APRIL 27, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, April 27, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Staff members present were: Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney; Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.




County Attorney

Mr. David Donaldson, Associate Director, David M. Griffith & Associates, addressed the Board and presented a brief background on the efforts made by David M. Griffith & Associates for the recruitment of a County Attorney. Mr. Donaldson noted that there were three candidates, with the fourth candidate already taking another job. In talking with people around the State, Mr. Donaldson stated that there were several themes that were clear. The requirement for ten years of legal experience and five years in the State of Florida may have been a barrier for many people who wanted to apply for the job. Mr. Donaldson stated that, after consulting with different professionals, it was his understanding that this requirement was somewhat unusual. Most other counties have a five or seven year requirement, and by lowering the requirement, it may enlarge the pool of candidates. He further stated that many of the people that were assistants were somewhat reluctant to apply and saw this as having less job stability in working directly for elected officials as opposed to the positions that they currently held. The recruitment was restricted to the State of Florida, unlike the County Manager position. Mr. Donaldson reviewed the information he had obtained on the following three applicants: Carl Edward Kern, III; Gordon B. Linn; and David W. Wagner. He recommended that the Board talk with the three individuals with no commitment that the Board had to hire one of them, and if the Board did not feel they were qualified, David M. Griffith & Associates would recruit other applicants and discuss the issue regarding the years of experience requirement.

Commr. Cadwell felt that the Board should stay with the years of experience, as originally established, and interview the three candidates, and in the event that the Board was not satisfied, the Board could consider other options.

Discussion occurred regarding only two of the three applicants meeting the ten year requirement, and if the third applicant was interviewed, how this possibly could be perceived as lowering the standards. The Board also discussed the idea of considering the experience an individual had in other fields other than just in the field of being an attorney. It was noted that, if the Board decided to change the requirements, the position could be re-advertised, in order to reach other individuals that had chosen not to apply, because of the ten year requirement.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would be more inclined to reduce the number of years for Florida experience while maintaining more legal experience. If the Board agreed to interview Mr. Kern, the policy would need to be changed, and if the policy was to be changed, the Board should have Mr. Donaldson go back to the individuals who had indicated an interest and who had met the requirements.

Discussion occurred regarding the Ordinance having to be amended, if the legal experience requirement was lowered, and if the Board wanted to include other language that would indicate other local government relevant experience. It was noted that this would require public hearings.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would prefer that the Board interviewed the two candidates that qualified, and after the Board completed the interviewing process, and if it was determined that neither applicant was what the Board wanted, the Board could then decide what changes it wanted to make to the Ordinance.

Mr. Donaldson explained that there may have been two or three other applicants that would have been interested in applying for the position, but who chose not to apply, because of the ten year requirement.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would not suggest going out and re-advertising, but the Board could ask Mr. Donaldson to go back and try to find some additional candidates that he thought were otherwise well qualified and that he would feel comfortable recommending for consideration, who might not meet those requirements that the Board had right now, and to include them in the interview process, and if the Board decided that there was one applicant that met the needs of the Board, then the Board might decide to modify the Ordinance. This would keep the Board from delaying further action for another 30-60 days.

Mr. Donaldson stressed that the Board did not need to feel pressured to hire one of the two applicants, because it did not want to take the next step. He explained that other counties do not have ordinances that have a specific number of years, and he could do a survey that would indicate what the other counties were actually requiring, so that the Board did not have the perception that it was lowering its standards.

Commr. Good stated that experience outside of the Florida Bar in government may give an individual a more balanced approach toward being a County Attorney.

Commr. Swartz stated that the only way he would feel comfortable going with someone with less than ten years of legal experience would be if he had significant other experience in local government.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, was present to answer questions regarding the modification of the Ordinance.

After further discussion regarding Mr. Donaldson bringing back other possible candidates, the Board directed Mr. Donaldson to bring back references for the three applicants he presented to the Board, which would indicate the Board's interest in interviewing them.

Commr. Cadwell reiterated that he felt the Board should interview the two applicants presented by Mr. Donaldson and move forward with the individuals who fell within the criteria that was advertised.

