review.

Discussion occurred regarding bringing the site plan back to the Board for review. Commr. Swartz stated that, as long as within the site plan review process, staff was able to deal with the issues, the site plan need not come back to the Board, but if there was any inability to do that, based on site review and requirements of staff that need to be there, then it would be brought back to the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) for expansion of an existing convenience store for a drainfield/retention area, with the understanding stated above by Commr. Swartz.

PETITION #19-94-2 R-6 to CFD Lake County Board of County

Commissioners

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulation, presented the request to the Board.

Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Pula reviewed different facts on this particular project. He stated that the Palatlakaha River Park had been planned, discussed, evaluated and reviewed for the past four years. The project had been discussed with individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies, local residents, the Parks and Recreation and Advisory Board, Lake County Water Authority, Game and Fish Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Representative Everett Kelly, Representative Stan Bainter, Planning and Zoning Commission and now the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Pula stated that the Palatlakaha River Park was the second largest County park, at 23 acres in size, and was the only large park that was virtually unimproved. It was dedicated to Lake County as a County park 41 years ago. The appraised value was approximately $450,000. Mr. Pula reviewed what had been proposed on the site and stated that he had personally met with residents and tried to incorporate their suggestions and comments into the design. He further stated that he had discussed the plan and improvements with the Fish and Game Commission, who had supported the project and had budgeted $50,000 for the new boat ramp and handicap accessible dock on the site, which was currently being constructed. The anticipated date of completion of the ramp and dock was January 1, 1995. This is at no cost to the County. Mr. Pula noted that the Environmental Management Division had reviewed the proposed improvements and would continue to evaluate the site. Mr. Pula stated that Mr. Gary Race, Environmental Specialist II, had recently completed a biological survey of the park, which he submitted into the record. The Deputy Clerk marked and entered the report as the County's Exhibit A.

At this time, Mr. Pula discussed surveys that had been done in the park, which indicated 100% percent support for the improvements. Mr. Pula explained that the project was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and, at this time, reviewed those policies, which pertained to the project. Mr. Pula made a brief slide presentation, which gave the Board an idea of the condition of the property, and the need for improvements. Mr. Pula referred to the copy of the Resolution in the backup material from the Clermont Area Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the project and requested that alternative locations be evaluated.

Mr. Will Davis, Executive Director of the Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board and discussed a letter that Mr. Pula had sent from his office to Mr. Howard Stockton, Chamber Director, in August, 1994, relating to seven alternative site criteria elements that everyone felt needed to be addressed. Because the Chamber did not have the opportunity to perform an evaluation on alternative sites, at the request of the Water Authority Board, he personally went with Mr. Pula and Mr. Barker to do a very broad assessment of other alternative sites. At this time, Mr. Davis explained the process used in determining 11 sites that they thought had some merit for further evaluation. From the 11 sites, two sites had already been developed within the last four years. Mr. Davis continued to explain the process he followed to assess the nine sites. Based on the evaluation done on each site, the evaluation was narrowed to four sites, Sites 1, 2, 3 and 6 on the map before the Board. After discussion with the owners of the four sites, he found that Site 1, which was owned by Lucie T. LaRue, did not have any interest in selling the property; Site 2, which was owned by Gene Langley, did have an interest in selling the property, but the price was much more than the appraisal prices; Site 3, Lakeland property site, negotiations are continuing on part of the site, and another party was also negotiating with the owners, but it still had some possibility, even though the value had been high; and Site 6, on Lake Louisa, was owned by Buddy Oswald, who does not have an interest in selling the site. At the request of the Water Authority Board, a tenth site was evaluated, which was located on Lake Minneola. He stated that the City of Clermont has had an appraisal on the site for approximately four months and had been negotiating with the owners to acquire the site. The City was intending to close down the other old public ramp on the Clermont Chain, which was Jaycee Beach, as part of their lake front restoration project and move the existing boat ramp to the future site, therefore, the County had disregarded the tenth site, because of the fact that it was already being looked at for another alternative site.

The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to all of the following individuals, as a group, who were present and wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Mr. Jack O'Connell, Clermont, appeared before the Board and stated that not one resident supported the proposal made to them by Mr. Pula. Mr. O'Connell stated that one picture that Mr. Pula did not show, on the other side of the trees, was a quiet little residential area on a cul-de-sac, which Mr. Pula intended to invade with roadways and bicycle trails. He stated this area was a very sensitive environmental area, and that he sent the Board a list of some of the wildlife that has been observed and counted by the residents. Mr. O'Connell explained that there was a small boat ramp that was surrounded by an environmental area that should not be disturbed. He stated that there are nature trails that currently exist in the area. Mr. O'Connell addressed the issues explained to him by Mr. Pula, including the need for an access area for the handicap. He stated that he completely disagrees with a playground for children, because there was no need to entice children to the river. He addressed Clermont's consideration to move its boat ramp. Mr. O'Connell stated that the citizens tired of getting dictated by the government.

Mr. Luke Sepe appeared before the Board and stated that he owns property that backs up to the property in question. Mr. Sepe stated that he had attended most of the meetings regarding this issue. Mr. Sepe discussed the slides that Mr. Pula had shown to the Board, and implied that Mr. Pula failed to show the Board the three "s" curves that follow the access road, and the problems that exist with the boats coming around the curves. He stated that, with the proposed expansion, there would be an increase in traffic, due to having two boat ramps and 40 parking spots for the vehicles. Mr. Sepe stated that he had many more questions that had not been addressed about the park. He discussed there being no supervision right now at the park, even though people are camping at the site. He questioned why no supervision had been planned for the park. Mr. Sepe addressed the surveys taken by Mr. Pula, and the impact that would be made on the boat ramps and park, once the park was expanded. Mr. Sepe stated that there was a community of approximately 30 homes in the area, and they all had concerns about bringing people off the main road into their neighborhood. He further stated that there would be no charge to get into the park. Mr. Sepe stated that the expansion being plan would not be appropriate for the road. He questioned whether the area needed a new boat ramp, or whether it needed a park and the added density.

Mr. Dennis Patiry appeared before the Board and explained that he owns two lots and would be the closest property owner to the ramp. He stated that he was a user of AAA, and if anyone had any trouble with their vehicles, or getting stuck, they would appear at his house during the late hours of the night asking for help. Mr. Patiry addressed the surveys that were done by Mr. Pula and stated that he did not feel they were accurate, because 90% of the boats that are put into the water and head to the State park. He requested that the Board review this issue further before it made a decision.

Commr. Hanson called for further opposition to the request. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Discussion occurred regarding the boat ramp being used for the last 40 years without the property being rezoned. Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that the property would continue to be used as it had always been used, if the Board chose not to rezone the property.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the County chose not to rezone the property and make improvements, the Board needed to close the property off to everyone, except for the boat ramp.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board could look at down scaling what the recommendation had been, as to the parking and roads, which are the minimum of what needs to be there.

Commr. Good explained that he understood that the concerns being expressed pertain to the size of the developments to the park. He questioned whether the improvements could be down scaled using the grant, at no cost to the County other than money coming back from the County that was sent to the State. Mr. Good stated that the area needed to be recognized for what it was, which was a park, and the area was in transition. He stated that he was not ready to commit to massive changes to the site. Commr. Good stated that, if the Board had the option of zoning the property and being awarded the grant, and still had the option of maintaining working with the residents to the level of design the residents would care to have there, it would be the best of all possible choices.

