The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 25, 1995, 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: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance, Audit & Budget Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Good gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of May 2, 1995, with a correction being made to a proper name and a misspelled word.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved the Minutes of May 2, 1995, Regular Meeting, as corrected.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried, the Board approved the Minutes of June 5, 1995, County Manager Interviews, as presented.
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, the Board approved the Minutes of June 27, 1995, Regular Meeting, as presented.
The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.
Commr. Gerber requested that the Resolution regarding Breastfeeding Week be added to the agenda for approval.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to add to the agenda the Resolution pertaining to Breastfeeding Week.
Commr. Gerber stated that, under her reports, she would like to add the discussion of the Agriculture Museum.
Fire & Emergency Services
Commr. Hanson requested that the Board add, under her reports, the discussion of having a workshop on fire regulations.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that she would schedule the fire workshop.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, noted that the budget workshops would be continued today, and that they have been tentatively scheduled for July 26, 1995 and July 27, 1995 as deemed necessary.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES/PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIMES CERTAIN
VESTED RIGHTS ORDINANCE - WORKSHOP
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Settlement Agreement for DOAH Case No. 94-5317GM, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) vs. Lake County and Lake Butler Groves, Inc., et al and explained that DCA had agreed to the following language, which was the only change to the Agreement, since the last time the Board reviewed the Agreement:
"The County may issue vested rights certificates which adhere to common law vesting or Section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes, during the time period from the effective date of this Settlement Agreement to the effective date of the Land Development Regulation consistent with Exhibit A."
Mr. Hoban stated that the following language had been added to Page I-2, Chapter I of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), for clarification:
"1.02.03 Which Rules Apply to a Project Vested Pursuant to Sections 1.02.01 or 1.02.02
Mr. Hoban stated that, on Page I-1, Section 1.02.01 Statutory Vested Rights, the language was merely a restatement of Statutory Vesting.
Discussion occurred regarding the options, that had been presented by staff, for common law vesting, with Mr. Hoban noting that, if the Board chose Option 1, the County shall only recognize common law vesting that was determined by a judge. This would have an increase cost to the applicant, because the applicant was currently being charged $250 per a vested rights determination.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing a number of intervenors in the current DCA controversy, as well as a number of other clients who have vested rights determinations pending, who may or may not be intervenors, addressed the Board and stated that the language, in Section 1.02.01 Statutory Vested Rights, was not a restatement of Chapter 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes. She stated that, if the Board was going to base it on the Statute, it should be an exact statement of the law. She noted that there were no dates indicated in the Statute.
Ms. Bonifay addressed the issue of judicial review and explained the procedures used in the Orange County system, and the Seminole County system, for a vested rights determination, where a party would only take the decision to Circuit Court after taking it through the Planning Department, a Hearing Officer, and the Board of County Commissioners. She questioned what the justiciable issue would be when there was not an issue, because she did not see how an individual could request a judge to make an interpretation of a local ordinance, when there had been no application of the rule to the client. She explained that a simple case would cost an individual between $5,000 and $10,000 just to go into Circuit Court.
Commr. Swartz stated that he wanted to see a copy of the statutory vested language, and if there was common law vested language, he would like to have that to review as well. He stated that the dates needed to be there, because they related specifically to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Bonifay stated that, if the Board wanted to establish a policy with the proposed language and make it the County's version of statutory vesting, she had no problem, but from a constructive standpoint, it was not the definition of statutory vesting, as found in the Statute, and the Board was not quoting the Statute. Her objection involved the language "Pursuant to Section 163.3167(8), Florida Statutes", because this was already in the Comprehensive Plan, and she felt that the dates needed to be in the language of the Land Development Regulation (LDR).
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, stated that he had filed, as an intervenor, on behalf of several of his clients. Mr. Richey stated that he was concerned about Option 1, which stated that a person would have to sue. He stated that, if a lender was loaning money to anyone right now, the lender would require a vested rights certificate, either a common law vesting certificate, or a statutory vesting certificate, as part of the loan process. He could not understand the County requiring a person, under a very obvious situation, to go to court. He stated that, under common law vesting, staff needed to review the language pertaining to development expenses and refine it to some degree.
Mr. Richey informed the Board that Mr. Jim Archey, Executive Vice President, Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, was going to be present to explain the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce's position on releasing the working document pertaining to the Impact Fee Study, which was prepared by Mr. Owen Beitsche, Real Estate Research Consultants.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board wanted to address the issue of the Impact Fee Study, and an article that had been in the newspaper pertaining to the issue.
Mr. Richey presented an explanation of the communication he had with the County Planning staff, the County Attorney's Office, and Mr. Archey regarding the release of the working document pertaining to the Impact Fee Study, and the advise he had given to Mr. Archey, in terms of what he should do with the documentation.
Discussion occurred regarding the contract that had been signed by the County, which stated that the County would be periodically updated on the Impact Fee Study.
Mr. Mark Knight addressed the Board on the issue of the Impact Fee Study and stated that he had not received any working papers, and he would be forwarding a letter to Mr. Beitsche requesting information pursuant to the contract, which was past due.
Commr. Swartz stated that all of the parties to the agreement should be able to see the working papers, or anything that had been provided by the consultant. If there were working papers that were sent to the Chamber, they should have been provided to all parties, which included the Board of County Commissioners, who had agreed to contract, as well as the League of Cities, but instead, it had been partially disseminated to one of the parties of the agreement, which was the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Richey stated that the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, based on the suggestions of the Board today, would distribute the document to everyone contributing to the study. He stated that the document would be delivered to County staff tomorrow.
Mr. Hoban referred to Page I-1 of the LDR language and noted that the Board had selected Option 2 for the language to be in the Settlement Agreement. He stated that his office would like to re-evaluate the language in Paragraph 1. authorizing development of the property, in order to make it clear that it was referring to the act of government, as it was referred to in Florida case law.