Mr. Donaldson proposed that, in the next couple of weeks, he would make three to four reference calls on the three individuals he presented to the Board today and communicate to them the Board's interest in interviewing them, and he would try and find some additional candidates by looking at places where advertising would be done quickly, and then go back to his original list and contact those individuals who did not have the exact number of years. He could then call a sampling of six or seven other counties regarding their requirements and come back to the Board in two or three weeks.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, for the Board to approve to instruct David M. Griffith & Associates to go back through the approach that Mr. Donaldson outlined, to briefly either re-advertise or re-contact candidates that may not have the ten years of legal experience, but who have other relevant local government experience, and to bring those names back to the Board as soon as possible.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz explained this would not bind the Board to changing the Ordinance, or reduce the number of years of legal experience, but would give the Board a pool of individuals

to consider and give Mr. Donaldson the opportunity to look at what other counties were requiring.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1- vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".

County Manager

Mr. Donaldson reviewed the information he had obtained on each of the following recommended finalists for the County Manager position: Thomas W. Frame; Lee Gilmour; Edward J. Grace; C. William Hargett, Jr.; Eugene T. Lauer; Robert G. Mauney; Charles Clark Saddler, III; V. Peter Schneider; Gary A. Smoak; and William Hunter Walker.


At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.


Commr. Gerber announced that today was "Take Your Daughter to Work Day", and Commr. Good had his daughter, Heather, with him. She also noted that Ms. Debbie Tinis, Solid Waste Management, had her daughter, Kara, with her.

County Manager (Continued)

Mr. Donaldson suggested that each of the Commissioners write down between five and seven individuals that they were interested in giving further consideration to interviewing from the list that he had provided. He informed the Board that he had been handed an application from Mr. James C. Schuster, which he had reviewed, but felt, in terms of what the Board was looking for, his background appeared fairly focused in the financial area, but he wanted the Board to be aware of his interest.

While Mr. Donaldson compiled the numbers, Commr. Gerber discussed the interviewing and the reception that would be held for the applicants and their families, and the dates that would be accommodating to all members. It was noted that June 5, 1995 and 6, 1995 were being considered.

Mr. Donaldson reviewed the list of candidates for County Manager that he had received from each of the Commissioners and proceeded through the elimination process.

It was noted that Mr. Schuster was present in the audience.

The following list of candidates was established by the Board:

Thomas W. Frame C. William Hargett, Jr.

Gary A. Smoak Lee Gilmour

Eugene T. Lauer Charles Clark Saddler, III

William Hunter Walker

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for Mr. David Donaldson to make aware to the seven candidates, as listed above, interest by the Board of County Commissioners to interview them, and to have additional references provided, and to try and plan for interviewing Monday, June 5, 1995.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion and amended it to include having Mr. Donaldson talk to Mr. Jim Schuster and go through the normal process, and if he thought Mr. Schuster should be included in the group to be interviewed, to inform the Board of this, or if he did not, to inform the Board of this, too.

Commr. Swartz agreed to amend his motion.

Under discussion, the Board discussed the possibility of scheduling the interviews for an earlier date, but determined that the first week in June would be the best to accommodate all individuals involved with the process.

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

Discussion continued regarding the interview process for the County Attorney and County Manager positions. It was noted that the interviews would be held on June 5, 1995, and June 6, 1995, with the regular Board meeting on June 6, 1995 being rescheduled to June 7, 1995. A reception would be held Monday night, June 5, 1995. After further discussion, the Board decided that individual interviews would be held, as well as a group interview.


Mr. David Crowe, Acting Director, Department of Solid Waste Management Services, addressed the Board to discuss setting the first class notice rate. Ms. Claire Bartlett, Solid Waste Disposal Operations Manager, presented the Board with a Summary of Revenues and Expenditures, which reflected corrected figures. It was noted that the correction, in the amount of $1,900,000, was shown on Page 13 of the budget book, which was the total amount being requested.

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, explained that the figures now reflected a more realistic level, but that the revenue numbers would not be completed until staff had the Property Appraiser's official tax roll much later this year.

Discussion occurred regarding line item 995, which had been created for the out-year reserves for future construction closures of facilities (required by Statutes), in the amount of $898,481.

Ms. Whittle explained that Mr. Crowe would be reviewing the Summary sheet with the Board, but to understand that this was not an actual budget review today, but was for the purpose of setting the assessment.

Discussion occurred regarding the Revenues, with Mr. Crowe explaining that the Department was estimating $11,651,300 as the amount of revenue to be generated from tipping fees, which would be approximately $900,000 above last year's figure. It was noted that this was based on the $84.50 tipping fee figure.

The following Solid Waste Management staff were present to discuss the process taken to calculate the figures before the Board today: Ms. Claire Bartlett, Ms. Cindy Heffler, Mr. Debbie Tinis, and Ms. Barbara Gibbings.

Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Director of Budget, addressed the Board and explained that the actual revenue from the prior year was approximately $9.7 million. She reviewed the breakdown in numbers, which indicated 42,115 units currently on the books, not counting the estimated 3,000 that were not on the books. There were 23,259

units paying $75.50 and 18,856 units paying $86. She explained that, if you conservatively estimated the 3,000 units at $75.50, it would project another $225,000, which had not been added into the figures.

The staff indicated that it felt comfortable that the assessment figure of $3,381,450 was a realistic number for next year, and that some additional cash balance would be expected from higher assessment fees through the year. It was noted that, as of April 20, 1995, the amount of $2,146,922.35 had been collected in assessment fees.

Mr. Crowe continued to discuss the Summary of Revenues and to explain the figures being reported. He then brought to the attention of the Board some of the expenditures that he felt needed an explanation.

Discussion occurred regarding transfer stations, with the Board requesting that records be supplied to the Board for review of the number of permits being issued at $10.50, and the numbers reflecting the continued increase in tonnages. Ms. Bartlett noted that none of the management salary was being allocated to the transfer station budget at this point in time. She stated that, in 1994, there was an estimated 15,000 homes at $9.93 a home, which constituted the estimated revenues for the transfer stations (drop-off facilities). With the $10.50 fee, she felt all costs for the drop-off centers were being covered, but she did not have the evaluation to make this determination and was currently working on the figures.

Mr. Crowe noted that there were approximately 18,000 homes that would be charged the $10.50 fee, which would be $189,000, but that an evaluation of the costs to cover the drop-off centers could not be performed until staff had the transportation figures.

Commr. Swartz stated that a slightly higher self-haul rate, perhaps one dollar more, may have to be advertised, in order to make sure that the transportation costs were being covered. He

stated that there was also a cost of the special assessment that would be contributable to solid waste and questioned whether the cost was being allocated through the cost per ton.

Mr. Crowe explained that the cost being alluded to by Commr. Swartz was being taken out of the solid waste assessment that was collected.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see staff advertise for a one dollar increase for the Fiscal Year 95/96 ($87 and $11.50), and the not to exceed rate of 5% for four years, as the inflationary increase.

Ms. Whittle recommended that the Board advertise at the 5% rate, which would allow for unexpected changes in regulations, with the Board always having the ability to reduce it. She noted that it was extremely expensive to go through the re-noticing process.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would prefer to stay at the 3% rate, and that the County would be eliminating the potential of having to mail out notices for three other years and would be saving that money, even if it had to come back one year and advertise.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to advertise at the 5% rate for four years, with the $1.00 increase on self-haul and advertised as a not to exceed, and no increase on the on-service residents for this year, and advertising with the best estimate on collection rates for hauler-billed and tax-bill.

At this time, Commr. Swartz commended staff for its outstanding work on bringing forward better numbers for the Board to review, and for all of their hard work in keeping the County at a number that was the same as last year, in terms of the disposal cost, and with a one dollar increase in the self-hauler cost.

After further discussion, the Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr Hanson voted "no".

Mr. Dan Eastwood, Tavares, addressed the Board to discuss the issue. He stated that, in the original assumption of how the costs were going to be allocated, it appeared that the issue would be going to a public hearing. He further stated that his comments were aimed at some of the thoughts that may be presented at the hearing. Mr. Eastwood stated that, in the observation that had been made, there was an allocation of costs, in order to come to the fee, which was predicated on whether it would be coming from commercial or residential, and then there was a further allocation, as to breakout of residential units, as opposed to incorporated and unincorporated. If that was a level breakout, Mr. Eastwood cautioned that the cities were not contributing, as confirmed by the tonnage numbers, because the arithmetic assumption in the calculations were predicated on the fact that you roughly get the same ton from a resident in a city as opposed to a resident in the unincorporated area, which he did not feel was true, because Clermont, Tavares and others, in their aggressive recycling, were not going to contribute a pro-rata share of tons as a resident. Mr. Eastwood questioned whether there was a possibility that the Board could incorporate coming back to the 3% or less, or to holding the line.

Commr. Swartz explained that the action taken today was to advertise out into the future, with the hope that next year the County can do what it did this year, which would be to hold the line, and this would depend on how much more efficient the County could be.

Mr. Eastwood stated that another question would be the source of revenue that the County was going to get from the special waste at $200 a ton, and whether the County was going to continue to enjoy roughly $2 million in revenues, and whether the County was going to be permitted to keep bringing in those special wastes, or whether the citizenry would want to keep bringing it in. He stated that, in reference to the discussion on cost allocation as an

enterprise fund, he would encourage the Board to come to one common denominator, be it a ton or resident, but that the ton would be the most common denominator, with all costs being generated to those tons, no matter how they are generated. He explained that the County would still have to deal with the allocation of costs to Ogden Martin, and the costs Ogden Martin was going to have to pay to dispose of ash that it generated from outside.

Mr. Crowe clarified that the special waste was not the supplemental waste that Ogden Martin brought in, but what the County charged at the landfill for special waste such as asbestos.


LPA 95-5-4-5 - Suburban to Urban Expansion

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board to discuss Employment Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map and Agricultural Uses in Industrial designated areas on the Future Land Use Map.

Mr. Knight referred to the map presented to the Board, which indicated the Existing Future Land Use and the Proposed Future Land Use. He stated that the map identified the east Umatilla subdivision area, which would be most of Section 8. He noted that there were a couple of out parcels that have not been incorporated into this section. Mr. Knight stated that there had been problems with the lots of record and trying to go forward with re-development within the east Umatilla subdivision. He stated that staff had problems with the suburban land use category, and the timing of residential development. He noted that it was one dwelling unit per five acres in this area.

Commr. Swartz stated that suburban should be taken off the map, and rather than get back into the system that resulted in these maps, the Board should instruct staff to identify those areas in Lake County where the existing development patterns, planned infrastructure, and any other conditions from a planning perspective, made it reasonable to provide urban or urban expansion

densities, and to go through a thoughtful process and identify those areas. The County could then submit them to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and proceed to show them why those areas should have those higher densities.

Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned that this would bring in those areas that were on dirt roads, which would make them no different than Mount Plymouth. Commr. Hanson stated that this should be put on the list to consider, because in her opinion, the Board had done a great injustice to the people in Mount Plymouth, with the requirements that had been placed on them for aggregation.

Discussion occurred regarding taking the suburban off the map and making it rural.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not have an argument with the suggestions being made by Commr Swartz, and that he thought the area being discussed would easily fall under urban expansion when the areas were reviewed.

Discussion occurred regarding the problem with suburban and the five acre lots on dirt roads.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that there were two different issues causing people to have aggregate. The Comprehensive Plan was one reason, and the second was the policy issued by this Board regarding roads. He stated that an individual could be in urban, but if he was on a dirt road, he would have to aggregate to five acres, because of policy. The problem in this particular case involved this area being suburban. Even if the whole neighborhood came to the Board today and said it wanted to do a road special assessment, the County would say that they could do it, but they would still have to aggregate to five acres, because it was suburban. It was noted that this was the difference between the area in Mount Plymouth.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in order to move forward in this cycle, the Board needed to take the suburban and the transitional off of the map, and to turn into urban expansion the number eight

township, because Commr. Cadwell had made this request, and he supported it. He further stated that staff should be directed, in the next cycle, to start coming back with areas to put back on the map into some designation, and that the last thing he would like to see the Board do at this time would be to create some density classification that would be allowable at a higher number than seven.

Commr. Hanson discussed Mount Plymouth and explained that it was an urban node, and it had not been given a classification. She stated that it should have a classification of urban or urban expansion. It was noted that an urban node allows for 5.5 units per acre, but would have to have transfer of development rights (TDRs).

Mr. Hoban explained that the policy established by the Board requires that, if you are on a dirt road, you would have to aggregate to five acres; if you put a paved road in, you would get a much higher density.

Commr. Swartz explained that Commr. Cadwell specifically brought this area to the Board and asked for it to be considered, amd no other specific areas were brought forward. He suggested that the Board request staff to establish the areas and bring them back to the Board.

Mr. Paul Bergmann, Director of Planning, explained that the direction staff had received earlier involved withdrawing the suburban and transition, which puts everything back to rural, and looking at areas where there were old platted subdivisions that should be recognized.

Commr. Swartz explained that, where there was infrastructure and development patterns and/or other circumstances, it should be made clear that those really should be considered for urban/urban expansion. He wanted to see these come from the Planning Department using their best skills.

Commr. Good stated that he would like to see the area being discussed today become a part of the list to be established by staff, with all of it being addressed by the Board at one time.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to approve LPA 95-5-4-5, Suburban to Urban Expansion, and to direct staff to go back and look at the suburban and transitional, and to come back to the Board.

Commr. Swartz clarified that the transitional and suburban would be taken to rural in the plan amendment, and staff would then come back and look at areas that would be moved into either urban or urban expansion.

Commr. Swartz seconded Commr. Cadwell's motion.

Under discussion, Mr. Knight clarified that staff would be moving forward to a public hearing to change Section 8 to urban expansion, and to remove transition and suburban from the map and designate it rural, and to bring back proposals for properties based on this action.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no", with it being noted that she was not in favor of having the Umatilla area included in the motion.

Employment Centers Designated on the Future Land Use Map

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, explained that the County had transmitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial uses and employment centers. Once the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) objected it, the County entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement, which allowed for what the County had today. He stated that the concerns regarding the employment center designation could be approached in a different aspect. Mr. Knight noted the Memorandum dated March 2, 1995, which addressed the major concerns, and well as the Memorandum dated March 31, 1995 regarding Agricultural Uses in Industrial Designated Areas. Mr. Knight clarified that an industrial designated area was being referred to as an employment center.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated for the record that he had discussed the two memorandums with Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, and Mr. Reed was in agreement with the two memorandums.

Commr. Swartz explained that it was not the intent of the Board to designate the entire area on the map as an employment center, because there was one employment center, and one future employment center that were shown on the map. All other industrially zoned classifications were considered to have vested zoning, and they used the same cross-hatch (indicated on the map), and it simply became a parenthesis underneath employment center to show industrially zoned parcels as the date of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Commr. Swartz clarified that they were not employment centers, and that the Comprehensive Plan stated one employment center, and that there was only one future employment center.

Mr. Knight explained that originally the employment center concept started out in terms of the data inventory analysis, which refers to commercial and residential properties, and originally the concept began being the Lake County Employment Center; however, through the numerous hearings and negotiations with DCA and the Stipulated Settlement Agreements, it did not allow for what the original data inventory analysis was discussing.

Commr. Swartz stated that there was one real distinction between the employment center and existing industrially zoned property. He stated that you can expand an employment center without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. If you take all industrial zoning and say those are also employment centers, then you can expand all of those without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He explained that the County had to agree to many stipulations to get the one employment center on the map, but the intent was that all of the other parcels would be industrial zoning. Commr. Swartz

stated that he was concerned with the possibility of expanding these without a Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Commr. Hanson agreed with Commr. Swartz and stated that, as the process went through, the industrial and employment were merged without making a real differentiation for employment center, but it was important that the Board make this differentiation. She stated that the County needed to keep the industrial zoned property industrial, and the employment center, but she was not sure that the employment center needed to be limited to industrial. She stated that it needed to be commercial, affordable housing, or whatever you might have in an employment center.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the text of the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed, you would not be able to find where it would lead you to believe that all of the industrial zoning, as the date of the adoption, was employment center. He suggested that the map show all other properties as industrial properties, to be vested.

Commr. Swartz stated that legend would be changed to include language that would make it clear that the industrial land, at the date of the adoption, was vested for industrial uses. He suggested that employment center be redefined, so that it is a center at which the County anticipates there will be a core of commercial and industrial activity, and around that core, in a planned fashion, there will also be other support facilities and residential, and other mixed uses, that will be compatible with that employment.

Mr. Hoban clarified that industrial zoning would not be vested, but would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Swartz stated that the industrial zoning would be a land use that was shown on the Comprehensive Plan and would be allowable under the Plan.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board approved to create a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that designates the industrially zoned property, and

then creates new language for more mixed use on the employment center.

High Density/Intensity Urban Land Use Category

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, noted that he had presented the Board members with general language that had been prepared for the High Density/Intensity Urban Land Use Category.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board should start out by allowing higher density in the employment center where mixed use/residential was being shown.

Mr. Knight clarified that the information provided to the Board would only be establishing the category.

Commr. Swartz suggested setting up a classification and asking staff to look at more detailed criteria for the category. He clarified that he was suggesting that the Board not indicate where the land use category would be placed, and that this could come back in the next Comprehensive Plan process.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved for staff to create the designation for High Density/Intensity Urban Land Use Category, and to come back and work on the specifics.

Septic Tanks

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, informed the Board that staff would be moving forward with the septic tank criteria, as a County initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as previously discussed at a workshop. He noted that there would be three private sector Comprehensive Plan Amendments that would be brought forth at the public hearing on May 23, 1995.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.