Commr. Swartz explained that the County had done this same type of project at Marsh Park in Eustis, and at the Lake Jem Park, where improvements were made to the ramps, parking and roadways. Both were very successful and there had not been any of the types of problems being expressed as concerns of the residents appearing today. He further explained that it had been the County's intent to have the very least disturbance to the natural environment, and only very positive results had come from those two parks. Commr. Swartz stated that he did not want to see the Board make a real large expansion of what the site could handle, but if it was done correctly, many of the concerns could be reduced. He questioned whether, in terms of the grant itself, if this was approved from a zoning standpoint, and the County goes forward with the grant, what areas would the County have the ability to continue to look at in terms of the concept of the park and how it was used.

Mr. Pula explained that the parking lot could be improved, because it would be funded through the Boating Improvement money, and all of the elements of the project would be point related to the grant application. They could be reduced in size, but they needed to be on the site.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Marsh Park and Lake Jem parks were very low profile and very well done projects, and he does not see the Board trying to do anything that was not consistent with what had been done at those two parks.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, explained that modifications could be made to the project, once the grant had been submitted and approved.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not see the scaling down of the project satisfying the residents. He stated that he did not want to see the County scale down the parking, because that was the number one problem. He stated that the Board was trying to appease the neighborhood and balance what the Board's responsibility was to all of the residents in Lake County in providing parks and recreation. This had always been a park, and it needed to continue to be a park. If the County was going to provide parking, then a recreation area needed to be provided, because this was a site that would be conducive to the plan. Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board needed to either have it as an open park, or just add parking to the boat ramp, because nothing else would satisfy the concerns of the neighbors.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would hate to see the Board not move forward with this facility and construct it in a way that it would be a credit to the County, and a facility that the residents of Lake County would have available to use.

Commr. Good stated that the site would be a "fee free" launch site, which was a big plus for the site, and part of the Board's responsibility was making those lakes accessible, and not putting economic constraints on people getting to use the resources that are here. He discussed the possibility of an access management charge out-of-county fee, and stated that these types of options should be explored by staff.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to CFD (Community Facility District) for the development of a County park to include boat ramp, parking lot, picnic and playground area, restroom facilities, trails, and walkways.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/GRANTS/PUBLIC SERVICES/PARKS & RECREATION

Discussion occurred regarding the request to enter into a project agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) Grant for $100,000 for Palatlakaha River Park improvements.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board approve the FRDAP Grant and ask staff to come back with more detail drawings than what was currently available to the Board, and in the interim, encourage the Commissioners to look at both the Lake Jem and Marsh Park facilities. If staff comes back, and within those areas that the Board had some control over, and as the County massages the FDDAP process, a workshop could be set for the Board to look at the issue of parking, which it has control over, and other active areas, for the future, and as the Board goes through this process, it could invite the residents to be here as the issues are considered.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to go on record of being against part of the playground, and the bathroom facilities, because, without any supervision, it would probably create a problem. She stated that she would be in favor of the parking and the bird watching trail, the walk and the bicycle trail. Those areas she would be in favor of developing, but not the playground facilities.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff continue to meet with the residents to present the concepts that the Board was considering.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the residents visit the two parks, Marsh Park and Lake Jem Park.

Mr. Wahl stated that, in reference to the request for the grant, the Board may want to consider the submittal of the grant application with direction to staff to meet with the residents and develop alternatives on a reduced scale.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would prefer to see them meet with the Board first, so that the Board could see, on a greater scale, what had been planned, and if it was different than what currently existed.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that the grant application agreement had a completion date by April 1, 1996.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to enter into a project agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) Grant for $100,000 for Palatlakaha River Park Improvements, subject to County the Attorney's review and approval.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:18 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

COMMUNICATIONS/ORDINANCES

Mr. Bruce Thorburn, Director of Information Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed ordinance requiring a permit and assessing fees for telephone, telemetry, video, intercom, data and telecommunications. Mr. Thorburn stated that there was no Federal or State regulation that ensures, if someone other than a licensed exchange carrier get into the telephone business, they have to provide any local 911 service at all. The ordinance would assure that, in the event that anyone other than a licensed exchange carrier, under the Public Service Commission's regulations, gets into the telephone business, the County would get no degeneration of the enhanced 911 system in Lake County, nor would the County get any degeneration of telephone service in rural areas.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Discussion occurred regarding the enforcement of fees, with Mr. Thorburn presenting a brief explanation.

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that this would be the first time that the cellular industry would be charged this fee under the 911 basis, or under any basis, and what made this different from a lot of contested issues was that it provided for the integrity of the 911 service itself.

Mr. Thorburn explained that he served on the Legislative Sub-Committee for the State of Florida and stated that there was a provision in the ordinance for any severability of the actual ordinance, in the event that the State or Federal levels abrogate any portion of this ordinance. He noted that, in reference to Page 11, Line 2, he would be the regulatory agent, just as he was for 911.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that the ultimate penalty would be bringing back the whole issue of the franchise agreement in violation to the Board and have it revoked.

It was noted that the ordinance had been properly advertised.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board adopted Ordinance 1994-16, as follows by title only:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUIRING A PERMIT AND ASSESSING FEES FOR TELEPHONE, TELEMETRY, VIDEO, INTERCOM, DATA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS, WHICH PROVIDE TOLL AND PRIVATE TELEPHONE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES WHICH SHALL ACCESS 911 IN LAKE COUNTY; AND ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUCH PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

ADOPTION HEARING FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 1994

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, appeared before the Board and referred to his Memorandum dated November 9, 1994 regarding the transmitted Comprehensive Plan amendments, which were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on August 2, 1994. An Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report was received with an objection to one of the proposed amendments, the Stonebridge Rural Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Subsequently he wrote a letter to DCA, because the ORC report did not appear to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and DCA had since responded. He noted his Memorandum dated November 23, 1994, and the response received from DCA still objecting to the Stonebridge Rural Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Knight stated that it was his understanding, after talking with the County Attorney's Office, that it may be more appropriate to adopt two ordinances, one that deals with all of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments that DCA was not objecting to, and one ordinance that adopts the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that DCA was objecting to. He noted that DCA had also agreed that this may be a better approach.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Amendment Number 93/7/4-2 Stonebridge - Eggebrecht

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Mr. Jerry Eggebrecht, and Eggebrecht Development Ltd., appeared before the Board and requested that Mr. Eggebrecht and Mr. Bob Londeray be sworn in at this time. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

At this time, Ms. Bonifay presented a brief historical overview of the case, due to this case being the only one that DCA still had concerns or reservations about. She presented detailed information regarding the case from the beginning to the present time. Ms. Bonifay referred to Page 3 of the November 23, 1994 letter from DCA, which stated the following:

"The Department is not challenging the proposed Rural Village's consistency with the design criteria as outlined in Policies 1-1.13, 1-1.15, 1-3A.1, 1-11.9, 1-11.10, 1-11.11, 1-11.12, 1-11.13, 1-11.17, 1-11.18, and 1-11A.1, rather we continue to object that the need for the proposed development has not been demonstrated nor does it discourage an urban sprawl land use pattern."

Ms. Bonifay stated that the letter further indicated that DCA would like some more specific data and analysis, with four specific things to be addressed. She requested that the Board adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment as a rural village. She noted that only 50 acres of the 750 acres was not rural and explained that she was having a difficult time with one of DCA's objections, which was how you can ask for a rural village if it was not all rural, but that was why you were asking for a LUPA. The other problem pertained to DCA taking urban sprawl criteria, which was inapplicable. She stated that it should not be applied, because this was a rural development in a rural land use. She stated that there had been some movement with DCA, and that Mr. Knight's letter was very good in trying to get them to focus on the issues. She requested that the Board adopt the LUPA, DCA would find it not in compliance, and the County would begin negotiations such as to provide them with additional information. Ms. Bonifay renewed that all of the information that she had submitted in any of the hearings be included on the record today.

Mr. Bob Londeray, site planner for Stoneridge, appeared before the Board and presented a brief overview of the project, with detailed information being provided from the origination of the project to the events leading up to today.

In conclusion, Ms. Bonifay discussed the rezoning cases that the Board had opposed for the same area, and the peat mining site that the Board approved in the area, which Mr. Eggebrecht had so far rejected considering, because he did not feel that it was in character with the residential development that he would like to create. However, this could be an alternative that he could pursue from an economic standpoint. Ms. Bonifay stated that there was no active agriculture in this area. She noted that there were approximately 20-50 letters from people who have continuously supported this project, and she had gotten every adjacent owner to file a letter of support, because they felt this was consistent and compatible with their property and this was what they would like to see in this area. Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the LUPA was denied, then she would look at this from an economic issue, because there are other actions which Mr. Eggebrecht had pending. She stated that this clearly fits the rural village definition, and the concerns from DCA could be addressed.

Mr. Londeray discussed the estimated build out time for the project, which could be 8-12 years. He stated that, from an economic standpoint, this project would create over 200 20-year permanent jobs. Mr. Londeray informed the Board that there was never anyone at the public meetings speaking against the project.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that, because the 50 acres were actually in suburban, which comes under the timeliness criteria, and therefore, they would actually become rural.

Mr. Mark Knight, Planner II, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Knight explained that, when a suburban land use designation comes through and the timeliness criteria was applied, especially in the area in question, it was subject to timeliness, and it becomes a rural land use category.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there was a 3-1 vote when the Board approved the request before them. He supported the request at that time, because of the cap and what was happening in that area, and the pace of the development and it made sense, and he did not feel that the 50 acres was an issue. He wanted the Board to continue to adopt this request and send it to DCA, in hopes of the applicant answering their four requests during the process.

Commr. Swartz stated that there were several issues that he felt were important, and they are precedent setting with regard to the action taken on this request. He stated that the concept of rural village was initially put into the Comprehensive Plan as a way to recognize those rural village areas of Lake County that were existing and on the ground, and to provide some ability for them to develop in a manner in which they had been developed. He stated that there had only been one new rural village created to this point, and all of the rest are those original ones, although there had been some modifications to some. Commr. Swartz stated that the concept of rural village had merit, but it does not have merit as just a subterfuge to the Comprehensive Plan to find a way to build a golf course community and call it a rural village. He did not feel that DCA was getting into the detail about rural villages. Commr. Swartz stated that DCA's position, and his position, at the previous hearing was two fold, to this point it had still not been demonstrated through data inventory and analysis sufficient information for the County to believe that it needed to amend its Land Use Plan to provide for additional residential development in any land use category. That had not been provided; it was not provided when the County sent it forward; it was a requirement of the County's Comprehensive Plan that it be provided; therefore, simply transmitting this was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because the information was not presented; it was not available; it was not available today; and it would not be available for a long time, because Lake County would have to have a lot more people in here before it could be determined that the County does not have sufficient land allocated to residential development. The second issue Commr. Swartz addressed was rural village and whether it contributes to the concept of urban sprawl. Commr. Swartz submitted to the Board that DCA was on target with both of their objections, there was no data inventory analysis to give any reason for anyone to create additional residential development, and secondly, there was nothing that demonstrates how this project would discourage urban sprawl, in fact he felt it was a perfect example of creating urban sprawl. Commr. Swartz encouraged the Board to not adopt this and to not, once again, send to DCA something it would find in noncompliance.

Commr. Gerber stated that there was no need right now for the project, and that it was a premature conversion of rural land. She stated that it may be needed in the future, but not now. She stated that she agrees with Commr. Swartz about the urban sprawl, and that it was urban sprawl right now, but in ten years it may be a good idea, but because of the prematurity of the proposed development, she could not support it.

Commr. Good stated that he was not comfortable, at this time, with transmitting it. He stated that it was premature and raises another question about whether a rural village was supposed to rely on some development, or employment, in some other place, or was it supposed to be more of a self contained village concept. He had problems with it being an effective use; it raises transportation problems which should not be associated with a rural village; that the rural village was utilized initially to recognize the existing places which had employment opportunities locally within that area, and as he understood the project, the design of the project seemed to be a bedroom community for economic ventures in some other place. He stated that he was not sure that this accomplishes what the Plan originally designated rural villages to do, and he was not comfortable transmitting it.

Commr. Hanson stated that the original concept of a rural village was not necessarily for a village that was in effect that the County called rural. She explained that she had attended a seminar with DCA before she was elected to the County Commission, where DCA was looking at ways people could create villages in very rural parts of Florida, and DCA was very innovative in this regard. Commr. Hanson stated that the project being proposed was not a subterfuge of the Comprehensive Plan, but a quality project. The infrastructure would be put in, the services would be provided, and it would be quality development that the Board would be saying it does not want in Lake County. She said the alternatives to this would be five acre tracts, and people are putting mobile homes on these five acre tracts, which are not what people want to have next to quality subdivisions, but this was happening throughout the County. The developments would have minimum infrastructure in place, a minimum of community concept in place, and you would not have the sense of community at all, or sense of a village. She suggested that the Board work out the problems and recognize them, because she felt it would be a better solution than just voting against the project today.

Commr. Good stated that there are opportunities and locations in Lake County for the development of the rural village concept, and he would not be voting against the concept, but that he does not feel that the project, at this stage, as described today, would be what he perceives as a rural village.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was in agreement with Commr. Gerber, that this area, because of the Industrial Park and the jobs that would be created, would need housing in approximately five years, and because of the constraints the County had on rural village, this would be the type of community that would be developed over a slow period and would be there when the need was greater. He stated that it would be the type of development that would be needed there and it makes sense to put it there.

Mr. Knight clarified that the action taken today would be made for the adoption of the amendment, because it has already been transmitted with the intent to adopt, and the Statute provides for two provisions, to adopt as it is, or adopt with changes.

Ms. Bonifay addressed the Board and stated that action was needed today, because this had been two years in the process. She requested that the record reflect that there was no competent, substantial evidence offered at all by Lake County today, in opposition, if there was a vote to deny. She felt the County needed to take very seriously its posture and its position in denial of development projects. There are legal guidelines that give this direction. Mr. Eggebrecht has had to file an additional lawsuit. Ms. Bonifay stated that she takes exception to the fact utilization by Commr. Swartz and others that her client engaged in any kind of subterfuge, which would imply false information, dishonesty, misrepresentation in any way on his part, and there are provisions where Commissioners can be held individually liable, and unfortunately, she felt the time had been reached in Lake County when Commissioners were going to have to be responsible for their actions and their words, not just to the press, not to those pandered to, but in the court of law. It would not be the same rules, and it would not be the same guidelines you find in an administrative hearing. She stated that she finds it interesting that sitting members of this Board, when the Comprehensive Plan was found to be in compliance, while Commr. Good was the Chairman of the Conservation Council and Commr. Gerber was a member of the Executive Board, filed suit against the very County Commission on which they now sit to say that it could not be in compliance, only to have a Hearing Officer tell them that it did meet all of the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Regional Plan, and upheld the position of the DCA. She stated that, when comments are made at public hearings, the Board needed to realize that these are record, and they would be the record on review in the judicial proceedings.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to adopt the Land Use Map with changes to what was there prior to the transmittal, Amendment Number 93/7/4-2, Stonebridge-Eggebrecht.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would support the motion, because his own reading of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the rural village concept, in terms of requirements for data inventory analysis to substantiate a land use amendment, and his understanding based on what the Plan requires in terms of demonstrating how urban sprawl would not occur. He stated that DCA's comments and concerns were part of his reason for voting for this motion, which would send it back to the original land use. He stated that there are aspects of the County's Comprehensive Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, Rule 9J-5 that would indicate that this would not be a proper amendment to the Land Use Plan.

Commr. Good stated that his reading of the Comprehensive Plan does not see this to be an appropriate use, and it seemed to be premature in this particular area of the County. The statements he read from DCA lead him in the same direction. He stated that these were his reasons for making the motion.

Commr. Gerber stated that she relied upon DCA's definition of urban sprawl, which this was a classic example, and she relied upon, in their letter, the fact that it was not in compliance, and the plan amendment would not be in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, and Rule 9J-5.

Commr. Hanson called for the vote. The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".

Mr. Hoban questioned Commr. Good as to whether he also relied on the correspondence and letters and documentation from DCA.

Commr. Good responded "yes" to Mr. Hoban's question, as stated.

Amendment Number 94/6/1-3 Florida Rock

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, presented the proposed amendment to the Board. He stated that the proposed change was from Urban Expansion and Suburban to a Rural land use designation.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board to discuss the amendment. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Greg Beliveau, Land Planning Group, who did the analysis, and the representatives from Florida Rock Industries, who are operating the current and existing mine, were present in the audience, if the Board had any questions. He stated that the applicant would be converting the non-conforming use to a conforming use and taking some buffer and additional lands contiguous to the mine.

Discussion occurred regarding any new areas of mining coming under the new Mining Ordinance. Mr. Richey explained that there is some land that was vested and not under the CUP, and he had agreed to work with Environmental Services, to clarify those inconsistencies.

No one present wished to speak before the Board. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proposed Future Land Use Map changes, and adopted, as transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Amendment Number 94/6/1-3, Florida Rock.

Amendment Number 94/6/3-2 Florida Soils

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, presented the proposed amendment to the Board.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the proposed Future Land Use Map changes, and adopted, as transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Amendment Number 94/6/3-2.

Amendment Number 94/6/4-4 Sullivan

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, presented the proposed amendment to the Board.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the applicants, appeared before the Board and stated that the property was located next to the City of Mount Dora. She stated that the property had a number of different land use classifications. It was primarily an employment center, which would be the highest density in Lake County, in terms of industrial and commercial. It also had some urban expansion, as well as suburban. The intent was to develop the property as residential, with a small commercial component. She stated that originally the applicants had requested urban, and staff had recommended urban expansion. She further stated that she had talked with the Mayor of the City of Mount Dora prior to the application being made, and the City felt this would be a compatible use. The only concern was the employment center and how much commercial would be developed, because the City did not want to pull anything away from its downtown. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicants are investigating the utilities, which they can get from the City of Mount Dora, or becoming a private utility provider themselves. There was no other private franchise in this particular area. She stated that there were no comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and it was in compliance with both the County's Comprehensive Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the Regional Policy Plan of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC).

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request. There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Hanson stated that, in this case, it would be a less intense use than what actually appears on the Land Use Map. She felt the urban expansion would be very compatible with the area.

Commr. Swartz discussed the removal of employment center from the Land Use Map. He stated that he had voted against this, because he did not feel it was appropriate to go to urban expansion, but secondly, although it was not well received by Ms. Bonifay, he suggested a better option would be for the County to review its employment center concept along the lines to indicate that, in an employment center designation, you would be allowed to do other things. You might be able to incorporate residential development, commercial development and industrial development, which would be true mixed use, which he supported. Commr. Swartz stated that he did not feel there was any data inventory analysis that was forwarded with the transmittal that would justify making this change, and he still does not feel this would be the case.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he supported this issue the first time, because this would be compatible and would be the place for this to be. Therefore, he would support this issue again today.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel it would be appropriate to have the employment center that far south of State Road 46.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Future Land Use Map changes and adopted, as transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Amendment Number 94/6/4-4, Sullivan.

Amendment Number 94/6/5-5 Board of County Commissioners

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, presented the proposed amendment to the Board.

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. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Future Land Use Map and Future Traffic Circulation Map changes and adopted, as transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Amendment Number 94/6/5-5, Board of County Commissioners.

Mr. Knight explained that the proposed ordinance before the Board would incorporate all action taken above on the amendments.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Ordinance 1994-17, as follows by title only, adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, as approved by the Board:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MAP; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER VIII, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 163.3184(5); PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

TRANSMITTAL HEARING FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 1995

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, informed the Board there were three amendments, the Economic Element, the placement of septic tanks in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, and a private sector Land Use Plan Amendment, #93/7/2-2, Thomas J. Karr.

Amendment #93/7/2-2 Thomas J. Karr

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Services Division, presented the amendment to the Board. Mr. Knight stated that this was a request to change the land use designation from Rural Conservation (GSACSC) to Ridge.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that, in July, 1993, when the Comprehensive Plan was initiated, the property was under contract to be purchased, and the request was continued while the Green Swamp Administrative Hearing process was resolved. Since that time, the Contract of Purchase has expired and his client, Mr. Hawthorne, had requested that this not be heard today, because he had yet decided what to do with the property. Therefore, he was requesting that this issue be continued to the next transmittal hearing. Mr. Richey stated that, since the issue had been continued several times, and if the Board chooses to hear it today, he would tender the information and documentation in the backup material that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as evidence on behalf of his applicant. He stated that his preference would be to allow him to initiate this back through the hearing process when the Board does its transmittal hearing in six months.

No one present wished to speak before the Board on the issue. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to delay action on the request and continue LUPA #93/7/2-2, Thomas J. Karr, until the next transmittal hearing.

STATE AGENCIES/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

It was the consensus of the Board to move Tab 17 regarding discussion on the Lake County vs. Department of Community Affairs declaratory action up on the agenda, in order to address the issue regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment pertaining to the placement of septic tanks in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern at the same time.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 3:42 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a ten minute recess.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - 1995

STATE AGENCIES/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the Lake County vs. Department of Community Affairs (DCA) declaratory action. He noted that the Commission had directed him to file a declaratory judgment suit against DCA, on the basis to determine whether or not certain Comprehensive Plan policies were legitimately imposed upon Lake County by DCA. The issue created by ELMS III was that DCA could not impose upon a local government greater standards than a State regulatory agency having jurisdiction over a permitting process, as indicated in the memorandum dated November 14, 1994, from Frank T. Gaylord, County Attorney. Mr. Gaylord stated that the proposed resolution establishes criteria dealing with the setback of 75 feet, or as far landward as possible, for wetlands, and this would resolve the issues as far as the dispute between DCA and Lake County. He explained that another issue involved whether the Board wanted to go back to the original Comprehensive Plan issues, such as the double sizing of septic tanks, and if it did, it could be done under home rule and would have to reenact those independent of this process for transmittal.

Commr. Swartz discussed the comments made by Mr. Gaylord and stated that he did not feel the resolution idea would be the approach to take, and the Board should either amend the Comprehensive Plan and get the language in there, or not amend it. He stated that he would prefer amending the Comprehensive Plan to the less stringent approach that DCA had indicated that was satisfactory as well to them, and then proceed to try and put into place a system whereby the County could monitor and evaluate and judge which of the ones may need some administrative variance, and drop the declaratory judgment suit.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the Board stay on the path that was set by the Board and go through the declaratory judgment.

Mr. Knight discussed the proposed Resolution and stated that DCA had objected to it. He addressed the information faxed to the Board by Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Planning Manager, Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, which indicated that they wanted the County to identify lots that would be able to obtain the administrative variance and would go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment rather than addressing the issue by a resolution. He stated that he had concerns, which were expressed in his memorandum dated August 27, 1994, which involved trying to develop a list of lots on a 75 foot setback when you have a GIS system that had a plus or minus 40 feet. Mr. Knight stated that it was his understanding that DCA did not want to approve the 75 feet, or as far landward as possible, without having a detailed number of County lots that were being approved for as far landward as possible.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the process would allow the County to indicate that it would begin trying to identify lots and that as the County was able to identify lots, then those lots that could meet the administrative criteria, as an individual would want to pull a permit, would be able to do so. If it was a lot that had not yet had that determination made upon it, then a review of that lot could be made, and if it met the criteria, it could be added to the administrative list.

Mr. Knight stated that it was his understanding that DCA wanted a list of lots to put into the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Wahl explained that a list provided to DCA would indicate how extensive the problem was, and staff does not know where the 75 foot setback, or as far landward as possible, comes into play without doing a lot by lot, site by site, review. He discussed the problem that existed with meeting the statewide requirements established by Chapter 10 D-6, F.A.C., and stated that staff suggested that, as an alternative, since there was already a Statewide Variance Committee that reviews those kinds of issues in all areas, this be used as a substitute. He stated that the DCA had concerns about this, because there was not, in Chapter 10 D-6, the inclusion of the definition of wetlands within the restrictions on setback.

It was noted that a trial has been scheduled for January 3, 1995, on the declaratory judgment suit.

Commr. Swartz discussed the possibility of having representatives come to Lake County from DCA to discuss these issues, in order to find an administrative procedure that would work, and yet try to address some of their concerns.

Mr. Knight informed the Board that the only transmittal at this point in time would be the Economic Element, and all of the issues before the Board today would have to be transmitted together, since the time frame goes into affect when the transmittal package arrives. If this issues were postponed for a different time certain transmittal hearing, it would be postponing the Economic Element for the same time frame.

Mr. Gaylord explained that the issue could be severed from the transmittal by doing a Settlement Agreement with DCA in the lawsuit that would take it out of the cycle.

Discussion occurred regarding the most probable way to proceed with the issue involving septic tanks in the Green Swamp, in terms of the declaratory judgment suit.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to withdraw the transmittal of Future Land Use Element policies incorporating the information in the Resolution, and to proceed to instruct DCA that the County wanted to begin to deal with a Settlement Agreement.

Mr. Gaylord questioned whether the Board wanted to stay the pending lawsuit, with the intent to resolve the issues.

Discussion occurred regarding the date of the trial in relation to the Board's hopes to meet with DCA prior to that date. It was the consensus that the Board wanted to meet with DCA and proceed with the declaratory judgment suit.

It was noted that no action was needed by the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to request an evaluation of the Economic Element by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

TIMES CERTAIN - WORKSHOP

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Ron Roche, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the proposal from Ogden Martin for the construction and the capital costs for mercury abatement equipment, to be placed at the waste management facility. Mr. Roche presented a short, historical calendar of what the Board and staff have been doing in regards to the mercury issue. Mr. Roche discussed the battery collection program, and the problem with not having an outlet for the batteries collected. He stated that an outlet in Texas was identified for recycling the batteries and was still being used. Mr. Roche stated that two programs would be under way the first of the year, one would be the mobile household hazardous waste collection program, and one would be a curbside battery collection program - residential. Mr. Roche presented further details on each program. He stated that the battery dropoff program had been discussed with all of the municipalities, and all have responded with favor and enthusiasm to join the program. He explained that none of the hospitals are contributing to the battery program, because most of their batteries are going back to the supplier. He further explained that the County had one pilot program with one hospital where the batteries were being collected, in order to determine the number of batteries used.

Mr. Roche addressed Ogden Martin's proposal and reminded the Board that the Operating Agreement requires that Ogden Martin submit a proposal, and the cause in this case being by change in law, which they have done, and the County has the right to have the proposal reviewed by the Consulting Engineers, which the County has done. Mr. Roche stated that staff would be coming to the Board in January for a Compensation Study, which would take approximately nine months.

Commr. Swartz stated that he had still not gotten what he considers a complete analysis of what Pasco County was doing in Ogden's facility, as far as their lime and carbon mix. He addressed the Mercury Emission Control Chronology of Events, which noted the following information, and stated that he would like more information, in terms of results that Pasco County was getting at the facility, and the type of costs that are there:

"The new mercury emission standards allow for the reduction of emissions by control technology to 70 ug/dscm by July 1995, or by front-end source reduction to 140 ug/dscm by July 1995 and to 70 ug/dscm by 1997."

"However, with average stack emissions on Unit 1 at 555 ug/dscm and for Unit 2 at 201 ug/dscm, it is doubtful that a front-end source reduction program alone would be able to bring the mercury emissions down to the 140 ug/dscm by July 1995 and to 70 ug/dscm by 1997."

"They" (FDEP) "further stated that given our current emission levels, we might be able to reach the 140 ug/dscm, but they had little confidence that we could obtain the 70 ug/dscm before 1997 without a mercury abatement system."

Mr. Steve Bass, Regional Vice President, Ogden Martin, appeared before the Board and explained that, at the present time, nothing was being done with the lime and carbon slurry mixture at the Pasco County facility. He stated that Pasco County was having discussions with Dravo Lime Company about the possibility of bringing the mixture of lime and carbon into the Pasco facility. Mr. Bass stated that there were some real hard questions that have to be answered, in order for Pasco County to reach an agreement with Dravo, and also for Ogden Martin to be a part of that agreement. He discussed the number one question of who was going to guarantee environmental compliance. He stated that, if the mixture was used, and they do not reach the environmental compliance, who would shoulder the responsibility. Mr. Bass stated that Ogden Martin's position has been that it has technology that has been proven; it was demonstrated in California, which has been the basis of the evolution of the mercury emissions standards; Ogden has installed the system in Virginia; and Ogden has the system operating in Lee County, Florida, which was the same system that Ogden was proposing to Lake County. Mr. Bass stated that, with this system, Ogden can guarantee environmental compliance, as it has in other areas of emissions, but that Ogden has no operating experience with the Dravo system, and it would not be able to put a guarantee on that particular system. Mr. Bass stated that, with the O & M fee (Operation and Maintenance Cost) proposed to Lake County for the Mercury Emission Control System, as well as the capital costs, Ogden Martin would maintain the system for the life of the facility.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned with the Board being in the position that it seemingly has no options at the last minute, especially when discussing the County spending $1.1 million, and what compounds the problem was the disparity between Unit 1 and Unit 2 in the mercury emissions. Secondly, the County was continuing to get more aggressive with recycling and removal of mercury from the waste stream, and he had continuing concerns that there may be other alternatives to this issue. He discussed the statistics given for Unit 1 and Unit 2, and stated that he was trying to find out whether there was some alternative that the County could reasonably take at this late date, and how the County got to this late date with one option only.

Mr. Roche explained that staff's concern was also the difference between Unit 1 and Unit 2, and that was why staff attempted to negotiate with Ogden that the County would pay no more operating cost for Unit 1, as the County paid for Unit 2, and unless the County had complete control of the waste stream. He stated that the operating costs he feels have been negotiated reasonably for Unit 1 and Unit 2, but the County would still be faced with the $1.1 million.

Mr. Bass addressed the Board and explained that, in the numbers before the Board, and all of the test data on the units, there does not seem to be a direct correlation to the fact that medical waste in burned in Unit 1 and not in Unit 2. He explained the different types of medical waste, and the fact that some of it goes into both units, and that sterilization does not remove mercury. At this time, Mr. Bass presented the Board with information regarding the Mercury Testing at the WTE Facility.

Mr. Kyle Garrett, Manager of Facility Administration, Ogden Martin, addressed the Board and explained that, over the past 12 months, approximately 132,000 tons of waste have been delivered by the County to the facility. Mr. Garrett noted that the actual tonnage brought in has been above the 163,000. At this time, he discussed the majority of the sources that contribute to the total tonnage, and explained that approximately 20,000 tons were coming from Sumter County.

Mr. Bass explained the problems when dealing with the lime and carbon slurry mixture.

Discussion occurred regarding the possibility of Ogden Martin entering into a cost sharing arrangement with the County, if the County decided to install the capital equipment, based on the information about the amount of excess fees going back to Ogden Martin at this point in time, and the amount of tonnage being brought into the facility.

Mr. Garrett explained that, in Ogden's proposal, there are two costs, capital cost for the equipment, and the operating cost. He stated that the operating cost, per the structure of the service agreement right now, was already handled in the manner in which Commr. Swartz was suggesting, with the costs being captured in the shortfall. He discussed the capital cost and stated that the out-of-county waste currently coming into the facility was temporary. The design of the facility and the structure of the current contract between the County and Ogden Martin has always been that, when the County's waste stream grows, the out-of-county waste would automatically be eliminated. He stated that the facility, for the long run, was strictly for the County's waste stream.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in the short term, with Ogden having a portion of the plant as a merchant plant, it was economically working out better for Ogden. He explained that, as the County gets more and more aggressive with recycling, the tonnages are not going to consistently go up as expected, or as they had been projected in the past. He discussed developing an arrangement between Ogden and the County, and stated that, because Ogden has the life of the facility, as long as Ogden has a portion of it, Ogden's share of it over that portion of the number of years that the facility was there would be Ogden's share of the capital costs, and the County's share would be once the County gets to the point where it has full capacity.

Mr. Garrett addressed the estimates for the County being overstated, and the refinancing from a year ago, and the volume of waste being delivered by the County today, which was understated. He stated that the situation with the estimate, throughout the history of the facility, has been overstated and now understated by approximately 7,000 tons. It was noted that originally it had been overstated by approximately 33,000 tons.

Mr. Garrett stated that he really could not comment on something, such as the suggestion of an arrangement with Ogden, because it has not been discussed. He stated that some decision needed to be made today about the system. He further stated that he would not rule out, even though a decision was made today, that everything was final as far as the sharing of costs.

Mr. Roche explained that staff had originally talked with Ogden about the system, and stated that, if the system had been built at the time the original system was built, it would have been in the debt service, and Ogden would have been paying a portion, and the County would have been paying a portion. He stated that staff could get back with Ogden and try to work something out, but there were two issues. One issue involved whether the County was going to install the system, and if so, the County could come back to the Board with a proposal as to how it would finance it. It was noted that the mercury emission regulations needed to be in compliance by July 1, 1995.

Commr. Good discussed the changing regulations and questioned whether there was any furan and dioxin data on the plant, in terms of emission, and whether any of the information could be used to help the Board make the present decision on mercury. He noted that, if the County could foresee other problems in the future, it might be to the best interest of the County to develop a system that would solve all of the conditions.

Mr. Roche addressed the deadline date of July, 1995, which the County must have tested and met the criteria. He stated that staff could go back and work out a formula on the capital costs, which he felt there would be method to do this, and if Ogden would be a willing partner.

Commr. Swartz discussed the possibility of a joint venture with Ogden and stated that, if the Board was committed to sitting down and responsibly working with Ogden to find a reasonable cost sharing capital proposal similar to what had been discussed on the operational portion, then the question would be whether the Board would be comfortable with trying to move forward, even at this late date, with what was being proposed.

Commr. Good stated that he had resolved all of his questions about the technology, but Ogden had said it would guarantee 70 ug/dscm. He was of the understanding that no other County in the State of Florida had proceeded just on front end separation, and Lake County had not studied this option in any way.

Mr. Roche stated that Lake County was progressing pretty swiftly on its mercury abatement programs in its own waste stream, but he did not know if the programs would have a substantial affect by July, 1995.

Mr. Dan Eastwood, Tavares, appeared before the Board and stated that, before the Board could agree to anything, it needed to see the document that guarantees the performance, and how far it carries the financial implications. He stated that, if there are contaminations, either through the stack or the ash, and that protection was a question of our landfill, the present contract would leave the County with the burden. Mr. Eastwood stated that he was not sure Mr. Bass was offering to remove any of this burden with this protection. The discussion earlier addressed quantifying protection the County could see in the future, to minimize the contingent liabilities. He stated that the County needed a document, because Ogden made $40 million in their profits in the last nine months, so their guarantee would be worth something, and this was what the County needed to see first.

Mr. Bass stated that Ogden has an environmental guarantee and suggested that the performance guarantee for the mercury abatement system basically states they would operate according to all permits, etc. The County would then be allowing Ogden to put in this system to meet their contractual obligations, or change of law.

Mr. Roche informed the Board that he and the consulting engineers have looked at the guarantees.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Uniflora Overseas Florida Inc., appeared before the Board and stated that his client operates a foliage facility in the Okahumpka area. He stated that his client has requested that he monitor the County's efforts to remove the mercury from the facility in Okahumpka. Over the last several months, his client has experienced some production concerns, which they can not determine whether this has been a result of the facility in Okahumpka. Mr. Richey urged the Board to meet the standards that have been proposed by the State as early as possible, to minimize the effects they might be having on their production facilities. He stated that this involves 80 acres, and his client also has a facility on Number 2 Road, which might be adversely affected, if this cannot be taken out of the waste stream, either through pre-sorting, or through the system being proposed. He requested that the Board not experiment with Lake County on untried technology and urged the Board to do true technology, as expediously as possible, so there would not be continuing or major problems for an industry that was one of the clean, good agricultural industries in Lake County.

Commr. Swartz questioned, if the Board was serious in telling Ogden Martin that it wants to sit down, that it wants to approach the changes in the contract that are required both from an operational and an infrastructure capital basis, a formula be worked out, and he would like to think that Ogden would be receptive to this, because they are benefiting from the tonnage coming in.

After some discussion, Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell to authorize Ogden Martin, pursuant to the guarantees for the mercury abatement program, to proceed to install the necessary equipment, and that the County also enter into negotiations with Ogden Martin for the changes in the service contract that would include a cost sharing formula based on the operational costs and the capital costs, as a result of the merchant nature of the facility.

Under discussion, Mr. Roche explained that the agenda item included a request to authorize the transfer, encumbrance and expenditure of funds; however, if the motion would be to negotiate, he would suggest coming back to the Board in 30 days with a proposal, at which time the Board could address the allocations.

Commr. Swartz included in his motion that staff would bring back a cost sharing formula and the changes to the contract that are necessary, and then the Board would deal with the costs that the County would have to bear. Commr. Cadwell included this in his second to the motion.

Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manger, addressed questions regarding Tab 6, and Commr. Swartz clarified that Tab 8 was District 3.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Appointments-Resignations/Committees/County Employees

Request to approve to allow Allison Thall to serve on the We Care Board of Trustees as a representative of the Board of County Commissioners.

Human Resources

For your information, results of the petition by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers Local 1225.

Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements/Deeds/Subdivisions

Final plat approval of Osprey Pointe Subdivision and acceptance of the Statutory Conservation Easement Deed dated 11/3/94, 74 lots - Commissioner District 3.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

COMMUNITY SERVICES/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board of a change made to the Contractor Agreement. The language in the contract now reflects "up" to four hours per day.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to sign Contractor Agreement Between Lake County and LifeStream Behavioral Center to provide psychiatric care to inmates at a cost of $30,000.00.

OTHER BUSINESS

BONDS/COMMISSIONERS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the bonds for Commissioner William "Bill" H. Good and Catherine C. Hanson.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Department, discussed the request for appointments to the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Gerald M. Wayne and Mr. Migual E. Ordonez to the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board.

REPORTS

RESOLUTIONS/COUNTY ATTORNEY

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution creating the "Sesquicentennial Coordinating Committee".

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, discussed the vested rights determination made in the Spruce Creek Development Company of Ocala, Inc. case. It was noted that Lake County had denied vested rights to Spruce Creek Development to build a billboard on U.S. 27. Mr. Hoban stated that a Hearing Officer issued an Order granting vested rights to Spruce Creek. He further stated that the County would have 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board, in order to preserve its rights, approved to make an appeal, to give the County Attorney and staff a chance to look more carefully at the issue.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, stated that the Board had before it a draft of a Vested Rights Ordinance, in lieu of an existing Vested Rights Ordinance that has been challenged.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to table the discussion of the Vested Rights Ordinance.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff schedule an agenda item for a workshop on the issue.

Mr. Gaylord informed the Board that an Administrative Hearing had been scheduled for January 29, 1995. He noted that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the draft of the ordinance and did not oppose it.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY ATTORNEY

Mr. Frank Gaylord, County Attorney, addressed the agenda item prepared by him for the Board to determine whether or not it wished to terminate his contract with the County.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had requested Mr. Gaylord to place this on the agenda for discussion. He stated that he was looking for some kind of continuity between the Board, some kind of way to give staff some stability in doing their job, and to give the Board some time, if it was going to seek someone new, to develop some direction of having a smooth transition. He explained that he had been contacted by many of the Chambers, elected officials, and constitutional officers of the County, who have indicated that they have had a great relationship with the County Attorney's Office, and he did not want to see anything change this relationship. Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the Board moved in the proper manner, in regards to the County Attorney's Office, the relationship that has been built with the municipalities, and the faith they have in the County now would be maintained. He stated that he hoped the Board would do the same thing it did with Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, and terminate him March 2, 1995, and start the search for a new attorney.

Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated the job that Mr. Gaylord had done, and that he had not always given her the answers that she wanted, but he gave her the right answers, which she expected from any professional or staff member. She stated that Mr. Gaylord had done an excellent job at taking direction from the majority of the Board, and had been a professional. She further stated that she understood what the Board was trying to do, but she felt Mr. Gaylord was the best one for this Board and for Lake County. Commr. Hanson stated that change was not always the best, and continuity was important. She thanked Mr. Gaylord and stated that she was not in favor of hiring another attorney just because the politics of the Board had changed. She further stated that Mr. Gaylord has separated himself very well from the politics of the Board and had handled himself very professionally.

Commr. Gerber stated that Mr. Gaylord had done a good job for the majority of the Board and had done an outstanding job of bridging the gap between the County and cities, along with Commr. Cadwell, who also had a great part in this accomplishment. She stated that Mr. Gaylord had a courageous attitude to come on board when he did, but she did not agree with the manner in which some things were done in order to further the request of the Board majority. She was uncomfortable with some of his interpretations and stated that she did not support him coming on board in the manner in which he did, although she would favor him applying for the job again, but that she would not be able to support keeping him as the attorney for the majority of the Board. Commr. Gerber discussed the issue of keeping Mr. Gaylord on until March and stated that there was a difference in the duties of the County Manager and the County Attorney, and that the County has attorneys on staff, but there are no other county managers.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was concerned that the output from the County Attorney's Office had been so great that he did not want to do anything that would discourage this process.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in part he agrees with the rationale for keeping the County Attorney and the County Manager until some date in the future, but it would be the same rationale for not doing so if, in fact, the majority of the Board would like to see a change in the County Attorney, then he would think that this would be the proper time to do it. He addressed the opportunity to have the majority of the Board decide it would like to look for a new County Attorney, or retain the services of Mr. Gaylord. Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see the Board move toward finding a new attorney. He stated that this, in the long term, would be best for the County and for this Board. He supported accepting Mr. Gaylord's offer to terminate his employment with the County. He stated that his preference would be, if there was a majority of the Board that agreed, to go ahead and act on the issue and not wait.

Commr. Good understood that the Board was at crossroads in what has been done, and the way in which things have been done, and the direction in which it would be moving. He stated that he realized that the County Attorney had to operate with the majority of the Board. He addressed his position, before becoming a County Commissioner, when he had watched County proceedings and stated that he had concerns about the direction that the Board had traveled and about some of the directions that the Board had taken in the past. Commr. Good commended the work that Mr. Gaylord had done, but stated that, at this point in time, he was ready to be looking for an attorney. He further stated that he had received excellent comments about Mr. Gaylord, and noted that he could continue with his private practice, if the Board accepted his termination.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to terminate the County Attorney effective January 2, 1995, and to comply with the termination provision under his contract, and that the Director of Human Resources be notified for a search to fill that position.

Commr. Hanson passed the gavel and seconded the motion on the floor.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the motion had been moved and seconded and called for discussion.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that any attorney hired should not have their personal agenda. They should be non-political, which she found Mr. Gaylord to be, they should not have an agenda, they should interpret the law to keep the Board and the County out of trouble, and give the Board the best advise from a legal point of view. Anyone hired should be in this category and should not come on board with their own pre-set agenda.

Commr. Cadwell clarified that his motion was to reflect the date of March 2, 1995. Commr. Hanson amended her second to the motion to reflect the March date.

Commr. Cadwell called for the vote on the motion. The motion failed by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Gerber, Good and Swartz voting "no".

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board was ready to make a change, it should make the change. He noted that the only thing that delayed the change in the previous County Attorney was a bond closing that the County was already into, and the Board graciously delayed the termination date to a time after the closing took place. If a decision was to be made by the Board today, he stated that it should be immediate, and he would like to see the termination effective the end of this month.

Commr. Hanson addressed the position she held with the previous attorney and her attempts to work with the attorney. She stated that, to come on board and immediately terminate the County Attorney without giving him the opportunity when he has had so many good comments from the community, to terminate him immediately and not give him the opportunity to demonstrate that he can work for the majority of the Board would be very short-sited.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to terminate Mr. Gaylord effective January 1, 1995, with the same stipulations and provisions under his contract, and with direction being given to the Human Resources.

The Chairman called for a second to the motion. The motion died for the lack of a second.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board accepted the County Attorney's letter indicating his willingness for a majority of the Board to consider his continued employment, and that the Board terminate that employment as of midnight, November 30, 1994.

The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voting "no".

Commr. Swartz discussed the process taken by the Board earlier when terminating the employment contract with the existing County Attorney, and an alternative being made available to the Board when it took action to terminate the County Attorney. He stated that he had done the same at this time. Commr. Swartz stated that, over a year ago, he would have accepted an interim arrangement with the two then existing assistant county attorneys, with the idea that, if necessary, the Board would farm out any legal work that was needed, because of time constraints, or otherwise could not be accomplished. Because of the nature of some of the issues the Board was currently involved in, and with the outstanding issues with DCA and others, he did not feel that this would be the solution that he would like to suggest at this time. However, he offered to the Board, for its consideration, an interim county attorney, and stressed "interim" county attorney, one that this Board, by majority, would agree to enter into an agreement with. He stated that the most important thing would be the next step of moving forward through a selection process whereby this entire Board would have the opportunity, through whatever structure, to bring back and go through the entire process to look for a full time and permanent County Attorney. In bringing forth a recommendation, Commr. Swartz stated that it was with this in mind that it was absolutely designed and intended as an "interim" position, until such time this Board could move through the process to have a County Attorney on board and on the job in Lake County. Commr. Swartz brought forward for the Board's consideration, and absolutely on an "interim" basis, a proposal from Mr. Rolon W. Reed.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board needed someone that would be a County Attorney, whether he would be an interim, or full time, that did not have his own agenda, and she did not feel that Rolon Reed could represent the County in an objective and unbiased manner, particularly in view of the lawsuits he has had against the County, and his involvement in them. She stated that she would be diametrically opposed to having Rolon Reed as the Interim County Attorney.

Commr. Swartz clarified that Mr. Reed has no involvement now in any pending Administrative Hearings with Lake County. He stated that the proposal Mr. Reed has made indicates that he would promptly disengage from all private practice and would serve no other clients while working for Lake County. He would work at a rate of $8,000 per month, which would be less than what the County had paid on an interim basis previously, or what the previous County Attorney was paid. He does ask to consider whether or not he would come in as a employee, and in no case the cost being more than $8,000 per month. Commr. Swartz stated that he was proposing the name for at least discussion and perhaps adoption.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was concerned with Mr. Reed's lack of Florida experience, and the lack of general governmental experience. He stated that he would not be comfortable with Mr. Reed, but if the majority of the Board wants him, then he would work with him.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Ms. Hope Lamb appeared before the Board and stated that she would like it on the record, due to the late hour, 6 p.m., that so many times the public hears about what the County Commissioners do late in the evening when everyone has gone home. She explained that she did not feel there was one single voter who felt that, if the Commission was changed, they would come in at 6 p.m. in the evening, fire the attorney, and immediately want to hire another attorney without public comment. Ms. Lamb stated that, if the Board was going to hire an attorney, she felt that there should be public hearings to let the citizens make their comments.

Commr. Good stated that, for the record, at 6 p.m. at night, people were off of work; they could be at this meeting; this meeting was advertised; the termination of the County Attorney was made as an offer by he, himself; the attorney that was being discussed to be hired had been clearly labeled as an "interim" county attorney; and the Board had some very important issues that needed to be resolved in the next few months while the Board was looking for a permanent County Attorney.

Mr. Gaylord raised a point of order and stated that it has been this Commission's policy that, if they are to place something on the agenda that was not already on the agenda, the Board may need to have a 4/5ths vote or waive it.

Commr. Swartz stated that this was the exact same process the Board went by, once the County Commission made a decision with regard to the County Manager, or County Attorney, and it would be absolutely appropriate for the Board to consider how they move forward, in terms of hiring or making an interim position.

Commr. Hanson stated that it may be true that the Board would be hiring an interim county attorney, but she did not think it would be appropriate without the 4/5ths vote to move forward on who that person would be.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, when the last attorney was fired, the issue of hiring Mr. Gaylord was brought to the Board at the next meeting.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the issue of Mr. Gaylord was dealt with at the same meeting as the firing of the previous attorney, with the finalization of a contract being brought back to the Board. He stated that, clearly when the Board takes an action on the agenda, the Board was entitled to vote on issues that point directly to it. He stated that, even in Mr. Gaylord's memorandum, it discussed dealing with the issue of subsequently getting a County Attorney. This was not something that was not on the agenda.

Commr. Hanson stated that the issue of Rolon Reed was new on the agenda and should have a 4/5ths vote.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he did not know what the Board would gain by going a week without a County Attorney.

Commr. Hanson explained that there are two other attorneys, and one could be moved up to the vacant position.

Commr. Swartz stated that what Commr. Hanson was proposing would take an action of the Board, which would be the same action that he was proposing, to place an interim in place. He stated that he did not feel a 4/5ths vote was needed, and it would not be conducive with going ahead and moving forward.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board approved to contract with Rolon W. Reed as an Interim County Attorney, as outlined in his letter dated November 25, 1994, at a rate not to exceed $8,000 per month, and to allow him to discuss with the Personnel Department whether or not he becomes an employee, or does so on a contractual situation, but in no event would the overall costs exceed $8,000 per month. This appointment is as an Interim County Attorney and will only be so until such time as the Board can go through an interview process to evaluate and to bring on a permanent and full time attorney.

The motion was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voting "no".

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager presented the request for a Special Board Meeting to met with the members of the PACE Group.

Mr. Alvin Jackson, Coordinator, Economic Development, was present to answer questions of the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to set a Special Board Meeting on December 16, 1994, at 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., to meet with the members of the PACE Group.

HUMAN RESOURCES/COUNTY MANAGER

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, directed the Board's attention to Page 3 of Memorandum No. 94-11-189, from Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, which indicated four areas that she was requesting direction from the Board. He stated that, in terms of Area of Recruitment, he would recommend, because Florida is so unique that you do recruit within the State of Florida and place a requirement of some Statewide or local government experience, that if a person has this and is serving other than in the State of Florida right now, with contacts and networks being what they are, they are going to be aware of the position. The County would save itself some money by going Statewide, as well as getting somebody that would be familiar with Florida State law. He then addressed the second issue, Advisory Committee, and stated that this would be the determination of the Board, and he would not have a recommendation on that. He addressed Starting Salary Range and stated that he recommended that the Board advertise depending upon qualifications and experience, but that it indicate what his current salary level is after the period of time that he has currently served with the Board. He then addressed item four, Interview Expenses and stated that it has been his experience that where a person is brought in for an interview, the inviting body is responsible for all reasonable costs.

Commr. Swartz stated that, while the Board was making these decisions, the same process ought to be put in place for the County Attorney, and that the same type of considerations ought to go forward. In both instances, there needs to be certain experience in the State of Florida, either in County government, or City government and/or legal experience in the State of Florida. He suggested that, while this would be indicated in the ad, and the County may advertise through the normal processes Statewide, the County advertise in the ICMA journal or publication, which would be a national publication, as opposed to just a state.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to concentrate the advertising, in the area of recruitment, Statewide, with the exception of advertising in the appropriate ICMA newsletter and journals, as the County Manager had indicated, but that the County indicate that both the County Manager and County Attorney have Florida local governmental experience.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to approve that, once there are only a few individuals under consideration, and they have been brought back for their second interview, a reception be held where the public and employees and others would have the opportunity to meet them, and to go through the Advisory Committee process.

Mr. Wahl requested, for clarification, whether it was the Board's intent to have staff prepare a recommendation for the Board consistent with the two advisory committees used in the past, one for the County Manager, and one for the County Attorney.

Commr. Swartz directed staff to bring back both advisory committees for the Board to consider either of those, or something different.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to indicate "depending on qualifications" and list the current salary with the years that Mr. Wahl was here with the County.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to reimburse interview expenses.

Commr. Swartz addressed the schedule of Estimated Time Frames and stated that it may have to be modified to meet the ICMA journal and newsletter. He stated that he would like to see staff provide a little more time in the time line.

Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, informed the Board that it could meet the ICMA deadline, but would be very tight on meeting the others.

Mr. Wahl stated that he did not feel that the Board, by adopting the proposed schedule, would be locking itself into a time period.

Commr. Swartz stated that, after staff gets into the advertising and working on the deadlines, it could come back to the Board with a time frame that would allow more time.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Recruitment and Selection Process - County Manager as submitted with Memorandum No. 94-11-189.

COUNTY EMPLOYEES/HEALTH CARE/INSURANCE

Discussion occurred regarding the newly proposed Health Care Plan, and the reactions being received from the employees.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, presented an update, in terms of the deadlines for the paperwork to be submitted, and the options being offered.

Commr. Swartz requested that staff present the Board, at the next meeting, with an update on the Health Care Plan.

RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Proclamation 1994-239 declaring December as "Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month".

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\11-29-94\12-19-94