Ms. Bonifay suggested that the County stick to the test as it comes directly out of case law. She stated that there were approximately 20 cases that lay out the test for equitable estoppel, or common law vesting. She stated that the law of Florida was replete, and this was common law vesting based on the common law as affected through court decision. Ms. Bonifay referred to Page I-2, B. and explained that "continuing in good faith" had nothing to do with common law vesting, and it was not a element of the test, but was an element of the test of statutory vesting. She stated that it could be placed under 1.02.02 and be proper. She further stated that common law vesting had no duration; once vested, you were vested. She stated that there may be problems when you try to say there was a common law decision, but with limitations placed on it. Ms. Bonifay addressed 1.02.03, Which Rules Apply, and stated that she did not understand picking just a MSSW Permit, because it would not apply to certain site plans and smaller projects. She was also surprised that the Notice, on Page I-3, was back in the language, because these were not zonings, or variances, and you could not take the law of zonings and variances and special exceptions and try to apply them to vested rights. She stated that there was an entire body of case law that dealt with vested rights, and it did not require notice. She felt that this was just another way to cost the applicant money, to cost the local government money, and to slow down the process. Ms. Bonifay stated that, for those persons who have received a vested rights determinations currently in the LDRs, there was a provision that had not been repealed, and it stated that, once vested, you remain vested, and that those certificates were good. She stated that her clients were suffering damages, because they have relied on us to come back and retroactively try to put dates and limitations on those, which she felt was patently illegal, and that there was Florida case law to that effect, which she would forward to Mr. Hoban.
Mr. Hoban explained that notice procedure was not being required by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that he had placed three legally defensible options before the Board, for the Board to decide whether it wanted to include the language, from a good policy standpoint. He noted that there was an appeal process in place, which was Section 14.16.05.
Commr. Swartz stated, if the Board chose not to have the notice language, and if government was to keep the determination of vested rights to the point where no one would have a reasonable expectation of knowing that the vested rights determination was issued, other than coming here everyday and going through files, no one would know, so it would be eliminating the ability for anyone to appeal this type of decision, which would be a decision that would come from the County Manager, or a designee.
Commr. Hanson felt the opposite of what was being expressed by Commr. Swartz, and stated that most of the public would know that the zoning was in place and approval had been given by the County Commission.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the three options that had been presented for the Board's consideration were due to conversations that Mr. Hoban had with each of the Commissioners. He stated that he would like to meet with Mr. Hoban about some ideas that might be a combination of Options 2 and 3.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that, at the end of the workshop hearing today, he would be asking the Board to set a date for the Settlement Agreement adoption. The Settlement Agreement adoption currently would only be Chapter I; DCA would agree to either Option 1, 2, or 3, or a variation of it. He would ask the County Manager for the earliest possible date, to set this for a public hearing, to adopt the Settlement Agreement.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see whether or not the Board wanted to modify Option 2 of Common Law Vesting, in light of the court cases that have been best described as to what constitutes it. He did not want to see the Board go to a public hearing, until it worked out the options. He felt that another workshop could be scheduled with a document that would be fairly close to what the Board wanted, and then the Board would go to a public hearing date.
Mr. Hoban explained that the Board would only be adopting the Settlement Agreement at the public hearing, not the LDRs.
Commr. Swartz explained that the Board was not sitting here unable to issue vested rights determinations. The County had an Ordinance upon which the Board could not rely. The determinations could be issued based on a full and complete review of their statutory or common law vested status.
Commr. Hanson stated for the record that she was not interested in changing the current practice of the Board.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was in favor of setting a date to put this on a public hearing schedule to approve the Settlement Agreement.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:20 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:35 a.m.
VESTED RIGHTS ORDINANCE - WORKSHOP (Continued)
Mr. Hoban explained that staff was going to come back with additional thoughts, from private conversations with the Commissioners, regarding the options presented to the Board in the Settlement Agreement in Chapter I. He stated that Section 1.02.03 regarding the Wekiva contained the Wekiva vesting language, which was taken almost word for word from the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that DCA signed off on it and had no problem with it.
Commr. Hanson stated that all zoning was vested in the Wekiva, and she was afraid that, if the Board left in commercial, it would imply that other zonings and land uses were not vested. After some discussion with staff, she requested that staff check the language regarding the Wekiva.
Mr. Hoban informed the Board that Section 1.02.04, Lot Not Created Pursuant to Subdivision Regulations, had been left in the language after conversations with DCA. After some discussion with the Board, it was noted that it was not necessary to have the date included in the language.
Mr. Hoban discussed the section regarding Lot of Record and stated that all of the lot splits that were done before March 2, 1993, that had variances for lot size that might have been under five acres, could now be in rural or in the Green Swamp.
Discussion occurred regarding the Lot of Record Ordinance, with Mr. Hoban informing the Board that there had been a change in position by DCA. He stated that it was the County's interpretation, and it is and it continues to be that, under the statutory vesting, if you have a 1923 plat, and there was a paved road built by DOT, or built by the County, long, long ago, lots on paved roads were vested under the theory of statutory vesting. He stated that DCA was currently objecting to this interpretation of statutory vesting in the Green Swamp. He stated that DCA was saying that, in the Green Swamp, whether the lot was on a paved road, a County maintained clay road, or a dirt road, all lots had to be aggregated up to the Future Land Use Map in the Green Swamp. Mr. Hoban stated that Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, had made a determination of the number of lots involved, and Ms. Rebecca Jetton, DCA, had agreed to provide technical assistance to staff. He stated that lots in platted subdivisions frequently were under common ownership and must aggregate; however, rarely was there aggregation in metes and bounds properties, because one property owner did not own a string of properties by metes and bounds. The technical assistance would assist in making a determination of how many of the approximate 43 lots have contiguous lots. The County's current process indicated that, if it was on a publicly maintained road, either a clay road or a paved road, it would be considered vested, and you would simply have to aggregate up to the figure of 12,500 square feet. At this time, Mr. Hoban explained how the figure of 12,500 square feet was determined. Mr. Hoban stated that what the Board had before it was exactly what the Board adopted in December, 1993, with sole exception of recognizing statutory vesting on publicly maintained roads. Mr. Hoban explained that lot splits today were new lots being created under the County's paved road requirement; lot of records were all of the old lot splits plus all of the old plats, and these were the rules governing their development.
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board and presented an explanation of the new Comprehensive Plan amendment that was not reflected in the Lot of Record Ordinance. It was noted that, once the road was paved, it would come under the new requirement, which was in the Comprehensive Plan, but not reflected in the Ordinance.
After further discussion of the lot of record issue, it was noted that, for clarification, some language would be added that stated "pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan policy", as explained by staff.
Mr. Hoban explained that the County was not accepting clay roads into the system anymore, and the only road accepted would be a paved road. On the 180 miles or so of County maintained clay roads, they were still required to only aggregate to 12,500 square feet, not to the five acres.
Ms. Jetton explained that DCA would not allow aggregation to only 12,500 square feet in the rural, or rural conservation core, regardless.
Mr. Hoban stated that, through the negotiations, it was determined that DCA was a lot more comfortable on paved than on clay roads, with their final position being that they want everything.
After further discussion, it was noted that staff was going to continue to look at the Agreement, along with DCA's technical advice, and at the next workshop, it would have options that may include alternatives to what was before the Board today.
Commr. Hanson questioned Page III-37, Section 4. regarding the Wekiva River Protection Area and questioned why this language was needed.
Mr. Hoban explained that, if you were not on a publicly maintained road, you have to aggregate to five acres, or to the Future Land Use Map, whichever was greater. When you come into the Wekiva Protection area, you would simply have to aggregate to five acres.
After further discussion of Section 4, it was noted that this language could be deleted. Commr. Swartz suggested adding, in C.1. "and/zoning district". It was noted that staff would look at this language again.
Discussion occurred regarding Page II-2, Abutting Lots - Section 3.02.01, with Mr. Hoban presenting an explanation of the language, as well as the language on Page III-77 and III-38 pertaining to mobile homes.
Mr. Hoban addressed Page 1, Section 14.20.00, Expiration of Development Orders, and stated that he was requesting the Board to make a number of choices. On the last page of the backup material provided to the Board, Mr. Bergmann, Senior Director, and the Planning Department, had made a survey of other counties and how they were devising expiration dates, and had included staff recommended expiration dates. The County Attorney's Office was suggesting that the County have expiration dates, but that they be fair and reasonable expiration dates, since these would be applied to both new development orders and old development orders. It was brought to Mr. Hoban's attention that he had left out a Final PD Master Plan, which was under the current vesting Ordinance. He stated that every application that had been submitted for a PD Master Plan had been approved, and on the Vested Right Certificate that had been issued by Lake County for every one of the PUDs requiring a PD Master Plan, it stated that it was good forever and ever. Mr. Hoban explained that Section 14.20.03, Vested Rights Certificates, states that, for the seventy or so vested rights determinations that Lake County had issued, the expiration dates contained in those vested rights certificates shall control over this section; however, with the sole exception of the Final PD Master Plan. He also stated that, in Section 14.20.02, Old Development Orders, there was a change requested by DCA. He noted that DCA currently had a project under appeal in the Green Swamp. The section that the Board was about to adopt would have expiration dates for preliminary plats. The language that had been added stated that one project currently in litigation would not be subject to any expiration dates until the litigation was over, and then the expiration would be applied. Mr. Hoban stated that this was a very important section, and every other County that he had contacted had expiration dates; every State agency and Federal government agency had expiration dates. He stressed that it was important that the County chose fair and reasonable ones.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that, if the Board was inclined to establish development order "drop dead" times, his only concern was that, as the Board looked at the 1-5 years that Mr. Hoban had in the various options, it be tied to the amount of expense to get where you were in the process. Mr. Richey addressed the issue of vested rights certificates and stated that people who have a vested rights certificate, lenders and others have relied on those, and to allow those dates to change, he questioned the ability, if he had a letter in his file on a Master PUD that says it lasts forever, and he has relied on it from a lender, borrower, or purchaser, for the Board to retroactively go back and take away the longevity of it, would cause the County problems from a legal standpoint.
Discussion occurred regarding the backup material, which indicated the Drop Dead Date for Finish of Project for Lee County, Martin County, Orange County, Sarasota County, and Seminole County.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to allow two years for the Preliminary Plat and four years for the Construction Plans.
Discussion occurred regarding the time frames presented to the Board, with Mr. Bergmann stating that a shorter time frame would get a quicker turn around for a serious project, as opposed to more of a speculative one. Mr. Bergmann stated that a one and three would be acceptable.
Commr. Cadwell seconded Commr. Hanson's motion for discussion.
Under discussion, the Board discussed the different scenarios that were possible for the Preliminary Plat and Construction Plans.
Mr. Richey stated that, to get a preliminary plat, and to move from the plat to the construction drawings, it may very well take more than 12 months.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board consider two years and two years and stated that he was not comfortable with two and four.
Mr. Hoban explained that the two and two proposal would apply to construction plans that have previously been approved and have not been acted upon as of right now.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he had seconded the motion, so that the Board could move forward. He stated that the two and two would be an area to give everyone enough time, so he would vote against the motion.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. The motion failed by a 4-1 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good, Gerber and Cadwell voted "no".
Commr. Swartz stated that, before he made a motion, to allow two years on the Preliminary Plat and two years on the Construction Plans, he wanted to know if the Board wanted to provide, in the two and the two, the opportunity for a one year extension. He questioned whether the extension should apply for projects that already have construction plans. He explained that there was no rationale for giving a further extension, but there was rationale for giving the extension in the two year construction plans.
Mr. Hoban explained that, if you have construction plan approval and you have two years, you have every single permit in hand, and the extension that Commr. Swartz was talking about only pertained to the delay that someone would have with building the actual structure.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would prefer to have a shorter time frame to get started, and once you get started, you would have to show that you were continuing in good faith.
Mr. Hoban explained that there were projects that have construction plans from the early 70s, and they have built a phase or two, and this section would allow, at some time, for the construction plan to go away.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the language be revised to take into account the construction plans that were already approved and have two years. The ones that were in the process right now have a period of time to get their construction plans approved, after getting their preliminary plat approved. At that point, they have to show that they have begun construction, that they have commenced construction, and they were continuing in good faith. He discussed language that would recognize the phasing and suggested that staff come back with language addressing this issue.
Commr. Hanson stated that more definitions were needed and requested staff to get information from Marion County, as well as Volusia County.
Mr. Hoban stated that he needed a motion to set a public hearing to adopt the Settlement Agreement at the first available meeting that staff could meet the advertising requirements.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to set a public hearing at the earliest date to meet the necessary advertising deadlines that are consistent with the Board's calendar of meetings, and to proceed to the public hearing on the Settlement Agreement.
Commr. Swartz explained that the public hearing would be on the Settlement Agreement, not on the specific language being discussed right now, which would be subject to future public hearings.
Mr. Hoban stated that Chapter 1 and Chapter 14 would be attached to the Settlement Agreement. He stated that DCA simply did not have any objections to what the County did in Chapter 14.
Commr. Swartz stated that the only source of a public hearing made in his motion pertained to the approval of the Settlement Agreement. He stated that the Settlement Agreement did not have any backup of Chapter 1 or Chapter 14 at this point.
Mr. Hoban stated that the Settlement Agreement references Chapter 1 and Chapter 14 and gives 90 days to adopt an LDR in substantial compliance with the attached Chapter 1 and Chapter 14.
After some discussion, Mr. Hoban explained that the Board could have a workshop between now and the earliest available Settlement Hearing to resolve the minor differences with DCA over Chapter 1, and that DCA had no objections to Chapter 14.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would put that in the form of a motion, with Commr. Hanson seconding the motion.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was not comfortable with the motion he just made, because the Board had expressly said it wanted to talk about the notice option, and he wanted to see that language, and he did not want to go to a public hearing until he saw that language, if it had to be a backup and an attachment to the Agreement. He stated that there were some questions, which may be minor, to Section 1.02.02 on Common Law Vesting, Option 2, and there were questions about Chapter 14.
Commr. Hanson withdrew her second to Commr. Swartz's motion, and Commr. Swartz withdrew the motion.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to draft whatever changes and bring whatever new options and considerations back to the Board at a workshop session, prior to the advertising of the public hearing on the Settlement Agreement, and to expedite this authorization.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to forward the names of Jane L. Geraci, Thomas J. Kelley, and Gerald B. Galbreath to the Governor for consideration of appointment to the vacant position on the Green Swamp Land Authority.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, appeared before the Board to discuss the issue of mobile homes as commercial buildings. It was noted that this issue involved the Pine Lakes Baptist Church and a request for a temporary office. Mr. Stubbs noted that he had presented the Board backup material with the history of the request. Mr. Stubbs stated that an administrative policy had been drafted by staff, based on the past history of cases, where staff would approve, in six month increments, mobile homes as offices on a case by case basis. He stated that approximately 6-8 were approved over an extensive period of time, and the rest of them were modular units being used as temporary structures and approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), until people had the money available to build a permanent structure. He further stated that there were not many requests for manufactured homes to be used as offices. Mr. Stubbs stated that it was his understanding that the Pastor of the Pine Lakes Baptist Church wanted to use the mobile home for his secretary and himself for a five year period, which staff could not recommend. He explained that the State Board of Building Codes and Florida Statutes would allow them to use it as a temporary office, or the Board could allow them to use it, but these types of requests have been discouraged in the past, because it was really never the intent of the Statute to allow mobile homes to be used as temporary offices. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff would like the applicant to inform staff when it could reasonably expect something to be built, so that time limits could be set. He stated that staff would absolutely say no to a request for five years for anything that was temporary.
Pastor Bentley Hogan, First Baptist Church, Pine Lakes, addressed the Board and stated that, even if he had a two year window of opportunity, with the possibility of an extension per construction in good faith, he would certainly work with those conditions.
Commr. Hanson stated that even the two years was a problem. She noted that there was still the allowance for a temporary mobile home for one year for the construction of a home, with a mobile home bond. She stated that she would agree with a bond on this particular case, too.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned about approving something that did not meet the Code or commercial use, and that the County would become a party to something that could create harm for the public and the people, and the County ending up sharing in that responsibility.
Pastor Hogan stated that, in this case, the mobile home would only be occupied temporarily, which would be less than the occupancy of a household.
Commr. Swartz stated that this case was residential, as opposed to commercial use.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the applicant had given consideration to selling the mobile home on the property and purchasing an approved mobile type of office.
Pastor Hogan stated that the double wide mobile home was approximately 15 years old, and the church was trying to use the gifts of its members to move toward construction and to minimize its expenditures, in order to accommodate the growth that the church had experienced.
Commr. Swartz stated that, even for the Board to approach the request from what the County currently does, which would be a six month, or a six month extension, the County would still be waiving the requirement that it would not be for a commercial use, which would only allow one year.
Pastor Hogan explained that the church was currently trying to reduce its indebtedness before it refinanced.
Commr. Hanson made a motion to allow for a one year temporary office building on the site, with a bond that staff felt would be appropriate, and with the possibility of a one year extension, as the County had in residential subdivisions.
The Chairman called for a second to the motion. There being no second made by the other members of the Board, Commr. Gerber passed the gavel to Commr. Good and seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Pastor Hogan explained that the mobile home was located on an additional purchased site, which was church property, but it was not part of the original land that was purchased. He noted that, for the most part, there would be three people in the mobile home at one time.
Commr. Good questioned whether language, to that effect, could be incorporated in the permit, which would limit the number of people occupying the mobile home as an office at one time.
Commr. Hanson amended her motion to include no more than three staff people being in the mobile home at one time.
Mr. Jack Bragg addressed the Board and explained that the intent was never to allow the use of a mobile home for an office for temporary purposes, because the Florida Statute does not define "temporary". He noted that the Building Code defines "temporary", but only relating to bleachers, or tents, or something of this nature, with the limit to 90 days. He stated that this request did not meet the commercial standards, as noted in the backup from DCA, and it would be difficult for them to meet the handicap standards.
Discussion occurred regarding situations that might constitute other requests to be made to the Board for the use of a mobile home on a temporary basis.
Commr. Gerber seconded the amendment that Commr. Hanson had made to her original motion.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained that it would be difficult for staff to monitor and enforce the conditions placed in the permit, which would allow only three staff members in the mobile home at one time.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board had to look at the overall picture, and he would not be able to vote for the motion, because it would open up the County to other problems, which could involve safety. He stated that there were alternatives in this particular case, and he did not want to set a precedent.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would agree with Commr. Cadwell that there were other alternatives, which included commercial structures being available that would meet the Code. Even though it would not have met the Pastor's needs, Commr. Swartz stated that he would have supported the six months, with the possible six month extension, which would have been reasonable, under the concept of a temporary structure, when something was getting ready to go in. He stated that staff's recommendation was the correct one, and he would not be able to vote for the motion.
Commr. Good called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Cadwell and Swartz vote "no".
Commissioner Gerber - Chairman and District #1
Commr. Gerber stated that, through her discussions with Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, she would bring forward her recommendation that, if all of the Board members wished for Ms. Whittle to consider employment and contract, and to consider going into negotiations with Lake County as the County Manager, Ms. Whittle would consider doing this. Otherwise, the Board would be discussing other ways to find a County Manager.
Commr. Hanson made a motion for the Board to approve to employ Ms. Sue Whittle, for the County Manager's position, and for the Chairman to continue her negotiations with her for an employment contract.
Commr. Swartz explained his interpretation of the motion, which was to say that this Board, if it approved it unanimously, would offer the job to Ms. Whittle, and would negotiate a contract to bring back to the Board for consideration.
Discussion occurred regarding Commr. Hanson negotiating the contract instead of Commr. Gerber, due to concerns that Commr. Hanson had during the last negotiations.
Commr. Good seconded the motion made by Commr. Hanson, as it was clarified by Commr. Swartz.
Commr. Swartz stated that he was going to vote for the motion, and he felt that the suggestion made by the Chairman for Commr. Hanson to negotiate the contract was a good one, but if she dismissed the idea, it was fine, because the contract could be debated when it came before the Board.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, when the contract comes before the Board, he would like to discuss what has happened over the time that Ms. Whittle has been serving in the capacity of Interim County Manager.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would agree with what Commr. Cadwell stated in general, but one point that had been made before, and needed to be made again today, and it would probably be made again when the contract came back to the Board, in this instance, this Board first advertised for County Managers, had a Committee that reviewed those applications, found a paucity of candidates, and went a step further and asked a headhunter to look further for additional candidates, and he came back with names and this Board initially chose six, interviewed five, later interviewed the sixth candidate who had been unable to attend the initial meetings, and had gone through that process to a point where none of those candidates certainly were able to develop a consensus, or a majority among this Board. That process came to an end last week when the Board made the motion to advise those candidates, and now the Board's choice was which direction to go, and the Board was suggesting that this was the appropriate direction to go at this time.
Commr. Cadwell clarified that, while the Board was going through the process, Ms. Whittle had made it clear that she was not a candidate for the position.
Commr. Gerber called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was noted that the contract would come back to the Board on Thursday, July 27, 1995, if it was in proper order.
Discussion occurred regarding the County Attorney's position.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he thought, when the Board abandoned the process for the County Manager, the Board was also abandoning the process for the County Attorney. He stated that the basic things that the Board wanted in a County Attorney was the skill to bring some stability to that office; an experienced governmental attorney; an experienced governmental attorney with a Florida background; and a person with high professional and personal integrity. There were additional features including perhaps having some knowledge of Lake County, land use, and city and county relations, and a person that the Board members felt was worth what the County was paying him. Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board also needed to look at what the citizens wanted, and he talked to a lot of people about it. He stated that, in talking with people in general, they wanted the five Commissioners they elected to show some leadership, and to hire someone that would provide legal advise to them, and someone to manage the County. In that frame, he consulted with a local attorney who was interested in the job, and he had his resume to present to the Board. He stated that the individual was Mr. Sanford A. Minkoff, who was a local attorney in Tavares, and who would bring all of those things that he mentioned to the Board.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to offer the job of County Attorney to Mr. Sanford A. Minkoff.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell explained that Mr. Minkoff would need some time to put his affairs in order before coming into the position.
Commr. Hanson stated that her major concern all along had been that the County Manager, or the County Attorney, not align with any one faction on the Board, and she felt that Mr. Minkoff would handle that very objectively and prudently.
Commr. Swartz stated that he welcomed the recommendation being made by Commr. Cadwell and agreed that it was time for the Board to find two people who could bring stability, honesty and integrity and hard work to the County, and to have the ability to work with this Board. He stated that the Board may have taken a very circuitous route to get where it was today, but the Board had the opportunity to achieve that in both of these positions. He noted that the Board had received a letter from Judge Jerry Lockett commending Ms. Whittle.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved to have Commr. Cadwell attempt to negotiate the contract with Mr. Sanford A. Minkoff for the position of County Attorney.
It was noted that the contract would be brought back to the Board on Thursday, July 27, 1995, with the County Manager's contract.
REPORTS - COUNTY MANAGER
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/GRANTS
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Tavares pertaining to grant application for utility and infrastructure improvements west of Dead River.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m.
REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COURTS-JUDGES
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County Settlement Agreement. Mr. Duncan explained that the Plaintiff, Roper Trusts, was seeking an amendment, with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), to Lake County's Comprehensive Plan, which would allow them to put their development where it was originally planned. The Comprehensive Plan amendment would be initiated by the Plaintiff, and the County would waive the filing fees, which would be $950. If the amendment was sent to DCA and it was denied, either party may challenge the denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the amendment was approved, the Plaintiff may seek a rezoning before the Board of County Commissioners and go through the same process as anyone else would to seek a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). If the PUD was approved by the Board, the Plaintiff would require interlocal agreements with Orange County to provide the services that the County was concerned about not being provided to this particular area. The Plaintiff would be responsible for negotiating those contracts, and Lake County would participate in negotiations. Mr. Duncan stated that, if the PUD was approved, the cause of action, which was the suit filed against the County, would go away. If they do not get their Plan amendment to DCA, if DCA does not approve it, or failed to get their appeal, or if the Board failed to give them a PUD, if the amendment comes back from DCA, then the cause of action would be reinstituted. This would be putting the County on hold, until such time it could be determined what happened in that period of time. Mr. Duncan stated that he had negotiated some stipulations to the Agreement with Mr. John Ferguson, who was representing Roper Trusts, and they have gone through a mediation process, where the Stipulation Agreement was approved. He discussed Paragraph 10 and stated that, in the suit, there were two separate causes of action against the County, one, there was no valid reason to deny the PUD back in 1990, and therefore, the PUD should have been approved; two, they failed to receive due process and equal protection under the law. If the court finds that they did not receive due process and equal protection, the County could possibly be held liable for some damages. He stated that Paragraph 10 agreed to waive that cause of action for violation of due process rights in this particular claim, so if they do get the PUD that they were seeking, and the suit was reinstituted, then all they would have to claim against the County was that it did not have a valid reason for the denial of the PUD. They would not have any further claims for due process violations, or equal rights protection violations, which could hurt the County monetarily, if the judge agreed with the Plaintiff. The Paragraph 10 limits their cause of action solely to the fact that the judge must determine if the County had a valid reason for denying the PUD, and if it was determined that the County did not have a valid reason, the County would be instructed to either start the process over again, which was what the Stipulation Agreement did already, or the County would be informed that the PUD was proper and should be placed in this particular part of the County. He stated that this would be an opportunity to give the Plaintiff a fair shot without them having to sue the County and go through the expensive litigation process, which would be expensive for both sides. He further stated that the Agreement was fair to both sides, and there was no obligation in the Agreement for the County to do anything. All the County had to do was give them the opportunity to come before the Board and seek the rezoning, if they got the amendment, and there was no obligation for the Board to approve it. They would reinstitute the suit in Circuit Court and come in under the existing rules. It avoided the most potential damage to the County, which would be the equal protection and due process claims. He cited Florida Supreme Court case Snyder v. Brevard County, which created a new standard for review of County Commission rezoning decisions.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not believe there was any substance to the Plaintiff's position on either of the issues. He believed that due process was provided and that the basis for the denial of the PUD was certainly reasonable, and the evidence presented on the record was sufficient for the Board to make the finding that it did. He addressed Paragraph 11 and the language that stated "Nothing contained in this settlement agreement shall be construed by either party or any third party to be a contract for pre-approval of the plan amendment or the PUD." He then referred to Paragraph 6. which talked about the provision of utility services, and stated that he could not understand why this would be in the Agreement, because this would be getting into things that would be a part of a PUD Ordinance that was being considered. He stated that this would seem that the Board would be pre-approving a portion of what might be in the PUD.
Mr. Duncan stated that he would agree with Commr. Swartz, and that the County would be best served to have Mr. Ferguson get back with his client and fellow counsel, to see if this would be something that they would be willing to pull out of the agreement.
Mr. John Ferguson, Attorney representing Roper Trusts, addressed the Board to discuss Paragraph 6. He stated that the Ropers were willing to give up the due process claims, and they wanted to outline a way to get through the process fairly. They realized that there may not be regional facilities available, and it would be in their best interest to get the regional facilities up as quickly as possible, and as part of them agreeing to waive the due process claims, they wanted to make sure that this sole issue was in there, and this was the only issue that was in there that could possibly be a problem later on down the line.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in any review of a PUD, even assuming a Plan amendment could get adopted, one of the issues would be the provision of utilities. He stated that there were some very strong policies in the Comprehensive Plan that dealt with issues of central facilities, regional facilities, and he had a problem with pre-judging the issue. He stated that Paragraph 6 contradicts what was being said in Paragraph 11, because it goes to an issue that would assume that this would be a part of a PUD, and then the PUD was not being heard in its normal way, which was to look at all of the issues and factors and determine what should be a part of the PUD, and what was being done with the Agreement would be to predispose a condition that would be a part of that PUD.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the same thing was being done in Paragraph 5 with the density range. He stated that he found some comfort with Paragraph 6 indicating that the Plaintiff may provide interim utility services, and the Board would be deciding what they would be.
Commr. Swartz questioned whether Paragraph 9 would have to be complied with in the way that it was written, in order for Paragraph 10 to be applicable or not, because he read Paragraph 9 to say that it was conditional that the Plan Amendment was transmitted to DCA by the County.
After further discussion of the paragraphs, it was determined that clarification needed to be made to the language.
Mr. Duncan proposed the following language in Paragraph 10: "As soon as the agreement is signed, Plaintiff agrees to waive any cause of action for violation of its due process rights."
Commr. Swartz stated that this issue of due process hinges on the Board entering into this agreement, not that any of the conditions within this agreement have to be met. He stated that it needed to be made very clear that, entering into this agreement between the County and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to waive the cause of action for its due process. It was noted that this was the intent. Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Plaintiff was allowed to come back and apply for a Plan amendment, and the County waived the fees, this agreement, in order for the Board to have the entire cause dismissed without prejudice, would require that the Plan amendment be transmitted to DCA by the County, ultimately approved by the County, if approved by DCA, then everything goes away, but the County had to agree to transmit it, in order to relieve the County from that portion of the action other than the due process. If the County failed to transmit, the Plaintiff would have the ability to come back with the cause of the lawsuit, with the exception of the due process rights.
Mr. Duncan proposed that Paragraph 9 would be as follows: "As soon as the agreement is signed, Plaintiff agrees to waive any cause of action for violation", and Paragraph 10 would be as follows: "Provided the plan amendment is transmitted and ultimately approved, the remaining cause of action shall be dismissed with prejudice."
Mr. Ferguson stated that, under the first original draft of the agreement, the due process violations had not been waived. This was discussed at the mediation hearing, and as part of the agreement to waive the due process, the cause would be dismissed without prejudice.
Commr. Swartz stated again that he did not believe that the due process rights were violated, and that the hearing and the evidence that was presented was absolutely substantial and compelling. The only reason for him to be considering entering into the agreement would be to decide whether or not it was going to cost the County less to let the Plaintiff come back into the amendment process and take their chances, or to continue with the lawsuit themselves.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, after looking at this proposal, as opposed to what had been presented to the Board earlier, he would urge the Board to pass the agreement, because it was a fair way to resolve the issues.
Commr. Swartz stated that Paragraph 10 would clearly indicate that it would be no more than the necessity of entering into this stipulated settlement agreement that the due process rights would have been waived. Commr. Swartz discussed Paragraph 6 and stated that he felt this language could be modified.
Mr. Duncan proposed language as follows for Paragraph 6: "The Plaintiff may provide interim utility services as negotiated with the BCC during the PUD process through on site facilities, if the regional facilities are not yet in place." This would essentially say that the terms and conditions of the interim utility services shall be negotiated.
Commr. Swartz stated that the terms and conditions of the interim utility services, if they existed, would be determined by the conditions of the PUD, which would be determined through the public hearing process and inconsistent with Snyder, and the District Court of Appeals Case, Jennings v. Dade County. He stated that the Board was considering entering into something that could be questionably argued to not be consistent with Snyder and Jennings.
Mr. Ferguson explained that Paragraph 6 did not state exactly what would be required, if a PUD was approved.
Commr. Hanson stated that she disagreed with Commr. Swartz, because there were some real problems with rules that came into place after the Board took action on the issue.
Discussion occurred regarding the intent of Paragraph 6, with Mr. Duncan suggesting that the Plaintiff may negotiate the provision of interim utility services during the PUD process through on site central facilities.
The Board tabled the E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County agreement until 4:30, or earlier, when negotiated language could be brought back to the Board for consideration.
Commissioner Hanson - District #4
Fire and Emergency Services
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that there had been some issues brought to her attention regarding fire requirements, sprinkler systems, and hydrants, and she had discussed this with the Interim County Manager, who has agreed that there should be a workshop scheduled for the discussion of these items.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board that some of the issues were brought forward at the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings. She stated that this issue could be placed on the agenda as a workshop.
Commr. Swartz requested that the County Manager and County Attorney review the conditions, so that there was some clear understanding as to the rationale of what the County was currently doing and whether or not anything needed to be changed.
Commissioner Gerber - Chairman and District #1
Commr. Gerber stated that she had wanted to get a determination of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) dollars being spent for property where the Agriculture Museum would be located.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that there would be no problem using the TDC dollars for the property, but he was not prepared to give the Board an answer regarding the use of infrastructure sales tax to buy property and then to give it away.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not think you could use the TDC funds to buy property and then give it away for the museum.
Mr. Hoban stated that a definite opinion by the County Attorney's Office was not available today, but he would consult with Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, and provide the Board with something in writing very soon.
Commr. Gerber discussed the appointment of individuals to Women's Hall of Fame Selection Committee.
Discussion occurred regarding the proposed membership, with it being noted that Commr. Hanson and Commr. Swartz had requested additional time to consult with individuals from their district.
It was noted that the issue was tabled until all names could be submitted for appointment.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Resolution 1995-158 proclaiming August 1-7, 1995 as "Lake County Breastfeeding Week".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 2:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the meeting would recess until the Finance, Audit & Budget staff could get situated for the Budget Workshop.
At 3 p.m., the Chairman explained that the Budget Workshop was a continuation of the workshop held on July 14, 1995.
Commr. Hanson stated that, until the Board knew how much it was going to allow each constitutional officer, it would not matter what the Board did internally. Once the Board made this determination, then the Board could come back and prioritize its needs. After some discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she was in favor of keeping the millage at the current rate. She stated that the County would be getting a determined amount of increased dollars from ad valorem, and each of the constitutional offices would share in that increase, as they did last year.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had not changed in his view that the Board should not have the goal as a tax increase. His goal was no tax increase, which meant to go to rollback, but within his goal, the Board would take whatever revenues that were available, and where the constitutional officers' budgets existed, these would be the new dollars that would be available.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board started out with the approach that the County Manager's recommended budget was the rollback budget. It was noted that the only place that the Board was outside of the rollback was with the constitutional officers. He stated that the Board needed to establish what direction it was going to take with the constitutional officers.
Commr. Swartz believed that there was no reason why the Board should not be able to achieve rollback and avoid a tax increase, but the only way it was going to do that would be in the budgets from the constitutional officers that exceeded that amount, which would be generated from the new revenue of new growth.
Discussion occurred regarding the Board having its budget at rollback, and in order to achieve the goal of rollback, the constitutional officers would have to place their budgets at rollback.
Commr. Hanson stated that, with the growth in the County, there would definitely be increase demands on all of the offices and administrative abilities, and on County services. She further stated that the County needed to continue to provide these things more efficiently, as it has been doing, because that was how growth paid for itself, which would be through the increase of property values.
Commr. Swartz stated that this would be the clearest example of where growth was not paying for itself, because if it were paying for itself, the Board would not have to increase taxes. He stated that the Board was sitting here right now with a budget that was .36% higher than last year's Board budget, and the Board was achieving this themselves. If the budget forced the Board to more than rollback, it would be because it did not bring the same discipline to the other areas of the budget, which the Board ultimately has control over, through the budgetary review process. Commr. Cadwell stated that the budget the Board had before it, which puts the Board at rollback, allowed for no new programs.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board may be able to do some of the enhanced items within the funding that was available and within the Board's portion of the budget.
Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, stated that the total dollars, at the rollback rate from all sources, would be $461,849. She stated that this would be more money than the current year's budget would produce.
Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Director of Budget, explained the process that she had gone through, in order to development the estimated figures provided to the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding the rollback figures that had been presented to the Board, in terms of total dollars that could be distributed for additional programs.
Ms. LaMarche reviewed the revised information presented to the Board, which included the summary of items that were listed for discussion; those items that the Board had made a definite decision; and the adjustments made in revenue.
Discussion occurred regarding the reduction that had been made to the Clerk's excess fees. Commr. Swartz requested that the Clerk's Chief Finance Director, Ms. Barbara Lehman, consult with the Clerk, in order to provide the Board with information that would explain the reduction and where the additional monies, in the amount of $70,000, were going to be spent.
Ms. LaMarche continued to discuss the changes made to the revenue side of the budget.
Commr. Swartz stated that he did not support, and he hoped that the rest of the Board did not support, the Board holding the line on its budget and allowing the other budgets to increase. He stated that the Board could find, within the budget constraints that the Board had imposed upon itself, through some of the cuts which it had found, and he suggested that there may be others, areas that could be funded at rollback. He stated that the question would then become whether or not the Board was going to bring the fiscal constraint to the balance of the budget, which it brought to its own budget. He further stated that it would ultimately come down to whether or not the Board was going to insist on rollback, and if this was what the Board was going to do, then it needed to provide the funds, that the revenue would generate, to the constitutional officers.
The Board reviewed each item that had been listed for the Board's reconsideration, as determined at the previous budget workshops.
Discussion occurred regarding the Sorrento Park Basketball resurfacing, and the maintenance assistance to the cities, with Commr. Cadwell suggesting that these might could be paid from the infrastructure grants.
Discussion occurred regarding the Voice/Data/Network Technician, in the amount of $35,000. Commr. Swartz suggested that this item be placed in a new category where, if offsetting savings could be found in Contractual Services, the item could be brought back to the list. If not, the item would be moved to the other side of the ledger.
Discussion occurred regarding the program cuts that were made in the Human Services Department, in order to fund other programs. Commr. Hanson requested that the $5,000, that was cut for Haven of Lake and Sumter Counties, be added back to the original figure. It was decided that, in order to add the $5,000 back into the budget, as requested, the Children's Home Society would be reduced from $40,000 to $35,000.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that staff from the Community Services Department attend future budget workshops, in order to provide the Board with additional input, as far as the rationale for the programs.
Discussion occurred regarding the request that had been made by the Facilities and Capital Improvements Department for an Energy Management Maintenance Specialist II. Ms. Whittle stated that, considering the demands on the budget this year, she felt the County could manage without this position for another year. It was noted that $27,562 would be moved to the other side of the ledger. It was noted that the letter received from Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, would be reviewed by Ms. Whittle.
Commr. Hanson requested that the funding, in the amount of $8,650, should still be considered for the North Florida Health Planning Council. It was noted that further justification for the funding would be requested from staff, with no change being made at this time.
Discussion occurred regarding the request made by the Supervisor of Elections for a reader/scanner for the 1996 elections. Commr. Swartz stated that the first reader/scanners were purchased on a lease agreement. He requested that staff give consideration to another lease agreement for this particular request, to determine a lower figure. He suggested that staff consult with Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, to determine how many she would require over the next five years, and to look at a lease arrangement that would reduce the figure.
Commr. Swartz stated that, until there was a plan developed regarding the purchase of computers and printers, and the performance of the entire system was evaluated, aside from whether or not parts of it stay within the budget, they all needed to be tagged with a "do not buy it" until a study has been done and the Board knows what it needs.
Ms. Whittle felt that there should be some minor level of funding within the budgets for these items, which had been included this year, and which may be needed at the time the study was completed.
Discussion occurred regarding the elimination of the mapping transfer in the Planning budget, in the amount of $35,000. Ms. Lamarche addressed this item and stated that she had consulted with Ms. Kathy McDonald, Program Coordinator, regarding this issue, who was very emphatic over the fact that this was not an expense to the County Transportation Trust (CTT) funds, but it was not related to roads. Ms. McDonald had indicated that the department was taking part in this issue, because the Board had made this request, and because they have the equipment to do it, but her department would not be using these maps.
Commr. Swartz requested that Ms. Whittle review the map item closely and determine what amount the Planning Department should pay, and stated that, at a minimum, it should be a shared expense.
Ms. LaMarche informed the Board that the scanner that had been requested by the Sheriff's Department had been removed from the list, because she understood that the Department had located one.
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COURTS-JUDGES
At 4:25 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would continue its discussion on the E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County issue.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and presented the following changes to language in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement:
Paragraph 6: If regional facilities are not yet in place when the PUD is considered, then Plaintiff's use of interim facilities to provide utility services will be given the same consideration as other PUD applicants that were allowed to use interim utility services until regional facilities become available.
Paragraph 9: Upon the execution of this stipulation agreement, Plaintiff shall waive any cause of action for violation of its due process rights arising form the County's refusal to grant Plaintiff's original application for rezoning filed in October, 1990.
Paragraph 10: Provided the Plan Amendment is transmitted to DCA by the County and ultimately approved by the County if approved by DCA, all remaining causes of action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, for the Board to approve the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, with the amended language presented by Mr. Duncan, for the E. O. Roper Trusts v. Lake County case.
Commr. Swartz extended his appreciation to the parties for taking the time to negotiate the language, as the Board had requested.
Commr. Good called for the question, with the motion being carried unanimously.
BUDGET WORKSHOP (Continued)
At 4:30, the Board continued its discussion of the updated information provided by the Finance staff.
Ms. Sarah Lamarche, Director of Budget, addressed the Board and stated that staff had basically answered all questions of the Board, as noted in the backup material. She also noted that the Board had been provided with information from Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, regarding all Board employee positions.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would like the County Manager to review the information provided by Mr. Grawet, and if there needed to be changes or recommendations, as part of the overall personnel policy, that they would be brought back to the Board.
Ms. LaMarche discussed the comparison that was made of the Sheriff's budgets versus the Correction's budgets over several years. She noted that charts had been included for review, and that she had consulted with Mr. Gary Borders, who had indicated that the revenue estimate for next year, in the amount of $495,000, was accurate.
Commr. Swartz noted that he had received a memorandum from Major Gary Borders, which addressed the average daily population at the jail by month, from 1992 until June, 1995. He stated that, all through 1994, the highest population figure was 490, but it got as low as 364; in 1995, up until June, the highest had been 485, and had been as low as 429. At no time has it ever gone over 500, and the request for the additional Correctional positions was planning on the additional Pod that would have taken the figure to approximately 560 prisoners. He stated that, by reviewing the numbers, the Board would not need to plan for another Pod, but possibly modify some of the existing Pods to make them more useful with smaller numbers. Secondly, if the number ever exceeded 500, the prisoners could be double-bunked for short periods of time. Commr. Swartz discussed the sub-station in south Lake County and stated that there were only two holding cells, which would not justify the use of eight Correctional Officers.
Ms. LaMarche discussed the revenue projections for State Revenue Sharing and explained that the State would not commit to a higher number, because it was based on two main sources, and the chart had indicated one source as being flat, and one as declining. She noted that the actuals have been approximately 5 to 10 percent higher than the projections.
Ms. LaMarche noted that the Board had a summary of all authorized positions for the past ten years to review, and the percentage of adopted millage over rollback for the past ten years.
The Board continued to review the updated information provided by the Finance staff.
Ms. LaMarche informed the Board that Mosquito Control had determined that it could find the money within its existing budget to fund the two part-time mosquito spray operators. It was noted that Ms. Whittle had no problem funding these two positions. It was also noted that the flashing sign had been deleted from the list of requests.
Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board could continue its budget workshop tomorrow, July 26, 1995, due to the notice given for the workshop.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that a 24 hour notice had to be given, pursuant to the Sunshine Law Manual. He stated that a verbal notice had been given at a prior meeting. Mr. Hoban advised the Board that this district leads the State in Sunshine Law violations. He noted that the Board would be legal, if it met on Thursday, July 27, 1995.
Discussion occurred regarding the Board continuing the workshop meetings from day to day, with Mr. Hoban explaining that the manual specifically addressed that very topic. The Board reviewed and discussed the law presented by Mr. Hoban.
It was noted that the budget workshop would continue on Thursday, July 27, 1995, with the agenda including discussion of the Carroll Fulmer agreement, the County Manager's contract, and the County Attorney's contract.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK