The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 9, 1996, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; James C. Watkins, Clerk; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, County Finance; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.
Mr. Watkins gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. Sue Whittle stated that she would like to add to the agenda, under County Manager's Business, an update and recap proposal for the Agricultural Museum, as well as the results of the County employees' Christmas Food Drive.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add to the agenda the discussion and update of the Agricultural Museum, and whatever pertinent motions that might arrive from it.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 7, 1995, Regular Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 8, 1995, Special Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 14, 1995, Regular Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of November 20, 1995, Special Meeting, as presented.
Commr. Gerber addressed the Minutes of November 7, 1995, Page 24, Lines 27-28, and suggested that the following sentence be stricken from the record: "At this time, he requested that the Board provide authorization to go to public hearing on the Wetlands Ordinance."
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to re-address the Minutes of November 7, 1995.
Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board ask the Clerk to go back and review the section of the Minutes referred to Commr. Gerber.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to table the Minutes of November 7, 1995, until such time the Clerk could review the issue brought forth by Commr. Gerber.
CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts' Consent Agenda, Items 1-10, and Items A and B on Addendum No. 1, for the following requests:
List of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Request to approve and authorize signatures on the Satisfaction of Judgment, as follows:
a. State of Florida vs. Steven Miles Blake, Case Number 95- 608-CFA-01-DB, in the amount of $250.00.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, Month Ending November 30, 1995, in the amount of $123,082.82. (Same period last year: $117,086.23)
Bonds - Contractor
Request to acknowledge receipt of the following Contractor Bonds:
4459-96 Horace Faulkner d/b/a Sun Country Aluminum
4742-96 Mark A. Clarkson d/b/a Classique Aluminum
4899-96 Ernest D. Busenlehner (Electrical)
5186-96 Rodney Pearce (Carpentry)
5397-96 Swain Construction, Inc. (General Contractor)
5421-96 Von McElroy (Building - 2 bonds)
5422-96 Joseph R. Polverino d/b/a Royal Pools of Centra
5424-96 Garney F. Bohannon (Roofing)
4859-95 Dependable Air Conditioning, Inc. (Hershkowitz)
1. Fund: Road Impact Fees
Department: Public Services
From: Road Impact Fees $2,454,900
To: Individual Benefit Districts $2,454,900
Transfer #: 96-044
Justification: Transfer to place budget of Road Impact Fees into the Individual Districts accounts to properly account for the funds received.
2. Fund: Tourist Development
From: Contingency Reserve $196.00
To: Agriculture Museum Expense $196.00
Transfer #: 96-056
Justification: Balance of donations for the Agriculture Museum presentation was returned to the Tourist Development Fund at the end of FY 94/95. These funds need to be brought forward to FY 95/96 to pay expenses incurred.
1. Fund: General Fund
Department: Planning & Development
Revenue: Community Development BLK Grant $262,365
Expense: Several $262,365
Amendment #: 96-053
Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated monies from CDBG because the unspent balances were not carried forward from the old year.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the State of Florida Financial Statements of the District Board of Trustees, Lake-Sumter Community College, for fiscal year ended June 30, 1995.
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 95-30, Annexing Certain Property Owned by Robert J. Clark, adopted at the November 27, 1995 City Commission meeting.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Tavares, In Re: Ordinance 95-45, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares by including within the city limits property generally described as approximately 15.6 acres located on the northeast corner of SR19 and North Eichelberger Road; rezoning the property from County CFD to City PFD for the future development of a school and church facility; subject to specific PFD condition; subject to the rules, regulations and obligations ordained by the City of Tavares Council; providing an effective date.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Commission Hearing and Prehearing Before the Florida Public Service Commission to all parties and all other interested persons; Docket No. 950984A,B-TP; In Re: Resolution of Petition(s) to establish nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions for resale involving local exchange companies and alternative local exchange companies pursuant to Section 364.161, Florida Statutes, Monday and Tuesday, January 8-9, 1996, 9 a.m., Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center, 4075 Esplanade Way, Tallahassee, Florida.
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Commission Hearing and Prehearing Before the Florida Public Service Commission to All Parties and All Other Interested Persons; Docket No. 950985-TP; In Re: Resolution of Petition(s) to establish nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions for interconnection involving local exchange companies and alternative local exchange companies pursuant to Section 364.161, Florida Statutes, Wednesday - Saturday, January 10-13, 1996, 9 a.m., Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center, 4075 Esplanade Way, Tallahassee, Florida.
Request to acknowledge receipt, from Greenlee, Kurras, Rice & Brown, P.A., Balance Sheets of Green Swamp Land Authority's, General and Acquisition Funds, as of November 30, 1995, and the related statement of Revenues and Appropriation Expenditures, General Fund, and the accompanying supplemental information contained in the schedules of Accounts Payable and Cash Receipts and Disbursements for the months indicated, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
1. Fund: County Sales Tax Revenue Fund
Department: Facilities & Capital Improvements
From: Special Reserve $21,050.00
To: Contractual Services $ 3,750.00
Machinery & Equipment $17,300.00
Transfer #: 96-073
Justification: Transfer needed to cover the cost of the title work for the South Lake Scenic Trail (Capital Improvements portion) and for the computer work station for the Judicial area, pending approval of purchase by the Board.
2. Fund: General Fund
Department: Community Services
From: Contingency $26,970.00
To: Several $26,970.00
Transfer #: 96-074
Justification: The BCC on December 12, 1995 approved providing $26,970 to be used as Cash Match in support of the Americorps Lake Grant program funded by the Florida Commission on Community Services.
1. Fund: General Fund
Department: Community Services
Revenue: Americorps Grant $179,400.00
Est. Match - other agencies $ 3,000.00
Expenditure.: Several $182,400.00
Transfer #: 96-071
Justification: Resolution to receive unanticipated revenue from the Florida Commission of Community Services in the form of the Americorps Grant.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Swartz requested that Agenda Item II. B. Public Services, Addendum No. 1, regarding Road Improvement Project No. 10-95 to Lake Dora Drive, Disston Avenue/Main Street Intersection, and Lakeshore Drive, be pulled for discussion, because there were individuals present in the audience that were interested in the item.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests, Tabs 3-27, and Addendum No. 1, County Manager's Consent
Agenda, with Agenda Item II. B. Public Services, Addendum No. 1 being pulled for discussion:
Accounts Allowed/Community Services
Approval of payment of monthly Medicaid Hospital bill in the amount of $30,030.33, and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the amount of $4,228.46 for the month of October.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Libraries/Grants
Approval and execution of Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Grant Agreement for Project #DLIS-95-I-01-A-02.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Courthouse
Approval and execution of Change Orders to Metrics' GMP contract associated with the renovation of the Historic Courthouse at a lump sum of $265,118.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Courthouse
Approval and execution of a Change Order to Atec Associates, Inc. for air quality monitoring and sample analysis in the Historic Courthouse in an amount not to exceed $16,425.
County Employees/Human Resources
Approval of Certificates for employees with one and three years of service.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Approval of revised form of the Agreement for a Temporary Non-Conforming Use Application.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Zoning
Acceptance and execution of Agreement between Board of County Commissioners and William and Deborah Alderton for a Temporary Non-Conforming Zoning Use to place a travel trailer on property located on Lake Ella Road while the conventional home is being built - Commission District 5.
Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Approval to release a Performance Bond in the amount of $261,543.00 and to accept a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance between Lake County and the Greater Construction Corporation and a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $26,154.30 for Greater Hills Phase 6, and approval of a Resolution accepting the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Greater Trail (#2-1456), Meadows West Trail (#2-1456A), a 1,050 foot extension of North Greater Hills Boulevard (#2-1458A), and a 650 extension of Indian Ridge Trail (#2-1458B).
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements
Approval to release a Letter of Credit for performance in the amount of $60,073.20, execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance between Lake County and Cross-Tie Limited Partnership, and to accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $6,007.30 for Cross-Tie Ranch Phase 2.
Roads-County & State/Resolutions
Approval and execution of Resolution accepting Swan Road (#4-4084) into the County Road Maintenance System.
Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Public Services
Approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Developer's Agreement between Lake County and Florida Power Corporation.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Road Projects
Approval and execution of Agreement between Lake County and Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. for consultant services for the East Lake County Transportation Analysis and the Eustis By-Pass Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Project No. 3-95, RPS-5-5-03, and approval to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $121,561.19 split equally between Road Impact Fee Fund Benefit Districts 1 and 2 - Commissioner Districts 3, 4, and 5, subject to County Attorney's review and approval.
Accounts Allowed/Road Projects
Approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to CR-44A Resurfacing Project No. 7-95 for additional guardrail with end anchors, miscellaneous asphalt, and sod in the amount of $12,262.44 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner District 4.
Approval to advertise a Request for Professional Services (RPS) for Consulting Engineering Services in compliance with the Lake County Purchasing Manual at an estimated cost of $100,000 from the Transportation Trust Fund, which will subsequently be reimbursed by Impact Fees, and approval of the Selection and Negotiating Committees for the Lake County Model Validation/Model Update and Year 2020 Plan.
Approval to advertise a Request for Professional Services (RPS) for Consulting Engineering Services, in compliance with the Lake County Purchasing Manual, at an estimated cost of $75,000 from the Transportation Trust Fund, which will subsequently be reimbursed by Impact Fees, and approval of the Selection and Negotiating Committees for the Lake County Transit Development Plan.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Grants/Road Projects
Approval to advertise for bids for a Community Development Block Grant Project No. 4-96 to pave Dawes Street, Elsey Street, Getford Court, Johnson Street, Hollywood Avenue, and Virginia Avenue at an estimated cost of $283,510.27 - Commissioner District 4.
Accounts Allowed/Bids/Grants/Road Projects
Approval to advertise for bids for a Community Development Block Grant Project No. 17-95 to pave Carroll Avenue, Hilldale Avenue, and Sybil Avenue at an estimated cost of $107,625.00 - Commissioner District 4.
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Acceptance of the following deeds:
Jett Riley and Sandra Riley
Lake Seneca #4-5983
Charles E. Broadway and Brenna H. Broadway
Lake Seneca #4-5983
Freddie Roger Merritt and Ketherine J. Merritt
Lake Seneca #4-5983
Robert K. Hogan and Sarah L. Hogan
Triple E Rd. #2-2153
Ulys E. Hopper and Jill D. Hopper
Lakeshore Dr. #2-1040
Robert E. Allison, Trustee
Lakeshore Dr. #2-1040
Bobbie J. Abney
Tuscanooga Rd. #2-2005
Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement
James R. Windham and Karen M. Windham
Alco Rd. #4-9588
Aileen C. Hobby
Orange Circle, Carlton Village
Deeds/Roads-County & State
Approval of the following recommendations for the release of Murphy Act State Road Reservations:
Deed No.: 1381
Applicant: Efren Barrientos and Carmen Rodriquez
Location: City of eustis, lots in Block 9, Bishop's Sub.
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from the centerlines of Grove Street and Lakeview Avenue, per letter from Michael G. Stearman, City Manager, City of Eustis
Deed No.: 1929
Applicant: Robert E. Slenker, II and Clara W. Slenker
Location: Lots in Block M, Map of Astatula, Sec. 33-20-26
Recommend: Release all reservations (There are no existing or proposed County-maintained roads in this location, and platted roads have been vacated.)
Deed No.: 2521
Applicant: Kellie Fields and Alex Driver
Location: Lots in Block "A", Lakeview Park Sub., Lake Kathryn area
Recommend: Reserve 33 feet from the centerline of Pennsylvania St. (#4-8991) and reserve 33 feet from the centerline of Luella Ave.
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services
FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES $36,000.00
Authorization to seek bids for 100 each new, Shinwa, Model #SRA58VT Monitor Pagers. It is also requested that Fire & Emergency Services is given authorization to standardize on Shinwa Pagers. In FY 94/95 fifty five Shinwa Pagers were purchased via a competitive quote process. Standardization of Pagers would be beneficial to the County because it would be more cost effective in replacement parts and tone reeds, plus Fire & Emergency Services already has the programming software for Shinwa Pagers. Bids will be obtained per guidelines specified in Lake County Purchasing Policy LCC-18. Budgeted funds from account #168.2136131.522.8300.520 will be utilized.
C) Award Bids, and Proposals, and Issue Purchase Orders and/or Contracts
FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES $2,750.00
Moon Lake Volunteer Fire Department/Authorization to accept Moon Lake's request to withdraw their bid, #S-3-5-3, Sale of Surplus Fire Vehicles at a bid price of $2,750.00, for one used 1969 Ward LaFrance Custom Fire Truck and return their 10% deposit of $275.00 (see attachment A). The Board Approved the award recommendation to Moon Lake Volunteer Fire Department on November 14, 1995 and authorized the Chairman to sign the Bill of Sale. It is also requested that we void the Bill of Sale and attempt to sell the surplus Fire Trucks at the next available auction since no other bids were received that met the minimum price requirements.
PUBLIC SERVICE $90,000.00
Vulcan Signs, Municipal Supply, 3M Company, Pave Mark Corporation, John M. Warren/Authorization to extend Bid #B-4- 5-05, Traffic Sign Materials for one additional year and to issue Purchase Orders within budgeted funds. Funding for this is from Account #112.5055100.541.8300530. On January 3, 1995 the Board approved the original award to the following Vendors:
Awarded Vendor Items
Vulcan Signs * Part I, Sec. 1, 2, & 3
Municipal Supply * Part IX, X, XI, #2, 6-23
3M Company Part IV, Sec. 2, Part V,
VI, VII, & VIII
Pave Mark Corporation Part XII, Sec. 2
John M. Warren Part XI, #1, 3, 4, & 5
* Universal Signs was originally awarded Part I, Sec. 1, and Part XI #6, 7, 8, & 9, however they requested to withdraw their bid and the award went to the second low vendor for those items.
D) Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities from Annual Bids, State Contract, G.S.A., or Cooperative Bids
OFFICE OF PURCHASING $27,575.00
Xerox Corporation/Authorization to issue a change order to encumber additional funds of $11,975.00 to cover the cost of a 12 month maintenance agreement on the Xerox 5100 at $2,230.00 a month and add a Xerox 5014 under extended warranty at $215.00 a year. The monthly maintenance cost of $2,230.00 for the Xerox 5100 is per State Contract 600-370-170-0100, which includes all supplies (excluding paper and staples), maintenance, labor, parts and unlimited service calls. Funding for this service is from account #001.0911400.513.8300460.
E) Authorization to waive Bid Requirements and Issue Purchase Orders for Services or Commodities that are Not Bid or Quoted, or if they are OEM Repairs
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT $30,810.00
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council/Authorization to issue a Purchase Order within budgeted funds for the 1996 total annual assessment. Funding for this is from account #001.1020100.515.8800820.
F) Approve and Execute Contracts, Agreements, Amendments, Chairman's Signature and Encumber Funds
PUBLIC SERVICES $49,935.60
First Federal Savings Bank of Lake County/Authorization to encumber additional funds of $4,359.60 to cover the cost for surveying, testing, engineering and permit fees. On June 20, 1995 the Board approved the original contract to First Federal Savings Bank of Lake County of $45,576.00 for construction improvements related to Griffin Avenue. The contract states that, "the County and Developer shall share the cost or benefit proportionally". Funding for this project is from account #115.5056610.541.8600673.
Assessments/Resolutions/Roads-County & State
Approval to authorize and accept a Resolution correcting the assessment roll for SA-82, West Griffin Drive, for Herbert Mackey & Cecil Samples.
Approval to advertise for bids for SA-86, Division Street, Section 32, Township 17, Range 29, at an estimated cost of $153,500.00 - Commissioner District 4.
Approval and authorization for Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Assessment Liens for 18 road assessments, as follows:
Number Name Amount Paid
654127 Richard J. Ackerman $1,432.74
654474 Richard J. Ackerman $ 814.09
661069 Kenneth J. & Annette
Montour, et al $1,943.43
661331 Herbert W. Smith $3,319.75
661358 Royce L. White $1,810.52
661492 John W. Yahle $2,178.65
661645 Rodney & Carol Barngrover $2,092.26 663074 Tina M. Kofahl $1,295.34
664007 Donna Tithof, et al $1,205.60
669060 Charles D. Mac Lean, III $ 789.85
671062 Terry F. Neeley $1,462.81
677066 Judy Lynn Thomas &
Mrs. Clarence D. Thomas $3,189.50
679052 Nancy J. Elliott $ 612.81
684005 Vernon V. & Mary D. Keller $ 902.91
684009 James G. Clifford $1,057.50
684011 Dewey R. Burnsed $1,586.25
684014 Vivienne J. Rimoldi $1,410.00
684016 Bernard U. & Wyoming Austin $ 902.40
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Grants/Planning and Development
Approval to purchase right-of-way for Community Development Block Grant project areas with purchase prices and terms subject to the grant budget, and subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Request approval to advertise for bids, proposals and professional services; award and issue Purchase Orders for quotes, bids, proposals, annual bids, State Contract, G.S.A. Cooperative Bids, OEM Repairs, sole source and proprietor source; approve and execute contracts and encumber funds, as follows:
A) Authorization to seek Bids, Proposals and Professional Services
Judicial Support $17,300.00
Authorization to seek bids for the purchase of three (3) additional computer workstations and miscellaneous hardware for the Judge's existing network system. On July 18, 1995 the Board approved the original purchase of eight (8) computer workstations and miscellaneous hardware for network configuration. This network allows the Judges to interface among themselves, the State, Law Library and the Clerks Office. The purchase of the three additional computers were not Board approved during the FY 95/96 budget process. Therefore, it is also requested that the Board approve this capital expenditure of $17,300, to complete purchase and installation of computer system for the Judicial Office. Funding for this will be from account #141.0857650.519.8600640.
Accounts Allowed/Grants/Office of Tourism
Approval to award the second installment of $5,000 in grant funds from the Tourist Development Council to the Lake Soccer League, Inc. and approval to encumber and expend funds in that amount.
Mr. Joe Grawet, Personnel Manager, presented plaques to the following employees, while providing some background information about each:
Presentation of Plaques to Employees with Five Years of Service
Rebecca Holland, Animal Control Officer, fire and Emergency Services/Animal Control Division (not present)
Linda Schneeberger, Executive Secretary, Office of Tourism
David J. Warren, Tourism Director, Office of Tourism
Presentation of Plaque to Employee with Ten Years of Service
Michael W.TerMeer, Maintenance Spec II, Facilities and Capital Improvements/Facilities Management Section/Building Maintenance Services
Presentation of Plaque to Retiring Employee with Eleven Years of Service
Malissa B. Haben, Executive Secretary, Planning and Development Services, Development Regulation Services Division (It was noted that this plaque would be presented to Ms. Haben next month.)
PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS
Presentation of Resolution to Bill Horan for the World War II Commemorative Committee's activities during the Fiftieth Anniversary Year of the End of World War II. It was noted that the following individuals were present to receive Resolution 1995-241: Mr. Bill Horan; Mr. Billy Spikes; Mr. Steve Richey; Mr. John Pringle; and Commr. Hanson. Mr. Horan extended his appreciation to the Board.
Presentation of Resolution 1995-242 to Greg Stubbs in recognition of his record of service. Mr. Stubbs extended his appreciation to the Board.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, read the following title of an Ordinance that had been advertised for public hearing:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-46, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR LOCAL COLLECTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND AUDIT OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX; PROVIDING FOR REMITTANCE OF THE TAX TO THE LAKE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT BY THE LAKE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; PROVIDING FOR AUDITING BY THE LAKE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT POWERS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Dave Warren, Director of Tourism, Lake County, addressed the Board and stated that the Ordinance would offer better control, which would be better for budgeting purposes, of revenues. He noted that Mr. T. Keith Hall, Tax Collector, was out of town, but he had indicated that he had no problem with the proposed Ordinance.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance 1996-1, as read by title only.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, read the following title of an an Ordinance that had been advertised for public hearing:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE II, BAILIFFS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance 1996-2, as read by title only.
ORDINANCES/FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES/COMMITTEES
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, read the following title of an Ordinance that had been advertised for public hearing:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RENAMING THE "LAKE COUNTY FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD"; PROVIDING FOR A TITLE; REDEFINING THEIR PURPOSE AND DUTIES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO MEMBERSHIP; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Cadwell opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There being no public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance 1996-3, as read by title only.
ORDINANCES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board to discuss the purpose of the transmittal hearing for the Pringle Communities, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-1-1-2. Mr. Knight noted that this was a request to go from suburban/rural to urban expansion on the three parcels identified around the vested Development of Regional Impact (DRI), as shown in the backup material. He stated that staff had recommended denial, based on the primary function of the urban expansion and suburban land use categories. Mr. Knight noted that, in 1988, the Monterey DRI was approved for 1,500 dwelling units and 300 RV sites. He presented a brief history of the project and explained why the issue was before the Board today.
Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and explained that there was a pending legal issue before the Division of Administrative Hearings, which dealt with the initial Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which DCA did not support. Mr. Duncan explained that the County had executed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with DCA, which settled all of the issues in this particular case, but DCA had filed a motion to continue the final hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, and it had also filed a Motion To Stay the pending proceedings. The purpose of the Motion was to allow Lake County to take some remedial action, as discussed by the Stipulation Agreement. Mr. Duncan stated that staff had a position that no remedial action was necessary for this particular denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from DCA. He stated that the original Ordinance passed by the Board provided that the Ordinance would not become effective until the DCA approved it, pursuant to the terms and conditions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Since that had never happened, it was staff's position that the Ordinance had never become effective, therefore, no remedial action was necessary. Mr. Duncan stated that the DCA has not accepted or rejected this position, and a letter had been written some time ago to DCA, but he had not received a response. He sent a follow up letter to the DCA on Friday explaining the County's position and asking them to respond. If the DCA refused to take the County's position, the County would need to adopt the remedial Ordinance, which would resolve all issues in the old case and would leave the County where it was today. He stated that Mr. Knight would be talking about the new Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), which would be adopted pursuant to the Ordinance, which dealt with 270 acres of land in three different parcels. A Developer's Agreement had been executed with Mr. Pringle that would limit his development of this particular property to those densities he already had approved. The area of the DRI would be increased, but the densities would not be increased. Mr. Duncan read the following title of an Ordinance that had been advertised for public hearing, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE AND U.S. 27; PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF PUBLICATION AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, SECTION 163.3184(15); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Knight addressed the Board and stated that staff had recommended denial of the request, but had offered two options. He stated that Option A was for approval, based on the use of infrastructure and the City of Leesburg providing water and sewer service; the new turnpike entrance; and the fact that it was a vested DRI and it was just expanding the number of dwelling units. The primary reason for recommending denial was the function of the future land use categories. The third option was a postponement, until the suburban land use designation was addressed. Mr. Knight stated that the request went to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which recommended unanimously to approve it for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
It was noted that, in the original DRI, there were 507 acres, and there would be 272 acres of additional land. In the original open space acreage, there would be 128 acres, but it did not incorporate all wetland. There was a total of 303 acres of wetlands in the overall project when incorporating the additional land. The three parcels being added would primarily be uplands.
Commr. Hanson stated that the densities would not be increasing, but with the amendment, it would be transferring the densities from the areas that were possibly more sensitive to upland areas. She stated that, from the Board's perspective, it seemed to be a very desirable move to protect the wetland sensitive areas.
Commr. Good discussed the uniqueness of Lake County and stated that it appeared to him that the area being discussed was heading in the direction of becoming urbanized, and the Board needed to look very seriously at whether this was an area that it wanted to become urbanized. He could not help but raise the question of whether it would be in the County's best interest to move in the direction of planning a new urban center, as opposed to having an outlying suburban area at the turnpike entrance. He stated that
the wetlands would be protected no matter what happened in this area, but the Board needed to seriously consider the question.
Commr. Cadwell discussed the location of the County's industrial park, which was approximately two miles away from the property in question, and stated that there was a four lane highway at an intersection of a major highway, which traveled from one end of the State to the other, and if this was not where development should go, maybe it should not go anywhere.
Commr. Swartz explained that the reason for adding the land was not to lessen the density where it had been approved, but because you could not get all of the density on the acreage that had originally been approved for the project. This had been explained, at one point in time, when the project was originally brought to the Board for approval.
Mr. Knight stated that staff had considered the densities, and the upland portion was ranging from 6.7 to 6.8 units per acre from a net aspect, which would be with the additional lands. He stated that, on the existing approved DRI, it would be more intense, and it would be more difficult to develop the DRI as it had been originally approved.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Pringle Communities, Inc., addressed the Board and explained why the application was submitted for urban expansion, which did not have timeliness. A condition of the application required that the density not be increased, but would strictly be taking grandfathered density, which was 1,500 homes and 300 RVs and adding uplands to it to make the project better. Mr. Richey stated that the property was under active and current development, and the applicant was not going to create a new urban center, or a new city, but was going to take what the applicant already had approval on and ask to be able to spread it out and use it. The applicant had no problem conditioning the request for approval today to not allow any more units. Mr. Richey stated that the applicant had not engineered the
entire site to know exactly how many units, under the old plan, could be placed on the site, but based on the product at that time, a substantial amount could be placed there. He noted that an analysis was prepared in April, 1994, and a non-substantial change was made, which changed it from mobile homes to conventional houses; the lands were added to the DRI; and the Board approved a site plan utilizing the 270 acres. Mr. Richey had available many illustrative exhibits, from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, for the Board to review. He explained that consideration had been given to converting some of the RVs to housing, but after meeting with the DCA and County staff, it was determined that, if anything was done to the RVs, it would involve a substantial change to the DRI, and therefore, the applicant chose to abandon the idea. Mr. Richey stated that the applicant had entered into an agreement with the City of Leesburg, and water and sewer had been extended to the property to serve 1,500 units, and whatever type of commercial activity that would be allowed as part of the DRI. The preliminary and final plats had been approved by the Board on parcels that inter-connect to the 270 acres. Based on the fact that the applicant had relied substantially on adding the lands and had relied substantially on activities and actions by the prior Board in approving these utilizations of the 270 acres, Mr. Richey respectfully requested that the Board designate the area as urban expansion. If the Board wanted to designate the land as suburban and develop some system to waive the timeliness criteria, based on an existing development that was current, and allowing it to expand and complete itself, he would not have a problem with this action. He stated that the issue was utilizing the units already approved. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Pringle was present and would be available to come forward to answer any questions of the Board.
Commr. Cadwell called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Commr. Good stated that the question was not just about this project, but its relation to the entire turnpike exchange area. If the Board took action on this transmittal, it would be taking one step forward to making it either a project of less density, or more density, but either way, it would certainly be impacting the entire exchange. He questioned whether the Board wanted that area to be an open space rural entrance to Lake County and the Leesburg area, or did it want it to be an urban area, or a suburban area, at the turnpike. He questioned what the Board wanted to present to individuals coming from the turnpike, in terms of an image for Lake County.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the original DRI for Monterey was approved in 1988, he was not on the Board, but he was on the Board when it came back for the changes indicated by Mr. Richey. He voted against the expansion, at that time, primarily because of Exhibit 3, as shown by Mr. Richey.
Discussion occurred regarding the commercial site, with it being noted that the commercial would be internal on approximately three acres.
Mr. Richey explained the importance of timing, in terms of the applicant's relationship with lending institutions. Mr. Richey explained that the commercial property did not meet locational criteria, so it would be limited to the 5,000 square feet. He noted that the revised development plan, which was approved by the Board, and which the applicant was operating under, was not Exhibit 3. He further noted that Exhibit 3 was filed for the non-substantial change, and the DRI did not include the details of the site plan. The Board had amended the site plan twice, since the exhibit was done.
Commr. Swartz extended his appreciation to staff for its presentation, both written and oral. The report, for the first time, showed that you could look in the Comprehensive Plan and find some areas where it was consistent, and areas that might suggest
that it was inconsistent, and it took an overall review and made a recommendation based on these findings. Commr. Swartz felt that the recommendation made by staff was correct, and the primary function of the urban expansion and suburban land use were not consistent with what was being proposed. He was concerned that all of the land use within that vested DRI was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it was currently inconsistent, and because it was vested, the applicant could develop to the extent that the original DRI would allow him to develop. However, the development had changed, and the changes in the development went from mobile homes to conventional homes, but the real issue, as shown in Exhibit 3, represented what was really happening in the development. He stated that significant parts, particularly the southern area, were being converted to golf course. There were areas where the dwelling units could have gone previously, but in part, were being converted to golf course. Commr. Swartz stated that the land needed to be added, because there was no way that the applicant could have the golf course and 1,500 homes and 300 RVs on the existing land. He did not support basically converting the dwelling units to golf course and then adding land that was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Use Map, to accomplish this plan. If the developer was proposing to modify this in such a way that it would truly result in lower density, and not just convert to golf course, he would be willing to look at it as a trade off that could be offered to the County that would make it a better proposal, and in the long run, make it better for Lake County in this area. He stated that there was a significant amount of the original DRI that was unbuildable from a wetland standpoint. Commr. Swartz stated that he did not support the original extension of the DRI, because he felt it should have come under, and been consistent, with the new Comprehensive Plan. He later did not support adding the additional lands, because the Board would have been converting a project and taking densities that in no way could
be placed on the 507 acres, with a golf course. He stated that it was a poorly conceived development when it was approved by the Board in 1988, and this was an opportunity for the Board to make it truly a better development, and not just simply convert approved dwelling units to golf course. Commr. Swartz stated that he would support looking at it in that light, which would be a modification of staff's option, to postpone and have the developer show the Board something that would be improvement rather than just conversion of dwelling units that were approved to golf course through an old DRI.
Commr. Gerber felt that this seated Board would never have approved this development in the first place. She supported converting the mobile homes to conventional homes, and when it came before the Board several months ago, she had supported Option 5, which had been a decent compromise on the issue. As she saw it today, the addition of those lands was not going to make a significant difference in the impacts on the services that the County would provide. Commr. Gerber stated that the City of Leesburg was providing the water and sewer, and she felt it was quality development that would add to the quality of life in that area, and therefore, she was going to support it.
Commr. Hanson stated that the DRI was in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan. She stated that it did have the grandfathered 1,500 units plus 300, and with the additions, the density would be limited and be a transfer of densities from more sensitive land areas. Commr. Hanson stated that there was some possibility that the 270 acres had been vested through previous decisions. She saw the golf course as a means of providing open space, as the Board dealt with the intense densities. Commr. Hanson stated that she was also going to support the amendment.
Commr. Good applauded the developer for looking at the opportunity to improve the quality of the development, but it was
much more than transferring density. It was putting urban expansion at the site. If there was a way to add the golf course, under a community facilities district, or some other type of land use designation, it might be a way to go without opening up the proverbial urban site and urban center. He stated that there might be some way to look at that as a possibility of improving the quality of the development that would occur on the site without designating this as an area for urban expansion. He questioned staff whether there was some other way that this could be transmitted, with some other type of designation that would facilitate the land use, if there was going to be a golf course on the site, or was there a way to move some of the density from the wetland areas and move forward with the project. He hesitated putting urban expansion at the site, but he felt the Board was looking for a solution to the project.
Mr. Knight stated that he did not know of any prohibition for a golf course in a rural land use category, and a suburban land use category, so if it was the intent of the developer to have it as a golf course, and to exist those three new added areas, he did not see a problem developing it, other than wanting to go above the existing density, and therefore, requiring an urban expansion land use category.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that he had not participated in the matter, since Pringle Communities, Inc. was a former client of his, and secondly, this was an Ordinance and the Board had heard the title read. He stated that counties have to adopt these types of Ordinances on two readings. It would be the first reading today, and then it would be transmitted to the DCA. If, and when, the County received its response, there would be a second reading and final adoption of the Ordinance. He noted that the approval of the Developer's Agreement was part of the staff recommendation. Mr. Minkoff stated that the motion would be approval of the Ordinance on its first reading.
Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to transmit LUPA 96-1-1-2, Pringle Communities, Inc., with the Developer's Agreement, to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
Under discussion, Commr. Gerber reiterated that the Board had an unanimous approval of the request from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commr. Good noted that there had been a staff recommendation for denial, for very good reasons. He stated that he would like to explore the possibility of resolving the situation without placing urban expansion in an area that was obviously suburban and rural.
He stated that this transmittal put urban expansion on the site, which opened a door that he was not sure this rural and suburban community wanted open.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz and Good voted "no".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Mr. Chester Matuszak appeared before the Board to address problems he had encountered with the County inspection department when inspections were being made at the home he was building in Wedgewood. He presented the Board with written information regarding his concerns, which pertained to the use of switches as splicing devices, stapling cables in the attic, and the walls cracking, because the stucco did not meet the Code. Mr. Matuszak stated that the County was not enforcing the codes, as indicated in the National Electrical Code Book. At this time, Mr. Matuszak presented the Board with details about the inspections made on his home. He stated that he went before the review board approximately last April, and the contractor was given 30 days to come and fix the stucco, but she made no attempt, and he had requested another appearance before the review board.
Commr. Swartz understood that the County had adopted the Southern Building Code by Ordinance, and therefore, he was assuming that the inspectors were ensuring that construction was at least meeting the minimum requirements of the Southern Building Code. The second issue regarding workmanship would be handled by the Board of Examiners, which usually dealt harshly with such issues.
He stated that it was obvious that the County staff had reviewed the issues being presented by Mr. Matuszak.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the issues had been reviewed by staff, and she pointed out that the inspection department was doing its job, and it was inspecting and insuring minimum standards that were in the adopted Code. She stated that staff could not enforce a higher standard, and there were two totally separate issues to be addressed.
Mr. Jack Bragg, Building Official, informed the Board that the Board of Examiners did review the case. He addressed the issue of using switches as splicing devices and stated that the manufacturers, including representatives from the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), who write the National Electrical Code, said that there was nothing, code wise, that was incorrect about the method used by the County department. He stated that the County, as well as the State of Florida, had adopted the National Electrical Code. Mr. Bragg discussed the action taken by the Board of Examiners regarding Mr. Matuszak's case and stated that Mr. Matuszak was informed that, if he could show further evidence regarding structural problems, or failures, he could come back before the Board of Examiners.
Mr. Jay Dagner, Chief Electrical Inspector, addressed the Board to discuss the issue of using switches as slicing devices. He stated that there was nothing in the Code that referred to this at all. He contacted Underwriters Laboratory, who tests the
switches, and was told that they were not a splicing device, and therefore, the splicing Code Article did not apply. He stated that the County had adopted Code Notice K, which allows you to run your wiring in a 42 inch void in the attic. Mr. Dagner stated that the County was not requiring anyone to staple all of the way through the void, because the County felt it was being supported. He took a poll of all chief electrical inspectors of Central Florida, and no one was requiring the wire to be stapled in the 42 inch void. Mr. Dagner stated that, if Mr. Matuszak felt that the Code was not acknowledging his complaints, he could turn in Code changes to the Code Committee of the NFPA, who could consider the suggestions.
Discussion occurred regarding the stapling issue, with it being noted that, if the wiring was not being stapled throughout the attic, it would be a violation of the Code.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if Mr. Matuszak could provide a determination by someone with credentials that showed that the foundation was poured over ground that had not been compacted properly, the Board of Building Examiners could take action, if it was determined to be structural. He stated that the County could also have an electrician go back to the property and look at the stapling being described by Mr. Matuszak.
Mr. Matuszak stated that he would like Commr. Cadwell to stop by and look at the house. He extended his appreciation to the Board for allowing him to come and express his concerns.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
Mr. Ross Edward Orris, Mount Plymouth, addressed the Board and stated that he was trying to put a single wide mobile home in Reeves Subdivision in Sorrento. He explained that, in January, 1995, before he had purchased his land, he consulted with the Zoning Department to see what he could place on the property, because the lots were only 32 feet wide by 140 feet deep. He was told that he could put a mobile home there, or build a block, or a wood frame house, as long as it was not less than 850 square feet.
He explained that he had received a disability settlement during the summer, and he purchased a 14 foot by 70 foot mobile home, which was 980 square feet. He came to the County to get permits and was told that the property was zoned R-8 (Mixed Residential), which he was not informed of in January. Therefore, the house had to be 20 feet at the end that was the narrowest. He stated that there were 24 and 28 foot mobile homes, and the lot was only 32 feet wide. According to the Zoning Department, you must have five feet on each side of the home. Mr. Orris informed the Board that he had letters from his neighbors who were in favor of him placing his home on the site.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board of Adjustments could grant variances to the R-8 zoning.
Mr. Orris stated that he went before the Board of Adjustments to discuss him dilemma. The people that were representing zoning verified that this type of issue had happened before. He stated that he would have bought a double wide, if he had been correctly informed, but now he had spent all of his settlement money.
Commr. Hanson stated that it was a matter of policy, and the Planning and Development Department had been working on the issue of the requirement for a double wide in R-8 zoning. She stated that, in the area where Mr. Orris wanted to place his home, there were single wide, double wide, and conventional homes. The R-8 zoning now has a requirement where you have to replace a single wide with a double wide, and you have to meet the setbacks. She stated that the problem was in policy, and not with zoning.
Mr. Orris explained that the Board of Adjustments had denied his request for a variance.
Commr. Hanson stated that the issue of what was in the surrounding area should be taken into consideration, with the intent of the Code being to upgrade areas.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there were three options, as follows: 1) to comply with the Code, and either put a double wide or a
conventional construction on the property; 2) to apply for a variance, which Mr. Orris had done, and it was turned down, and now he has appeal rights; and 3) to seek a rezoning to another district that might allow a single wide mobile home.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and stated that staff was looking at a change to the LDRs regarding the issue of R-8 zoning, as well as some other proposals, which he intended to bring to the Administration for review this month, and then they would be brought to the Board.
Mr. Orris explained his financial situation to the Board.
Commr. Hanson questioned whether there was a possibility that the change to the LDR, that would be coming forward, would solve Mr. Orris' problem, and if so, was there a possibility that there could be a Developer's Agreement that, if the change did not get approved, he would have to move his mobile home off of the property. He could then put the home on the property and hook it up pending the LDR change.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not know of any provisions in the Code that would allow the Board to grant permits to something that was not in compliance with the Code, and he felt it would not be a good precedent to set.
Commr. Swartz stated that Developer's Agreements in the past had been simply to allow something that was allowable through the review process.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, explained that the change to the LDR would be coming to the County Attorney and the County Manager this month, and to the Board next month.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the Board wanted to bring back an Ordinance simply to remove the requirement for a double wide mobile home in R-8 zoning, this could be done more quickly than 60 days, or three months. He could prepare the Ordinance in a couple of days, if that was the Board's direction, but the Board needed to
realize that it would be applicable throughout the County in all of R-8 zoning that currently had the double wide requirement.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the Board needed to make sure that it did not over-react to the issue and cause more problems. He stated that it had basically been determined, through discussion, that Mr. Orris could file an appeal in Circuit Court, or he could wait for the LDR change.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT\ZONING
Mr. Allen Cone, representing Gary Charlton of Transplant Growers, on CR 437 south of SR 46, addressed the Board and stated that approximately three years ago, Mr. Charlton had gotten a building permit to place a foliage nursery on an existing piece of property. In July, he purchased the adjacent property to the north and proceeded to develop plans to put in an additional nursery. Mr. Cone stated that the property was zoned RA (Ranchette District), and he needed to know what to do to expedite the development and get a permit to begin construction on the property, because construction materials were being delivered and a substantial amount of money had already been spent.
Commr. Hanson explained that the property would require rezoning and stated that she had participated in ex parte communications, because she was not aware that the issue was going to take a zoning change. Mr. Charlton had been allowed to put a greenhouse in RA zoning several years ago, and he bought the additional property that was zoned RA assuming he could put greenhouses on it, but there had been a mistake made on the first permit. He could not put greenhouses in RA zoning, so the County had stopped him from moving forward.
Mr. Cone noted that the property owner had already made application to rezone the property.
Commr. Cadwell explained that, after the previous discussion with the legal staff, the issue of entering into a Developer's Agreement contingent upon rezoning was probably not the best
direction to take at this time. He stated that the Board would direct staff to make sure they did everything they could to help the property owner get through the system.
Mr. Cone explained that an application for rezoning had been made in January, and it should be on the docket. He questioned whether there was another alternative, while this was taking place, to allow them to proceed prior to 90 days.
Mr. Minkoff stated that staff could process the permit pending the rezoning, and he could file for site plan approval contingent upon rezoning and submit his plans to the Building Department.
Mr. Cone extended his appreciation to the Board for its assistance in determining an approach to take that would accomodate his needs.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ZONING
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Ms. Christine Rice, the widow of Mr. Bud Rice, addressed the Board to discuss a problem Ms. Rice had with a piece of property she had sold to her son, and to another gentleman, in the Fruitland Park area off of Micro Midget Race Track Road. Mr. Richey stated that this was kind of the antithesis of the man trying to put a single wide mobile home on his property. Mr. Steve Rice, her son, wanted to try and replace a mobile home with a conventional home. He had a loan in place, and when he tried to pull a building permit and get zoning approval, he got caught in the lot split dilemma. Mr. Rice was told that he could not replace a mobile home with a conventional home, but he could replace a mobile home with a mobile home. The Rices bought the property in 1977, and in June, 1984, Mr. Rice and his son pulled a mobile home permit on the entire ten acres to place a mobile home on the western five acres of the tract. In July, 1984, Mr. Rice and his wife attempted to sell the westerly five acres to their son, Steve, and a corrected deed had to be prepared in 1986. Mr. Rice now had a five acre tract with a mobile home on it, and the County had informed him that he needed to pave
660 feet of the County road into his property, because there was no variance to the lot split process in the County Code, and the individual did not have the ability to go to the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Richey stated that Ms. Rice, in order to maintain her retirement, sold the other five acres to a gentleman who can do nothing with the property. He noted that County staff had indicated that the process may be wrong, but they could give no indication when any changes would be made to the County Code. Mr. Richey pleaded with the Board to put on separate tracts the big things and the little things, and to try and resolve some of the little people issues. He stated that a variance process needed to be put back into the lot split section of the County Code.
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Interim Director, Development and Regulation Services, noted that variance procedures were in the process of being put together that would address a variety of cases, and it was just a matter of finishing staff discussion.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROAD PROJECTS
Commr. Swartz stated that he had requested that the issue involving the Road Improvement Project No. 10-95 to Lake Dora Drive, Disston Avenue/Main Street Intersection, and Lakeshore Drive be pulled from the agenda, so that there would be an opportunity for public comment. He stated that the process for the project had been quite extensive, and he felt that, after meeting with the City officials, and the residents, for their input, a consensus of an agreement had been acquired with those involved with the Main Street phase of improvement. Notices were then sent to all property owners along the affected portion of the roads. Mr. Steve Judson also sent notices to residents along Lake Dora and Lakeshore, in addition to the notice sent by the County. Approximately 50 people met at the Tavares City Council Chambers, with there still being questions about the moving of electrical poles, but with most of the questions being resolved.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that the project being presented had gone to the Impact Fee Committee, which included all of the cities within the Golden Triangle Area, and the Board had included it in the budget for the last two years.
Mr. Steve Judson, Lakeshore Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he had requested from staff a definition of the permissible uses of impact fees, which he noted in the Fax transittal he received from Public Services. Mr. Judson urged the Board to consider whether the road was an impermissible use of approximately a half million dollars of impact fees. He noted that the information he received stated that "such improvements shall be of the type as are made necessary by new development". He stated that everyone would agree that there was no new development along Lakeshore Drive, and it was a mature residential community. Mr. Judson stated that new development did not make bike paths necessary. He noted that bike paths and walking were recreational, and nobody would use them for transportation. He stated that the justification for using impact fees for the project had been determined by increased traffic on Lakeshore Drive. Mr. Judson thought, in promoting the project, the traffic was going to come off of Lakeshore Drive onto Old Highway 441. He stated that the residents of Lake County would feel the impact of impact fees when they built, or substantially built onto, their homes. The County had an Ordinance that stated improvements that are made shall be of a type that are made necessary by new development, and Mr. Judson requested that the Board vote not to use impact fees for this road. Mr. Judson stated that he would not approve of the project, if the Board used the gas tax, because he felt that the government had a function that was often forgotten, and that was to maintain those things which were good. He stated that he saw nothing wrong with Lakeshore Drive as it currently existed, and that it was a scenic
drive. Those who live there like its peacefulness and felt there was no need for additional concrete.
Mr. Truitt Stephens, Lakeshore Drive, addressed the Board and explained that he came to Lake County to escape growth, after living in other major cities. The serenity, the peacefulness, and the natural environment helped him in choosing his new home. He stated that increased traffic concerned him, and to add additional asphalt and footage would never be repairable to the system. He further stated that there were many arteries that come together in Tavares that would give the transportation route needed, and it would not affect Lakeshore Drive. He requested that the Board consider the options, before taking a good decision that was meant well in many ways, but would do something that the County would not be proud of five or ten years from now. Mr. Judston stated that, once the encroachment started on the property lines, there would be very little space; the property would be highly taxed, because it was directly on the lake; and the value of the houses would be more. Mr. Stephens discussed the County Ordinance that currently restricted development on his property and stated that the property owners wanted to protect the lake system, and their investment. He stated, for the record, that he did not want to do something irrevocable and could not be repaired. Mr. Judson stated that he was looking at keeping a community that had a lot of pride, and was a beautiful drive, and if anyone comprised these things, he would be failing the real objectives.
Mr. David Custer, Lakeshore Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he moved to the area for the same reasons as indicated by Mr. Stephens. He explained that bike paths were only good for those who rode bikes. Mr. Custer was concerned about what was going to happen along Lakeshore Drive, with the increased traffic, and the possibility of additional littering being left on the road. He requested that the Board keep the road just the way it currently existed.
Mr. Stivender stated that the original project was discussed by the Board in 1983. He stated that there were a lot of people that paid impact fees along Lakeshore Drive, because impact fees had been in existence for ten years. He explained other projects that had been approved by the Board, as well as those that were in the design stage, which would enhance traffic to Mount Dora. Mr. Stivender stated that the Police Department in Tavares had an account of traffic tickets that had been written on Lakeshore Drive. He explained that Lakeshore Drive was the only access for many of the residents, and the County was trying to develop what was necessary to collect the traffic. Mr. Stivender explained that several places along the road were being enhanced for stormwater retention, and this was part of the County's master planning for stormwater in that entire basin.
Commr. Swartz noted that the road, and what was being proposed, were similar to all of the other projects that had been described by Mr. Stivender, but the difference was the greater attempt being made to deal with the stormwater issue. The County was able to get cooperation from the railroad to allow the County to use some of the railroad right-of-way on the north side of the road for stormwater retention, which reduced the direct runoff that was going into the lake. He appreciated the comments made by the gentlemen who appeared before the Board, and felt that the issues discussed were addressed at one of the meetings, or all of them, prior to the Board meeting today. Commr. Swartz explained it had been expressed by individuals that there seemed to be a general consensus for the project, because the County listened to the people and tried to address the issues raised by the people. He explained that the County was trying to get those who wanted to move quickly to use Old 441 through means that were available, and it was not the intention of the Board to increase traffic, even though it would probably increase with new development. The County was addressing the water quality issue by keeping the stormwater
from going directly into the lake, and all of this was being done in the existing right-of-way. Commr. Swartz explained that the project would move the traffic three feet away from the current edge of pavement, and most of the people found that this would increase safety. The drive lanes would be nine feet, and the paved shoulders would be three feet. He noted that there were approximately 30 people at the first meeting, and approximately 50 people at the second meeting, with the people going away believing that the project would improve the situation. Commr. Swartz stated that the project would improve the safety, the water quality along the road, and the life of the road. He requested that the Board support the project.
Commr. Hanson stated that there were not many people at the meeting today, or at the neighborhood meetings, because not everyone was notified. Last year when the County was considering the whole road, there had been a lot of opposition. She questioned what the prospects were of continuing the project into Old 441 in Mount Dora.
Mr. Stivender stated that he did not have the continuance of this project in the County's long range plan. He noted that there were enough projects being planned in this area in the five year program, and the project before the Board was one that stood on its own. He stated that there were no monies budgeted in the next five years to do anymore of this project.
Commr. Hanson stated that the County needed to consider some major route to Old 441 besides Bay Street, and to look at the possibility of extending the bike paths and widening the road over to Old 441, otherwise, the traffic was going to continue right down Lakeshore Drive.
Discussion occurred regarding the traffic that was generated from Dora Avenue to Old 441 to Lakeshore Drive, with Mr. Stivender noting that this was local traffic, and Lakeshore Drive was a collector road.
Commr. Gerber explained that the traffic in this area was going to increase proportionately like every other road in the County.
Mr. Stivender pointed out that the Board needed to consider one important factor when reviewing the request. The road was 18 feet wide, and according to every regulation, it was a substandard road, for a fee distributor local road, and in terms of safety for the people in this area.
Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have an objection to the portion of road being presented today, and she agreed to the use of impact fees for it, but when the project goes beyond the portion being discussed, she wanted staff to look at the numbers, and to down grade it. She wanted some assurance that it was not going to increase the traffic, because there was no room for new development along Lakeshore Drive, or very little development, and then she would consider supporting it. She knew that the numbers had something to do with making it a collector road rather than a distributor road, but she questioned whether staff knew if the remaining part of Lakeshore Drive was a collector.
Mr. Stivender stated that the traffic count on all segments of the Lakeshore Drive ranged between 2,000 and 2,500 cars a day, and therefore qualified for a collector by its own existence. As part of the plan, staff was to do a continual traffic study to test for speeders, and for traffic, before anything was done in the future.
Commr. Hanson noted that the Comprehensive Plan stated that the County would establish a bicycle registration program, and also by 1994, there would be bicycle registration fees. She stated that these items needed to be eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan, or the Board needed to move forward with them.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to award Road Improvement Project No. 10-95 to Lake Dora Rive, Disston Avenue/Main Street Intersection, and Lakeshore Drive (CR-452), Bid No. B-6-6-04, to
Professional Dirt Service, Inc. and approved to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $432,185 from the Road Impact Fee Benefit District 2 Fund - Commissioner District 3, and authorized the Chairman to sign the contract.
Commr. Hanson voted "no".
Commr. Swartz extended his appreciation to Mr. Stivender and staff for helping with a number of the public meetings and stated that staff did an outstanding job of helping to convey the project to those who attended the meetings.
Mr. Alvin Jackson, Economic Development Coordinator, addressed the Board to present a brief recap of the Florida Agricultural Museum proposal. Mr. Jackson stated that late Friday evening, he received a request for additional information from the Site Selection Committee. There were four items that required additional information, as follows: 1) the water and sewer availability along with the connection fees and extension costs; 2) permitting process - estimate the time frame; 3) a list of special events (one per month, etc.) that are held in Lake County; and 4) should Lake County not be chosen as the Agricultural Museum site, how might Lake County fit in as a satellite location. He stated that a response had been prepared to the four questions and was included with a short recap of the initial presentation to the Agricultural Museum Site Selection Committee. Mr. Jackson noted that Ms. Sharon Farrell, Planning and Development, Mr. Joe Shipes, Mr. Dave Warren, Tourist Development Director, and Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, were present to answer questions of the Board.
Discussion occurred regarding whether a Resolution reaffirming the Board's support of the Museum was needed, with it being noted that one would not be nececessary, because a new letter had been prepared for all Commissioners to sign.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Selection Committee would be meeting on Thursday to shorten the process, and then the consultants would come and do an extensive analysis of the site and numbers being presented by the County.
Mr. Joe Shipes addressed the Board to discuss the language that had been presented in the recap information.
After some discussion, it was noted that the following wording would be deleted from the language under "The Site": "Contrary to previous presentations".
Mr. Shipes addressed the issue of sewer and water and stated that the Expo Center site was approximately 1,500 feet from the Industrial Park, and the water and sewer would have to be extended from there. The sewer and water on the Bradshaw site, and the Highlands Subdivision, were coming from the City of Leesburg, and there would be no problem connecting into the subdivision.
Mr. Jackson stated that the costs for the utilities would depend on the site that would house the utilities, and he did not anticipate the costs being more than $125,000, depending on whether or not there needed to be a lift station. Another thing being offered as an incentive was the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund, which was cash dollars and could be used for such activities.
Commr. Swartz stated that, when the Board had approved the previous incentive package, the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund had some additional language indicating that the amount would be dependant upon the number of jobs, and if they qualified. He stated that he did not want to convey something other than what had been agreed upon. He questioned whether the $125,000 from the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund would be in addition to other monies and stated that the Board needed to know exactly what was being proposed.
Mr. Jackson explained that, in the initial proposal presentation, it was explained that the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund dollars would be used to pay for those kinds of activities.
Commr. Swartz stated that, in the recap information, under Water and Sewer Availability, it seemed as though it would be an additional benefit that would go beyond using those funds.
Mr. Jackson explained that, in the initial presentation, the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund was noted with an asterisk, so a clarification would be made that the monies from the Fund would be utilized for the utilities.
Commr. Swartz explained that Site A included conceptually a combination of parcels, as well as some County owned property.
Mr. Jackson noted that the language would be changed to reflect the comments made by Commr. Swartz regarding the purpose of the Jobs Growth Incentive Fund, and Site A.
Commr. Hanson stated that she was concerned that, if the Committee selected the Tourist Development Council site, the property would not be large enough to handle both the Agricultural Museum and an Expo Center.
Commr. Swartz explained that Site A was formed by a portion, to be determined, of County owned property, and potentially all, or a part, of four sites that were contiguous to the property.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to submit the Recap for the Florida Agricultural Museum, with the recommended changes stated above by the Board.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 12:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m.
PUBLIC SERVICES/ROAD PROJECTS (Continued)
Commr. Swartz referred to the discussion that had been held on Road Improvement Project No. 10-95 and stated that he needed to make a point of clarification. He stated that the traffic stops that were actually done on the segment of Lakeshore Drive was approximately 199, with 131 being ticketed, and the balance being given a warning. The City wide traffic stops during the same period of time was over 2,200, which was approximately 7% or 8% of all of the traffic stops in Tavares.
PRESENTATION - Florida Department of Transportation
Mr. Will Sloup, Environmental Management, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), addressed the Board to give an update on State Road 40. Mr. Sloup stated that he was acting as the Project Manager for the SR 40 study. He stated that FDOT had relaxed their requirement to have the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) in place by the year 2020. He stated that FDOT was still going to allow two lane roadways to be on the FIHS, but they would be upgraded to full standard when they were needed. Mr. Sloup stated that the Marion County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) had updated their Transportation Element, and their 2020 Transportation Plan had been revised and now showed that the traffic need, out to 2020, no longer supported the need for four laning in a major block of the Ocala National Forest. He stated that this, in conjunction with the new FIHS mandate, was no support for the four laning across the State. Mr. Sloup stated that the Volusia County MPO had just updated its Transportation Plan for the year 2020, and they were showing a need for four laning from the St. Johns River over to I-95. About one half of the study had lost the need to be four laned. He stated that, since a lot of the major environmental impacts that were identified by the FDOT going through the Ocala National Forest had just now gone away, the FDOT was talking to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to get them to back off on the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and see if they could process this road study as an Environmental Assessment (EA). He explained the difference between the two documents by noting that an EIS was an action that was taken when you knew you had significant impacts, and it automatically locked into place a specific review process that went through all levels of Federal Highway and all the way to Washington. Mr. Sloup stated that the FDOT would have to take the Marion County and Volusia County models and redo its traffic model, which included Lake County, in order to get to specifics including
the location for the four laning. He stated that, in the time frame of 2020, since the FDOT was not looking at widening the whole thing, the prospect of having CR 42 as an alternative route dropped from the plan, and now CR 42 was no longer being pursued as an alternative route to the FIHS. Mr. Sloup discussed the Volusia County Plan and stated that CR 44 was not being advanced as a FIHS priority. He also discussed the Marion County Plan and stated that he understood that their land use densities came down and this directly affected the traffic generation on CR 42. He stated that, when he received additional information, he would update the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to discuss the request to advertise an Ordinance that would amend the Lake County Code, Appendix E., Land Development Regulations Chapter VI, Resource Protection Standards Section 6.06.01.F.2. Mr. Bergmann stated that the amendment pertained to an exemption in mining site plans and mining operation permits. He stated that, in this category, staff was dealing with an overburden problem and was trying to address the issue of allowing the withdrawal from either construction circumstances, or miscalculations, or unexpected permit requirements. He stated that staff had a problem with bonifide commercial industrial, or subdivision development, and determining "overburden".
Mr. Jim Barker, Division of Environmental Management, addressed the Board and explained that a variance for mining would go before the Environmental Protection Board.
Mr. Bergmann explained that the issue of overburden was considered by staff at the development review, but there were some cases where it could be challenged. He noted that there were no thresholds, at this time, for overburden.
Commr. Good discussed Page 3, Line 6 of the proposed Ordinance, which stated "Activities where no extractable material is removed from the site." He stated that the problem was the amount that was being extracted from the so called subdivisions.
Commr. Hanson stated that the net affect would be the same whether you were taking it off of the property, or you were leaving it on the property.
Commr. Swartz stated that this was the area where there was a broad consensus of the Board when it adopted the Mining Ordinance. The consensus was to try and find a way that legitimate development could occur where there were site improvements that had to be made, but that you could not, under the guidelines of site development, do mining. It appeared that, from the staff report to the Board, the language on Page 2, 2., was not working. He did not know if taking the language out would totally solve the problem. He felt that the Board could find alternative language that could address what was then the consensus of the Board, which was as follows: that the County did not allow subdivision and commercial development, under the guidelines of that type of site plan review, to actually do mining, and whether or not it was retaining it on site, or taking it off site, if it was mining, and it was meeting all of the criteria, then it would be mining with certain standards having to be met.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there was a real problem with the last two sentences in Section 2, which currently provided that excess overburden could be removed, as long as the County was given notice. The County would have no say as to whether it could be removed, or how it could be removed. One alternative that was considered was changing "is provided written notice" and replacing it with "requiring approval of the County Manager", and then providing some standards looking at best engineering practices, etc., and giving the County the ability to impose a reclamation bond. The other side of the equation would be, when an activity comes in and says it is a subdivision and digs a big hole, the County had no assurance that the developer would be
finishing the subdivision, or filling the hole back up. Under the current subdivision regulations, if you construct first, the County had no bond, or assurance that they would finish construction. Mr. Minkoff addressed some of the types of problems that the County was currently facing.
Commr. Swartz stated that staff would get the opportunity to review the activity to determine if what they were proposing to do imposed problems that would need to be reviewed from reclamation, or water quality, or traffic consideration standpoints.
Mr. Minkoff noted that the ordinance could be written to address the comments made by Commr. Swartz.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Greater Construction Company, Pringle Communities, Bishop and Butrey, and Harbor Hills, appeared before the Board and stated that these were clients, which currently have projects in the works, that have utilized the exemption provision being requested to be advertised and deleted. Mr. Richey explained the Greater Groves project and stated that, in its construction phase today, it has removed millions of yards of material to be able to build the project, and several hundreds of yards of material was stored on site and was being removed to Orange County on a year's contract. Mr. Richey stated that Commr. Swartz's approach, in regards to having the project reviewed, having it legitimized, and having bonds posted, were legitimate things to insure there was no abuse, and if it was a legitimate straight mine without a plan to develop it into lots, then it would go through the Mining Site Plan (MSP). He did not have a problem with the bond, or the monitoring program being suggested.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that staff would redo the language to incorporate those issues discussed and bring the Ordinance back to the Board for review before it was advertised. It was noted that the proposed Ordinance would be placed on the agenda for the first meeting next month.
Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, presented an explanation of the Policies establishing procedures for Board of County Commissioners District and Town Hall Meetings.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Policies, as explained by Ms. Kronz.
REPORTS - County Manager
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board of the results of the County Food Drive, which was conducted by the Commission employees at Christmas time. She noted that, last year, 807 pounds of food was collected. This year 2,103 pounds of food was collected by County employees.
REPORTS - Commissioner Good
Commr. Good reminded the Board that an appointee was needed from Districts 2, 3 and 5 for the Library Board.
REPORTS - Commissioner Swartz
Commr. Swartz stated that the Animal Control Study Committee had finished its work and turned its recommendations over to the County Manager and County Attorney, to be put into Ordinance form. He stated that the date of existence for the Animal Control Committee had expired, and it needed to meet at least one more time to approve minutes of the meetings, and to do some housekeeping. Rather than coming back and adopting a Resolution, he requested approval for the Committee to convene to complete these tasks.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place on the agenda, for a vote, an additional meeting of the Animal Control Study Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to authorize the Animal Control Study Committee to meet one final time to finalize its business, to review minutes, and to complete its housekeeping.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Commr. Swartz stated that a letter had been sent from the Board dealing with the Private Industry Council (PIC) Enterprise Florida business, but as part of the motion made by the Board, a request had been made that, if a waiver was required, the Chairman would be authorized to send forward that waiver.
After some discussion, staff was directed to review the action previously taken by the Board regarding the above issue, in order to make sure that the Board was complying with the action taken.
Commr. Cadwell reviewed the Commission liaison/member appointments to boards/committees for 1996 with the Board members.
Commr. Good asked the Chairman to consider swapping the Juvenile Justice Council, which had been assigned to him, with the Affordable Housing Task Force, which had been assigned to Commr. Hanson.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would not be interested in the swap, because she felt it should be the Chairman's prerogative to make the appointments. She stated that, if there was to be a swap, she would swap back to the Agriculture Advisory Committee. She stated that, otherwise, she respected the Chairman's appointments.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would leave the list as presented and ask that the members confirm all of their appointments, except for the Affordable Housing Task Force and the Agriculture Advisory Committee, so that he could have a week to reconsider them.
Commr. Hanson stated that she would take the Juvenile Justice Council, but only in addition to her other appointments.
Commr. Good stated that he would pass his agenda and communications about the workshop for Affordable Housing to Commr. Hanson, with Commr. Hanson taking Affordable Housing and Juvenile Justice, and him taking the Agriculture Advisory Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Liaison Appointments/Memberships to boards/committees for 1996, as presented, but with Commr. Hanson taking the Juvenile Justice Council and Affordable Housing Task Force, and Commr. Good taking the Agriculture Advisory Committee.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, reported to the Board that there had been a request from the Lake Community Action Agency for a member of the Board to serve as a member of their governing Board. For a number of years, an employee of the County had served in that capacity, but since there was some funding of the agency involved, it would not be appropriate for an employee to continue to serve.
Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, addressed the Board and stated that the Lake Community Action Agency meets in Eustis on the last Wednesday of each month, with the exception of November, December, and June. He stated that the Board consisted of representatives from government agencies, businesses and representatives from agencies that the Lake Community Action Agency has served. Mr. Smith stated that there were some elected officials serving on the Board from four cities.
Ms. Whittle clarified that the Agency had requested a Commissioner, or someone to represent the Commission.
It was noted that the issue would be placed on the agenda for discussion next week.
Commr. Gerber noted that the Board Retreat meeting was scheduled for January 30, 1996, at the Highlander Hut, Clermont, at 9 a.m.
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that the meeting would be the goal setting session for the year. In the afternoon, Ms. Marilyn Crotty, University of Central Florida (UCF), would be present to discuss a proposal, which she had submitted to Ms. Whittle, to facilitate the goal setting process.
Commr. Swartz stated that, on behalf of Mr. Tony Otte, City Manager, City of Tavares, who is on the Board for the Martin Luther King Celebration, he wanted to remind the Board of the celebration scheduled for Saturday at the Lake County Judicial Center.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place the issue of a Resolution commemorating Martin Luther King's Birthday on the agenda for action.
On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Resolution 1996-1 commemorating Martin Luther King's Birthday.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK