AUGUST 5, 1997

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman (arriving at 9:30 a.m.); G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance Department; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Swartz, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order and noted that Commr. Good, Chairman, was conducting Commission business in south Lake County and would be arriving soon, and he would be serving in the capacity of Chairman.

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


Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that there were two published addendums to today's agenda.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there was a time certain for the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Projects, and he requested that Tab 33 be considered at the same time.


Discussion occurred regarding the Minutes of July 8, 1997, Regular Meeting, with the following amendments being made:

Page 41, Line 27 - Amend: Duane Dufreese

Add: environmental and economic issues

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 8, 1997, Regular Meeting, as amended.


On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed

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.

Bonds - Contractor

Contractor Bonds, as follows:


1748-97 Wright Contracting Inc. (Plumbing)

5558-97 Donald P. Siciliano, Jr., Donto Construction Co., Inc.


Request to reverse Satisfaction of Judgment, State of Florida vs. Carol Watson, Case No. 85-18306TT40, in the amount of $250 for attorney's fees and costs.

Budget Transfers

Budget Adjustments for FY 96/97, as follows:

Fund: General

Dept.: Judicial

From: Contingency $85,000

To: Court Fees & Costs $85,000

Transfer #: 97-277


Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manger, requested that Tabs 10 and 12 be pulled for discussion. She also requested that, under Purchasing, Tab 27, the portion pertaining to a feasibility study of the Citizens' Commission for Children, be pulled from the agenda to be rescheduled for a later date.

Commr. Swartz referred to Tab 15, which pertained to the exemptions of Conditional Use Permits, and suggested that the Chairman send a letter to those different organizations to let them know that the Board has taken action on the item.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the following requests:

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services

Request for approval of Execution of Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract No. FL106CE0009 between Lake County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Community Services

For Your Information: According to Attachment 1 (F) of the Agreement between Lake County and the Lake County Health Department, the contract can be amended provided there is no written objection filed. This amendment brings in additional revenue for the Water Quality program and Food Hygiene program and decreases funding the Immunization Program.

Reports/Health Department

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Lake County Health Department Activities and Expenditures Report for the period ending March 31, 1997.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Indigents

Request for approval of the execution of revision and renewal of Agreement between Lake County and Lake county Funeral Directors Association, Inc. For the burial and transportation of indigent or unclaimed persons.

Libraries/County Policies

Request for approval of the execution of revised Lake County Library System Circulation and Registration Policy LCC-9.

Accounts Allowed/Hospitals

Request for approval of payment of monthly Medicaid Hospital bill in the amount of $42,466.58 and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the amount of $43,662.39 for the month of May, 1997.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Grants

Execution of Agreement between Lake County and Educational Foundation of Lake County, Inc., for annual grant funding at a fiscal impact of $4,000 for the Take Responsibility, Educate Kids (TREK) teen pregnancy prevention program.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Facilities and Capital Improvements

Request for approval of execution of deductive Change Order No. 18 in the amount of $36,517.00 between Lake County and Odell Associates, Inc., and approved execution of sole source Purchase Order to Guglielmo & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $36,517.00.

Fire & Emergency Services

Request for approval of Transfer of titles of two ambulance chassis (Property No. 15925 and 15343) to Florida Regional Emergency Medical Services.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Fire & Emergency Services

Request for approval of execution of Florida Department of Corrections Interagency/Public Works Agreement for the use of prisoner labor for Fire Rescue for mowing and light maintenance of fire stations for the period of July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998.

Accounts Allowed/Growth Management

Request for approval to exempt the attached list of Conditional Use Permits from the annual inspection requirements and associated inspection fee. Fiscal impact of $7,500.00.

Bonds - Mobile Home

Request for approval of execution of Mobile Home Bond for David & Faustina Golden to place a travel trailer on property located in the Blackwater Creek/Cassia area while constructing a single family home.

County Employees

Request for approval of certificates for employees with one and three years of service.

Courts-Judges/Assessments/Public Works

Request for approval of Settlement Stipulation in the case of Lake County vs. Esther Dempsey, Special Assessment No. 774028.

Accounts Allowed/Grants/State Agencies/Public Works

Request for approval to apply for the 1997/98 Planning Grant for Non-Sponsored Planning Related Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board and authorization for the Chairman to execute the 1997/98 Planning Grant Application and submit same to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Fiscal impact of $19,519.00.

Accounts Allowed/Road Projects

Request for approval to award Countywide Sidewalk Project No. 2-97 for CR-561A/CR-561, #3-4956 Mount Homer Road, and CR-25, Bid No. 97-104 to Asphalt Pavers, Inc. And approval to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $121,305.52 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner Districts 2, 3 and 5. Fiscal impact of $121,305.52.


Acceptance of the following deeds:

Statutory Warranty:

P. M. Incorporated

Marion County Road #5-8010

James H. Cottom, et al (3 deeds)

Marion County Road #5-8010

Richard W. Peterson

Marion County Road #5-8010

Michael J. Straub and Andrea Lee Straub

East Dewey Robbins #2/3-2729

(CORRECTIVE ITEM - This was approved on 2/20/97 for Twin Ponds Road #5-7676)

Samuel S. Thise and Connie S. Thise

Marion County Road #5-8010

Christine Wyatt

Marion County Road #5-8010

Mark S. McCann and Jason M. Peters

Lakeshore Drive #3-3128

Michael G. Thompson and Emily G. Thompson

Forest View Road

Donald E. Brackett and Delores D. Brackett

Forest View Road

Timothy J. Notartomaso and Dinah K. Notartomaso

Third Avenue #2-2257

Julie J. Coward and David R. Coward

Mascotte-Empire Road #2-1310

Frank D. Newgard and Glenda J. Newgard

Mascotte-Empire Road #2-1310

Lloyd Douglas Barrineau, R. Hugh Douglas, William M. Douglas, Russell V. Douglas, Frances Layton Douglas and Lillian D. Hogenboom

Marion County Road #5-8010

R. Hugh Douglas

Marion County Road #5-8010

George F. Green, Jr. and Mary Jane Green

Bruce Hunt Road #2-2541

Wayne A. Southard and Leslie A. Strickland

Bruce Hunt Road #2-2541

David Houke and Joyce M. Houke

Howey Cross Road #2-2441

Thelma J. Oliver

N. Quarters Road #2-3209

Vincent P. Gingras and Bonnie J. Gingras

Marion County Road #5-8010

D. C. Properties

Marion County Road #5-8010

Langley Groves, Inc.

Marion County Road #5-8010

Non-Exclusive Easement

Prachuab Suwan and Phornphan S. Suwan

Loop Road

Victor Roepke and Dee Roepke

Autumn Mist Lane

Drainage Easement

John J. Rochford

Country Club Drive #3-3147

Carl F. Leibner and Kathy A. Leibner

Country Club Drive #3-3147

Quit Claim

Luis Eduardo "Ed" Vergara, Individually and as Trustee

Maggie Jones #4-8190

William S. McClelland

Marion County Road #5-8010

Statutory Quit Claim Deed

Lloyd Douglas Barrineau

Marion County Road #5-8010

D. C. Properties

Marion County Road #5-8010

R. Hugh Douglas

Marion County Road #5-8010

Robert L. Fisher

Marion County Road #5-8010


Request for approval of execution of Resolution authorizing the posting of "Stop" signs in the Lady Lake area at nine locations in Carlton Village.

Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State

Request for approval of execution of Resolution authorizing the posting of "School Zone" speed limit signage on County Road 55 (4/5-6143) at its intersection with Bates Avenue #4-5771 to limit the speed of traffic during the morning and afternoon periods during which children cross CR 44 en route to and from Eustis Middle School.

Resolutions/Signs/Road-County & State

Request for approval of execution of Resolution authorizing the posting of "No Parking This Side" signs along the easterly right-of-way on Park Pl. #4-4368 from Old 441 to the sharp bend in the road at Sylvan Shores Park boundary.

Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements/Roads-County & State

Request for approval of acceptance, approval and execution of a Perpetual Easement to grant Right of Way over property on Poe Street #5-5834.

Road Vacations - Permission to Advertise

Request for approval to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 852 by Camma Town Ward to vacate drainage easement, Sec. 35 and 36, Twp. 19S, Rge. 26E, Mt. Dora area - Commissioner District 3.

Accounts Allowed/Bids/Agricultural Center

Request for approval to award bid 97-102 and encumber and expend funds in the amount of $145,361.00 to replace the roof at the Agricultural Center to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Marion/Service Roofing & Air Conditioning Company. Funding for this project is from #301.0857620.513.8600620 (Sales Tax Capital Projects, Capital Improvements General Government Buildings Fund).

Accounts Allowed/Road Projects

Request for approval to award RFP 97-049 for engineering design services for road projects to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. in the amount of $303,276.92 and Conklin Porter & Holmes in the amount of $308,528.00, approval to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $611,804.92 and authorization for Chairman to execute the contracts. Funding for these projects are from the following accounts:

Laws Road:

112.50056200.541.670 $65,610.13

Poe Street:

112.50056200.541.670 $13,244.00


112.50056200.541.670 $19,900.00

Hancock Road:

115.50056610.541.675 $71,833.16

Lake Emma Road:

115.50056610.541.676 $61,026.20

E. Dewey Robbins Road:

115.50056610.541.674 $77,883.51

C44/C468 Intersection:

115.50056610.541.673 $26,923.92


115.50056610.541.671 $41,620.00


115.50056610.541.671 $61,034.00


115.50056610.541.672 $36,440.00

Merry Road-Central & South:

115.50056610.541.672 $136,290.00

Risk Management

Approved authorization for Chairman to execute the Public Goods Surcharge/Covered Lives Election Form, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.



Presentation of plaques to employees with five years of service:

Allan B. Hewitt, Water Resources Specialist II, Growth Management/Water Quality Services Division/Storage Tank Contract (not present)

Deborah E. Tinis, Community Development Support Services Specialist, Community Services/Human Services Division/Affordable Housing (not present)

Presentation of plaques to employees with ten years of service:

Thomas L. Elmore, Maintenance Specialist III, Facilities and Capital Improvements/Facilities Management Section/Building Maintenance Services

Chris D. Goldsmith, Equipment Operator III, Public Works/Roads Division/Road Maintenance/Maintenance Area II (Minneola)

George A. Haynes, Mechanic I, Public Works, Special Services Division, Fleet Maintenance Services (not present)

Tensley D. Williams, Equipment Operator I, Public Works, Roads Division, Road Maintenance, Special Projects

Presentation of plaque to employee with fifteen years of service:

Richard A. Roof, Technical Support Operations Branch Supervisor, Growth Management/Water Quality Services Division/Water Quality Services

Presentation of plaque to retiring employee

18 years 1 Month Service:

Willie F. Chambliss, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Facilities and Capital Improvements/Parks Section (not present)


"PRIDE" is a program established to recognize our employees for the quality performance they are giving to Lake County and to let the employees know we appreciate their efforts.

Office of Agricultural Education Service

Carla (Vivian) Mitchell

Department of Growth Management

Lawrence P. Schmidt, Building Services Division

Dave L. Whitty, Code Enforcement Services Division

John Cento, Planning & Development Services Division

Department of Solid Waste Management

Dondre Collins

Mary Goen


Presentation of Resolution to Robert Wiley congratulating and honoring him for being chosen out of 7,500 members as the National Young Marine of the Year (Resolution 1997-127 approved on July 22, 1997)


Commr. Swartz noted that Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, was scheduled to appear at this time, but she had been called away temporarily and will be appearing later in the day.



Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, addressed the Board to discuss the property exchange with Cox Oil. He stated that the Florida Statutes require the County to have an advertised hearing when the County proposes to swap land with a private property owner. This particular transaction involves property located in Altoona at SR 19 and CR 42. He stated that Mr. Cox has proposed to give the County right-of-way along SR 19 and also along CR 42 with the County exchanging a portion of the old railroad right-of-way, which is on the westerly side of his property. Both properties were appraised and they were approximately equal in value, both less than $3,500. The agreement provides that Cox Oil will transfer the property to the County with title insurance and execute a suit to Quiet Title. There were some tanks on the property that were subject to a Consent Decree with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Cox Oil has already moved the tanks. There was a small spill and Cox Oil has agreed with DEP to continue the clean-up and to file a final close out report. Mr. Minkoff noted the indemnification language in the agreement, as well as the agreement requiring Cox Oil, within 18 months from closing, to tear down the buildings and build a new convenience store.

Commr. Cadwell extended his appreciation to Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, and Mr. Minkoff's Office, for working through this process.

Mr. Minkoff noted a typographical error on Page 4 and noted that the language should read as follows: "In no event shall the existing buildings remain on the site...".

Commr. Swartz opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, stated that, in behalf of Cox Oil and Mr. Chris Cox, she wanted to express her appreciation for the cooperation they experienced with the County.

There being no further public comment, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the property exchange with Cox Oil.


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, discussed the request for approval and execution of Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement between Lake County and Nina Plastics for property in the Lake County Central Park in the approximate amount of $300,000. He stated that, when selling the County property, the County was required to advertise it for bids, in addition to taking offers. He noted that an offer was received for all of Lot 1 less one acre, which involves a group of trees that the County wanted to preserve. The offer did not come back to the County totally in cash.

Ms. Leslie Little, Senior Director of Economic Development, updated the Board on the history of Nina Plastics and stated that they had asked the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) to consider the direct purchase of the immediate five acres (Lot 1) in accordance with the County's standard purchase agreement, and to actually purchase the additional four acres (for a total of nine acres) over a three year period of time in cash terms, to include interest at prime rate, which would be tagged to the anniversary date of the closing of the first five acres and a first mortgage by the County. Ms. Little stated that they have made a request to purchase the nine acres at the $30,000 per acre asking price.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the IDA understood that carrying the mortgage would be a policy issue for the Board. He noted that the IDA had approved the sale of the property, but they did not get into the issue of what happens to the money once the property was sold, because they also felt this would be a policy decision for the Board. He further noted that the IDA had stood firm on their price of $30,000 after receiving an appraisal at $27,000 per acre.

Ms. Little noted that Nina Plastics had agreed not to develop or split off any of the frontage for commercial activities; they agreed to work with the Architectural Review Committee when embellishing the frontage; and to pay the interest at prime (8 1/4 percent), which would be greater than the interest being paid on the County's current debt.


At 9:30 a.m., it was noted that Commr. Good had arrived for the meeting.



Commr. Hanson stated that the proposal sets the trend for the rest of the industrial center and fits right in line with what the Tourist Development Council (TDC) wanted to do and with what they thought should happen with the land, because of the industrial park already being there, and it no longer being appropriate for TDC activities. Commr. Hanson stated that her biggest concern was still a plan for putting the TDC dollars back into TDC coffers. She stated that the TDC was concerned and felt there should be recognition of these dollars. Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to get a motion regarding this issue on the floor, and under her business, she would like to come back and talk about it.

Commr. Swartz stated that all of the Board recognizes that, in the initial purchase and acquisition of the land, some of the TDC money was used, and if the County was going to utilize, or sell, or in any way do something with that land, then the Board did need a plan, and staff was working on bringing something to the Board.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not know if all of the dollars would go to repay infrastructure, which they may need to do at this point, so she just needed a time frame and wanted to discuss this under her reports.

Commr. Gerber stated that, because Nina Plastics was dealing with colored plastics, she noticed that there was a provision for hazardous waste.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the contract was contingent upon Nina Plastics getting permits and doing their own due diligence, so that, if upon contact with Southern States, they determine that the wastewater plant could not handle them, then he did not think they would close.

Ms. Little stated that she anticipated the company applying for the Incentive Fund and noted that there would be 50 employees initially on the site. She stated that the company was hoping to hire locally, and it were examining some training programs, which would allow the County to certify their employees at the premises, and to teach and train people that might be idled with the muck farm buy outs. She noted that there were two other companies in the County that were looking seriously at the training programs.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there were some concerns from the IDA about the actual building and the location of it, but the Chairman of the IDA, Mr. Carl Lunderstadt, had visited their other facilities, and after that information was brought back to the IDA, the members had a very good comfort level.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the execution of the Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement between Lake County and Nina Plastics for property in the Lake County Central Park, with the terms as outlined.


Commr. Swartz, Vice Chairman serving in the capacity of Chairman, returned the gavel to Commr. Good.



Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Change Order in the amount of $72,753 to Metric Construction's contract for additional renovation to the Sheriff's Administration Building, County Administration Building and the Historical Courthouse. Mr. Anderson noted that the original request, in the amount of $151,693, was reduced to $72,753, because there were a couple of items that he pulled for clarification and additional backup, and he wanted to discuss them with the architects.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Change Order, as presented by Mr. Anderson, to Metric Construction's contract, in the amount of $72,753.



Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Services, informed the Board that, on August 9, 1997, Saturday, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., there was going to be a Back-to-School Safety Fair at the Leesburg Wal-Mart parking lot.


Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 1996-97

Ms. Lora Bailey, Interim Special Services Director, addressed the Board to present the stormwater quarterly report. She noted that the Board had received an updated matrix from staff for review. She stated that Mr. Ross Pluta, an Engineer in Public Works, was present today, and he had worked on another one of the agenda items for today and was also managing the FEMA remapping contract. She discussed the following issues with the Board:

Ms. Bailey reviewed the following topics and Mr. Pluta presented detailed information on the Flood Study:

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that Astor has been working on a sewer treatment plant and currently has $8 million to go toward it, but they need $16 million. She felt it was a bigger problem than just Astor, or Lake County, and it was more of a regional problem, and with St. Johns, it becomes a State problem and because of the recent interest in declaring the St. Johns as a historic issue, it was a national issue. She would like to get as many players together as possible, if the Board and Ms. Whittle agree, to coordinate with Mr. Bill Chandler of the Astor-Astor Park Water Association, to see whether there are some savings that could be generated by working together. She noted that Volusia County and State Representatives have been invited to a meeting she has called on August 20, 1997, to look at possible funding alternatives and options. She stated that the stormwater from the roads was an issue, as well as flooding, but it was all compounded when septic tanks become non-functional, and she was looking at the water quality of the St. Johns, and the continued degradation of the river.

Ms. Whittle informed the Board that staff had a meeting with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and has outlined some parameters for discussion.

Commr. Hanson noted that Hicks Ditch was at the top of discussion, but when considering Lake Gertrude, it has equal numbers except for using the first four criteria. She stated that Lake Gertrude should still be considered, because of the dollars that would be contributed by other governmental sources. Commr. Cadwell noted that staff was suggesting that the Board prioritize the studies of watersheds that can be done in-house and where the current dollars can be spent, so they can be removed from the list.

Ms. Bailey stated that, beginning October 1, 1997, staff would like to start thinking about the engineering estimate for the strategy of addressing some of the other watersheds that come to the top of the list that cannot be done in-house.

Mr. Stivender stated that it was the intentions of staff to move forward with Hicks Ditch, along with the SJRWMD, as discussed today, and Astor was being evaluated in-house, and then Lake Gertrude was the best case scenario for an estimate by an engineer.

Commr. Swartz stated that the first part of the presentation dealt with the different criteria and how the watersheds would be rated, and the Board asked to have some other considerations, but regardless of which one of the three the Board picks as the way in which it was going to rank watersheds, there was a process at the end that says no matter how they are ranked, the County will go out and get relatively inexpensive engineers' estimates to correct the problems that would be there. After this process, the funding will be reviewed, not only for studies, but the actual funding that may be required to implement the improvements necessary to deal with the water quality and water quantity.

Commr. Hanson stated that, once the study was done, Mount Dora will move forward with the infrastructure, because they have the funding, and they will probably find that the majority of the capital improvements will be in the City of Mount Dora.

After further discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he was of the opinion that the Board should select criteria on a science, give those to staff, and at that point, the Board will go down the list and determine the watersheds to have an initial study. Once the initial study is done, and if there are no funds, it will move to the next one, and if the funds are available, the Board would do it.

Commr. Good understood that the Board wanted to seek the engineering estimates as its next step in strategy and that would allow the Board to compare projects one to another, in terms of costs and its ability to undertake them.

Commr. Swartz stated that this was correct, except staff did not know which ones to start considering until the Board decided how it was going to establish and rank the watersheds.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, as a point of order, this was not an action item today, and he was not prepared to take any action, and he did not feel the Board should take any today. At a minimum, if the Board was going to take action, the item would need to be placed on the agenda as an action item.

Commr. Good stated that there was a question of whether the Board needed more time to look at the issues and make its decisions.

After some discussion, it was noted that no action was needed by the Board.



Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, addressed the Board to recommend the splitting of three precincts which were all in south Lake County in District 2. She stated that, beginning with Precinct 49, she was recommending the formation of Precinct 79, with 1,077 registered voter; Precinct 71, she was recommending the formation of Precinct 80, with 673 registered voters and Precinct 82 with 361 registered voters; and Precinct 22, she was recommending the formation of Precinct 81 with 928 registered voters.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the formation of Precincts 79, 80, 81 and 82, as requested by Ms. Stegall.


At 10:38 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.



Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the ten Capital Improvement Projects selected by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for funding in Fiscal Year 1997/98 at a fiscal impact of $200,000. Mr. Pula introduced Mr. Jim Myers, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

Mr. Myers addressed the Board and recognized some of the other members of the Advisory Board who were present in the audience, as follows: Ms. Basha Schlazer, District 2; Ms. Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman, District 3; and Ms. Barbara Wilson Smith, District 4. Mr. Myers extended his appreciation to all of the members on the Committee for the work they put into the Advisory Board this last year. He noted the following criteria used to make their recommendations:

a) the monies be distributed equally among the five districts within the County;

b) he project be prioritized to address projects that would provide needed new parks and recreation facilities or complete previously funded projects;

c) that the project or the phase of the project could be expected to be completed during the budget year;

d) that the municipality or group would have the resources available and be willing to accept the maintenance of the project once completed;

e) that the municipality or group would charge users of that facility the same fees as long as they were residents of Lake County.

Mr. Myers stated that the Board has been provided with a listing of ten projects, which total $200,000.

Mr. Pula showed pictures of each of the sites and explained what would be taking place at each one.

Mr. Myers recognized Commr. Cadwell who was the liaison to the Advisory Board and stated that he appreciated his participation and guidance. He requested that the ten projects be funded in the amount of $200,000, and that a joint meeting be scheduled between the Board and the Advisory Committee on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, to bring everyone up to date on all of the projects that were authorized over the past five years, and to request additional funding in the future.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in the County's Comprehensive Evaluation Appraisal Review Process, the Open Space and Recreation Committee will be looking at all of the projects, particularly those in the unincorporated area, and bringing up the level of service for the parks that are now in place, and it will be looking at finding ways that the funding is provided, or at least a method to have some other funding that keeps the County at the level of standard it has now enhanced in part because of this process.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the ten Capital Improvement Projects selected by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, as presented.


Commr. Swartz received a picture of the pig that he bought at the Fair this year, which was presented by Mr. Brian Watson and his father, Mr. Danny Watson, Sr.



Mr. Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the proposed Lake County Middle School After School Enrichment Program. As the concept was reviewed, there were several things that staff felt were important for it to be a success, as follows: 1) developing outcome measures; 2) the emphasis of the importance of a site coordinator and increasing the hours of that individual; 3) transportation; and 4) opportunities to recruit the best providers for the instruction within each one of the programs. Mr. Jackson stated that the Program will be coordinated by the Lake County School Board who will seek to find the best providers for instruction, and this may involve on-staff teachers, non-profit group instructors, qualified individuals, recreation staff, and others. He noted that the project seeks to expand the program at Tavares Middle School and offer two middle school after school programs in two other areas, which would be Eustis and Groveland. He further noted that an analysis would be prepared for the first year, which would only involve six months this year, in order to be able to offer the program county wide. Mr. Jackson noted the Outcome Measures listed in the backup material on Pages 6-7 and stated that, once a draft was prepared, it would be taken to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, as well as the Citizens' Commission for Children. He further stated that staff had met with two of the principals who had concerns about the quality of the programs and the lead responsibility for implementation and supervision. In the proposal, the emphasis was placed on the site coordinator and the extended hours. Other major concerns were the use of appropriate activities to draw the students, the direct supervision of the staff, and relying solely upon teachers who have been in the classroom all day. Mr. Jackson briefly reviewed the comments made by the Children's Commission for Children and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.

Mr. Jim Myers, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, stated that the Advisory Board had asked him to attend the meeting today and to encourage the County to move forward with the program. He extended his appreciation to County staff for putting the criteria objectives and activities together in the presentation. Mr. Myers stated that there were a couple of items that were concerns of the members, and they agreed with the idea of having local flexibility for the principal, by location, to be able to utilize those best persons available to provide the instruction and to operate the programs. He stated that, even though the members had not seen what was before the Board today, he had reviewed it and saw nothing that had significantly changed. Mr. Myers stated that he would like the Board to consider budget flexibility, because originally they had requested authorization for up to 200 children at each location. He hoped that any of the remaining issues could be resolved quickly, and he did not know of any reason it needed to come back to the Advisory Board.

Discussion occurred regarding the projected number of children (200), with Mr. Jackson noting that the principals felt this was being too optimistic, and they gave him numbers like 40 to 50, but they did agree that, with the transportation component, it would definitely help increase the numbers.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether it was anticipated that these children involved in middle school sports would be counted as part of the numbers involved in the program.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there would be a minimum of 100 people in the program discounting those kids that would be participating in team sports.

Mr. Jackson explained that the team sports would only be two to three times a week, and after the sports program was completed, there was hope that they would continue in the program. He noted that they could be in both programs. Mr. Jackson stated that multiple selection criteria and referral criteria would need to be developed to assure that at-risk individuals are involved in the program.

Mr. Myers noted that the criteria established for payment was based on the school lunch program formula.

Commr. Swartz stated that, when the proposal was first brought to the Board, he was concerned about how the program was going to be operated, and some of his concerns have been increased as a result of what the principals have said. He stated that the information before the Board basically presented a program, but he was concerned about the comments from the principals, because if there were 200 students at the projected cost, it would result in $443 a student; with 100 students, it would be $886, and he was not certain how much the instructional and other staff would be in terms of costs. So far the providers could not be identified, and he suggested making it a community project.

Commr. Good stated that he was on record as saying the County infrastructure and the local communities pick up the operating costs, which he feels has made the infrastructure program successful for the County. He stated that looking for local participation in this case would be a plus for the program, and it would expand the County's resources and leverages out a lot farther, both in money and fiscal support, and also in talent.

Commr. Hanson stated that the schools were the most logical place to have the program, but she could foresee 4-H coming in as a major organization, as well as the Boys and Girls Club. She felt that the extra time was needed to consider these things, and once the information was presented to the community, these people would be coming forward.

Commr. Swartz stated that the groups referred to by Commr. Hanson were ideal partners, and one way to make sure the County can give the greatest assurance of a successful program would be by taking the criteria and asking for request for proposals to find the community assets.

Commr. Cadwell noted that all of the noted organizations were invited to the table when the Advisory Board held its meetings.

Mr. Myers stated that what was being suggested by Commr. Swartz had already been taken into consideration by the Advisory Board. He felt that the Board needed to concentrate on the instructional aspect of the program, because the Advisory Board understood that there were other volunteer, non-profit groups that provide services, but the Advisory Board's concerns dealt with facilities, the instructional aspects, and transportation. They felt that, in the initial year, they needed to concentrate on the providers, and it appears in the proposal that they have the flexibility within their community to go outside and tap those user groups and non-profit agencies in hopes to keep the costs down.

Commr. Swartz explained that he was not necessarily opposed to the three sites, but he did not feel that the County was necessarily tapping into the community assets, and he was not sure it had the buy-in from the community.

Commr. Cadwell explained that the County and School Board will be partners, and he felt this was a program where the results could be measured.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would feel a lot more comfortable with the whole proposal by opening it up to the community, because in order to get the kids to be there, it was important that they deal with other individuals in the community rather than those they have been seeing all day long in the school atmosphere. She felt it was imperative that the County get the message across that it wants to encourage the partnerships, and the involvement of those community activities.

Commr. Swartz stated that what Commr. Hanson was suggesting was not before the Board today. It was troubling to him when the principals were backing away from this because they do not want to rely on teachers, they do not want to have any supervision of staff, and they want site coordinators. He agreed that the schools would be the best place to have the program, and the transportation component was important, but it was the extra step that the County was not doing, which was allowing those community based organizations to participate. He was not in favor of turning the money over to the School Board for the program, and by bringing everyone together, he felt that the County would more likely be able to achieve the goals set forth by Commr. Cadwell.

Ms. Judy Borders, Community Education Dean for the Lake County School System, addressed the concerns from the principals and the emphasis being placed on the partnerships with others in the communities and stated that there were other programs that were currently utilizing outside agencies, and she did not realize that this information needed to be shown on paper.

Commr. Swartz addressed the proposal that was submitted by the Friends of South Lake for the after school enrichment program and stated that their program involved a smaller amount of dollars than the County was proposing to spend at the school.

Ms. Borders explained that there was concern expressed by one of the principals about administrative costs, which were not being added into the cost to the County, because this was their in-kind contribution. Ms. Borders reviewed the results of the surveys that were presented to the children and the parents and noted that there would be a Student Advisory Committee that would help choose the activities that would be offered at each site.

After some discussion, it was noted that the start-up date for the program would be January, 1998.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve the Lake County Middle School After School Enrichment Program.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that, because he knew that Commr. Cadwell and other individuals had worked hard putting the program together, he was going to vote for it, and he urged the selection of the site coordinators to be made as soon as possible, so they can begin to find ways to bring in community based organizations, and to bring in expertise and community support that he felt the program needed to be successful.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 5-0 vote.


At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch until 1:15 p.m.



Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Coordinator, presented the request to establish a formal grant program for cities, towns, and government agencies to apply for and receive Boating Improvement Funds (approximately $75,000 per year).

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the above request, as presented by Mr. Pula.


Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve the request for execution of Grant Agreement with Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association, Inc. (FNGA) in the amount of $589.15 for partial funding of the Lake County Horticultural Learning Center and establishment of a relationship with FNGA.

Mr. Lloyd Singleton, Development Associate, Horticultural Learning Center, was present to answer any questions of the Board.

Under discussion, Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, noted that the agreement requires the County to keep the horticultural gardens going for a period of three years.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.


Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request to approve the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Condev Land Fund II, Limited Owner, relating to the Glenbrook Planned Unit Development. The agreement provides for the PUD to be developed as outlined in the original PUD Order, however, it was not recognizing the May, 1993 preliminary development plan, as approved by the Board in 1993. It will continue with the seven dwelling units per acre, and it was not going to exceed 659 units, however, they will be vested for four years from the concurrency management system. The other details in the agreement dealt with setbacks. The other change from the approved development plan is the commercial, which staff has agreed to reconfigure it so it will not extend more than 840 feet along U.S. Highway 27. The applicant will be redesigning a plan for more of a strip commercial type setup to more of an intersection type commercial. Ms. Farrell stated that the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of commercial locational criteria, and the distance from the intersection, as proposed in 1993, and as far as concurrency management, they will be vested for four years.

Commr. Good noted that the request was in his district, and he had no problem with it.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Condev Land Fund II, Limited Owner, relating to the Glenbrook Planned Unit Development.


Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request to approve the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and J. D. Floyd, owner of Midway Manor, Inc. She stated that this involves a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for 243 RV units, and staff negotiated the number down to 158 units.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and J. D. Floyd, owner of Midway Manor, Inc.


Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Country Greens, which was executed by the Senior Director, Department of Growth Management on August 5, 1996 and disapproved by the Board on September 3, 1996, based on the Recommendation of Order of Special Master dated July 3, 1997. Ms. Farrell stated that the Board had before them the same Settlement Agreement that was approved on August 5, 1996, and staff has taken the PUD and put some time frames on it, as reflected on Page 1 of the Agreement, and placed a cap on the commercial, as reflected on Page 2. Ms. Farrell stated that staff cleaned up some of the PUD Ordinance requirements and on Page 2, 6., it provides the option of the 147 acre golf course or 147 acres of open space, and the rest of the clean up had to do with impact fees.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this was the only Special Master case that the County has had where a Settlement Agreement came to the Board, the Board rejected it, and it went on to arbitration. An arbitration hearing was conducted and C. Welborn Daniel, Special Master, recommended that the land owner was not totally without fault and found that, to now deny the land owner some vested rights, it would be unjust and inequitable, and he recommended an adjustment and essentially recommended the agreement, which was presented back to the Board. Mr. Minkoff noted that his Memo in the backup material references F.S. 70.51(21) and (22) in the Ordinance, which allows the Board to accept the recommendation; modify and send it back to the property owner; or reject it. He explained that initially the recommendation was to accept the Settlement Agreement from the Growth Management Department.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would agree with the Special Master to some extent, and the property owner would have some development rights available, but he did not believe that they would to the extent that this Settlement Agreement provides which is essentially what was originally provided for in the PUD, although with some time frames. He stated that what was before the Board was exactly what was before the Board once before, which the Board rejected. The Special Master has recommended to accept it, modify it, or reject it. Commr. Swartz stated that this was a case where the project was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and there were a lot of factors, and he was still not willing to accept this Settlement Agreement, because it provides for development that is not timely and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because it is in rural. He stated that, although he would agree in part with what the Special Master has said, he did not believe the conditions would entitle the property owner to the amount of development that is provided for in this agreement, and he would still vote to reject the agreement as he did before.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Special Master process was a mediation type of process, so it would terminate, and the property owner would make the decision whether to challenge the County's original denial of the vesting in court. If they did not challenge it, there would be no vesting and the property would remain rural.

Ms. Farrell explained that there was no clustering plan, because the density was so high, but it would still be inconsistent with the land use today.

Commr. Swartz stated that there are issues that can be considered and, in previous cases, the Board has looked at the facts in the case, and in one case, the developer may have actually platted and put in infrastructure, but in this case, there has been no infrastructure put in. Commr. Swartz explained that the land owner got an extension of the PUD, and before he got another extension, the PUD actually expired. He believed that the Special Master indicated that the applicant, or property owner, was not totally without fault, because the land use map was changing, and the vested rights ordinance was changing, and the applicant's counsel was intimately involved with these changes. While there may be some development allowed today, and some even with the preliminary or construction plans that were submitted for 46 lots, without the requirement for the central water and sewer, it would be inconsistent with the PUD. He noted that the issue was approved in 1984, and there were ten years where the developer could have developed and nothing was developed. He further noted that the Agreement only puts time limits on the requirement to get a plat approved.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Code states that, at the time of platting, an agreement is entered into which specifies the exact time, which cannot exceed five years. He explained that the Board approves the plat and that agreement is part of the plat approval. The term "shall not exceed five years" does not mean someone gets five years, it means the County estimates the time of construction, and that is what is put in the agreement, but in no case could it ever exceed five years.

After some discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to know what the vote was on this issue the first time it came to the Board.

At 1:38 p.m., it was noted that this particular issue would be tabled until the voting information could be provided to the Board.


On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Rescission of Developer's Agreement as to Grafton Groves.


Mr. Gary Debo, Division Director, Solid Waste Management Services, Mr. Don Post, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, were present to review the proposed policy to provide for Community Sponsored Cleanups and the waiver of Solid Waste tipping fees.

Mr. Debo addressed the Board and presented a detailed synopsis of the proposed Community Sponsored Cleanup Program Policy and presented the costs that could be figured as fixed costs regardless of the specific location of the community cleanup, which were presented in the backup material (Pages 1-6). Staff was recommending that funding be established in the amount of $50,000 to cover costs and disposal fees. The $50,000 would be distributed between the five Commissioner districts for a base allocation of $10,000 per district per year and would provide for an estimated two cleanup events per year per district. The Departments of Solid Waste and Public Works would each establish a $25,000 account for funding this program. The Department of Public Works would be responsible for overall coordination of each cleanup event, and the Solid Waste Department for franchised hauler support, if appropriate, and solid waste disposal. It is envisioned that Public Works would allocate cleanup based on district priorities.

Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated the effort made by staff, since it had only been six to nine months when she first brought up the neighborhood amnesty cleanup program and that staff had put together a very good initial program with the partnership it had created. She stated that Keep Lake County Beautiful could be involved through the promotion of the program and getting individuals involved. She further stated that the $10,000 was fair per district for this year, and depending on where there was a need, the amount could fluctuate, so there may be a need not to be locked in at $10,000 depending on the generation of costs.

Discussion occurred regarding the funding that would be used for the costs, with Mr. Post noting that the department had already established a line item for promotional activities.

Commr. Swartz stated that the funds that go into the Solid Waste budget come from within the cities as well as the County, and he did not think that the department could identify funds that, in part, are paid for by the cities to cleanup properties and communities that are unincorporated.

Discussion occurred regarding Keep Lake County Beautiful, with Mr. Post noting that they receive a grant of approximately $19,900 per year.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to see some involvement from Keep Lake County Beautiful other than advertising, and he did not believe the County could spend solid waste monies and not have problems with the cities. He stated that he would like Solid Waste to look at the issue of the haulers picking up sofas, etc., because it says in their contract that they will pick up these items. He suggested that Solid Waste look at this issue in the renegotiations with the haulers rather than taking monies that are partly paid in by the cities.


Discussion continued regarding the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Country Greens, with staff noting that the vote on the original rejection of the agreement was 3-2.

Mr. Minkoff explained the Special Master process and noted that staff negotiated a settlement and it was brought to the Board, the Board rejected the settlement, and then the process went before the Special Master, who made a recommendation. Now the Board will decide whether to accept the recommendation, modify it, or reject it. He noted that the Board had the recommendation of staff at the first hearing, and in this case, nothing has changed.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like to see clustering, but she would not want to change the agreement just to include this issue.

Ms. Farrell stated that there was nothing in the Code that would prohibit them from clustering, and staff would certainly encourage it during the development process.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, questioned whether the Board was going to take any public comment at a public meeting on a settlement agreement, which the Board was required to do.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the County was not in litigation, and the position has been before that, when the settlements are brought to the Board, he preferred not to turn them into public hearings and allow the sides to come in and argue pros and cons. He preferred to have the Board accept or reject the issue. He further explained that this one was a little different, because the County has never been at this stage in a Special Master proceeding. Mr. Minkoff stated that it would be the decision of the Board how it wants to handle the meeting. He stated that there would be no more staff involvement, if the Board chooses not to accept the recommendation. Mr. Kittredge would then decide whether or not to file a Writ of Certiorari, or whatever other action he might want to take in court.

Discussion occurred regarding whether the Board was going to allow public comment, with Commr. Good noting that there would be an opportunity, at another time, but not at this time.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would rather give Ms. Bonifay the opportunity to speak now before she gets to court.

After further discussion, it was noted that the Board would take comments from Ms. Bonifay today, but would most likely not be responding to her comments.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she was an attorney with Akerman, Senterfitt, and Eidson, P.A., representing Conway Kittredge, owner of the property that was the subject of this particular action before the Board, Agenda Item 37. She noted that the Board did not allow public comment after the Settlement Agreement was rejected the first time. Ms. Bonifay stated that, as the County Attorney had pointed out, this was the only one of these actions that has reached this point, and she felt it was important to put something on the record, even though it might not change anything, but to understand where everyone was in this process. She stated that, if the recommendation of the Special Master was rejected today, as the County Attorney has indicated, she would be through with the mediation and arbitration, and her client would have no remedy but to proceed to circuit court. Mr. Kittredge would proceed to circuit court with an order that had been rendered, which found that he had vested rights, even though the Special Master found that he was not without fault, which has a number of various interpretations which may or may not be the ones that have been given here today by the Commissioners, since the Board did not have a transcript. Ms. Bonifay stated that there would be some incentive for her client to go to circuit court, otherwise, he could only use his property and have 131 units on it, which would be five acre tracts on well and septic, and it would not be a planned community or meet the commercial locational criteria. The Settlement Agreement, if she does go to court, would not be what they would be litigating, and they would not agree to any of the limitations that have been set forth in it, which included the reduction of the square footage. There was a question during the mediation arbitration as to when and how central water and sewer services had to be provided, and it was their position that they could use interim services until such time as a regional facility was available. The original commercial was for 18 acres, 180,000 square feet, and there would be no time limitations on when they could develop it. Ms. Bonifay stated that there was no case law on vested rights, the legal determination was the important issue, and Mr. Kittredge was vested. When she goes to court, it would be to get everything that was in the original PUD, with no limitations in terms of times, square footage, or anything else. Ms. Bonifay stated that, if they end up in circuit court over this issue, she would be testifying before the Florida Legislature next year, because no one should be able to go through mediation and arbitration and have no recourse to look at any way to compromise, but to say take it to court.

Commr. Swartz stated that this particular issue does not meet the vested rights test, it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan today, other than what expenses they have been able to note, and there has been none that have actually put infrastructure in the ground. He might have looked differently on it, if the Special Master had come back with something other than to accept, modify, or reject, but he felt that this was one that warrants this Board rejecting the Settlement Agreement.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to accept the recommendation of the Special Master and proceed to implement it in the case Country Greens PUD vs. Lake County.

Commr. Good called for a vote on the motion, with the motion failing by a 3-2 vote.

Commrs. Swartz, Good, and Gerber voted "no".

Commr. Swartz stated that, if there was some hope for a resolution to this issue, other than what was before the Board, he would not be opposed to pursuing it.


At 2:14 p.m., it was noted that Commr. Cadwell left the meeting.


Discussion continued regarding the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Country Greens.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried by a 3-1 vote, the Board approved to reject the recommendation made by the Special Master, in regards to the Settlement Agreement between Lake County and Conway K. Kittredge and the development known as Country Greens.

Commr. Hanson voted "no", and Commr. Cadwell was not present for the vote.



Ms. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that Ms. Quinnette Durkin, Legal Office Administrator, was currently compiling a list of all of the County committees, and she will be indicating the membership by Commissioner district and putting it into a data base, so that the members can find all of the committee members from each district. He stated that the information should be complete within a few weeks.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following appointments of individuals to vacant positions on the Lake County Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Mark J. Clements and David C. Hilston.


Discussion occurred regarding the appointment of individuals to vacant positions on the Lake County Fire Rescue Advisory Board. It was noted that this agenda item would be rescheduled for the next Board meeting.



On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to continue using Steve Lengauer and his firm of Meier, Lengauer, Bonner, Muszynski & Doyle to represent Lake County as outside counsel for tort claims, and the retention of the firm Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain for use by Lake County in cases where Steve Lengauer has a conflict in his representation of Lake County.




Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, requested the Board's consideration of the consent of transfer of partnership interests with Regional Emergency Services, L.P.

Mr. Bill Compton, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Emergency Services (FRS), addressed the Board and stated that, pursuant to their joint venture of limited partnership with American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), on July 18, 1996, he and Mr. Seth Ellis were subject to several consents from all of their contracts. He stated that the Lake County consent had an exception, as reflected on Page 3, 2. (c), with regards to a majority of the current principals, and 2. (d), with regards to a special report provided jointly by RES and Waterman, which was delivered to the County on December 23, 1996. They received some communication from the County in April, 1997, and responded in its entirety to those questions in May. He has not had any additional communication about the report, however, Ms. Whittle, the President of Waterman Hospital, and he would be meeting in the next couple weeks to go over issues that relate to subsidy rates and issues of that special report. He stated that, as he had indicated, there was a need for them to do this merger to enlarge their company and bring more jobs to the area. Mr. Compton stated that they have recently purchased a fire EMS billing company out of Orlando to relocate it in its entirety to Mount Dora, which will add up to 100 new jobs. He was requesting that Page 3, 2. (c), be amended to allow a change in the majority ownership by the current Principals, Seth D. Ellis and himself. He noted that they have a three year employment agreement that ties directly to their contracts to the year 2000, which employs them as they are now.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was very much concerned to see this as a result of a year ago, because a year ago the Board was concerned and reluctantly went down the road of believing there would be a majority ownership of at least the entity which the Board seemed to be able to identify. He stated that today Mr. Compton was here wanting to remove that requirement, and what continues to disturb him was that fact that there was no assurance he could give them today that he would be with this firm tomorrow.

Mr. Compton stated that there was no assurance under the consent that the Board had before it today that he would have been here today. As far as the ownership of the company, and the concern that the Board had at that time, the consent was designed to preclude them from not being here. Their employment agreement essentially did the same thing with exception of costs, and as elected through their call option.

Commr. Swartz stated that this was something that the Board was not aware of a year ago either. He had no understanding that there was a call option that they could choose to buy out the other 50.1 percent.

Ms. Minkoff stated that last year staff had asked to see the contracts and was told that they could not see them.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether, except for cause, the employment agreement would allow Mr. Compton and Mr. Ellis to be here for the three year term.

In response to the question by Commr. Swartz, Mr. Compton stated that it was the intent of the employment agreement to keep them here for the term of their contract except for cause.

Commr. Swartz noted that there was a provision in the agreement that, without cause, they may terminate their employment after 30 days. He noted that this was on Page 10 of the Employment Agreement and stated that, further into the language, it states that they would still be required to compensate them, but they can terminate. While he was uncomfortable with the transfer a year ago, he was even more uncomfortable that this relationship could end the day after this agreement is executed. On a couple of occasions during the budgets, the Board appeared to be at a point where it wants to make a significant change in the contractual relationship, and to have some serious discussions on the issue of dispatching.

Commr. Cadwell agreed that the Board needed to have those discussions, but he understood that, if the Board was going to make some concessions, now was not the time. He stated that the Board needs to look at it and how it affects fire service and deal with it as a separate issue.

Discussion occurred regarding the dispatching services that Lake County has with RES.

Commr. Swartz stated that he had indicated that he did not support the proposal that Mr. Craig Haun, Senior Director of Fire and Emergency Services, made to the Board, which was to take fire funds to put those dispatchers that he wanted into Mr. Compton's operations. He was concerned that there may be something that the County will have to do in dispatch, and the Board will need to deal with this issue, but now the Board was at the point of finding out that the remaining 50.1 percent was not solid and the employment agreement could cease.

Mr. Compton explained that the dispatch has nothing to do with why he was here today, and he has not been before this Board to talk about dispatch, or any facet of his contract, other than assignability in a year.

Commr. Swartz stated that it was not an issue of whether the dispatching was good, or bad, or indifferent, it was who the County sits down with and talks about that issue.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was one of the Commissioners who fought to have some type of stipulation in the County's contract, because of the relationship it has had with the ownership group since the date it was started. He stated that there were levels of service requirements in the contract and other safeguards in regards to what type of services the County was getting for its dollar. Commr. Cadwell stated that this contract runs for three more years, and he was satisfied with it and felt that the Board should continue with it. He was not really concerned about who actually owns the company.

Mr. Compton noted that he had a current marked up draft of the employment agreement, with their intent being that he and Mr. Ellis cannot be terminated without cause. He noted that there were many other areas that had also been changed in the agreement. Mr. Compton stated that he planned to be back before the County in 1999 to renew the contract for another three or four years as they have done in the past.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the agreement terminates currently on September 30, 2000, however, on October 1, 1997 this year, there will be an extra year extension unless the County cancels. In the next month or two, the Board will need to make a decision to cancel, or automatically it will be 2001, and there will be no renegotiating in 1999.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to consent to the transfer of partnership interests with Regional Emergency Services, L.P.

Under discussion, Ms. Whittle pointed out that the consent last July did contain requests for certain financial information to give an accurate picture of revenues and costs, and this was to be provided by RES, any entity directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the company, or its principals and Waterman or any entity indirectly owned or controlled, etc., and the County has still not received the information. She stated that, as Mr. Compton had stated, he did, at the end of May, send information pursuant to the County's request, and Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance Department, has reviewed the information, and a couple of weeks ago she indicated that the information was not sufficient to do the kind of calculations that she needed to do. She questioned whether this, in any way, changed the requirement for this information to come forward to the County.

Mr. Minkoff stated that this did not change the requirement for the information to come forward and that technically failure to provide that information under the amendment was a default, but that paragraph has not been changed by the consent.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether the change in ownership would alter the agreement given the relationship that existed at one level and would now be changed.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the change in ownership only changes the respective bargaining positions of the parties at this moment.

Mr. Compton stated that he has had two correspondences from the County, and one was the report that he completed in August, which he was asked not to deliver until the first of the year, and it was delivered at the end of the year. He had received no correspondence from the County for four months, and at the end of April, he received a letter from the County requesting four additional items, and they were all relating to how he bills. He stated that there was one minute item in the report that they did not get, and it was revenue from non-emergency transports. They do not have a separate line item to track non-emergency transports, because they do not run many of them. He was told yesterday that this was the only piece of information that the County never received. He had delivered the reports in a timely manner and has received no correspondence back that they were ever inaccurate.

Ms. Lehman explained that, when she received the first report back in December of last year, it showed a loss for the year ending September 30, 1996, of $1.1 million, and for the year ending 1995, a loss of $1.2 million. The report was reviewed and staff wanted additional information, in order to gain a little more insight as to what was really going on, because all of the reports staff has gotten from the company indicates a loss of a lot of money. When staff asked for the information in April, it was to help staff analyze the revenue by the trips they were operating, but when it came to staff, it was not broken down between the emergency and non-emergency inter-facility. The revenue was given but not the trips, so staff could not make the calculation it wanted to make. Ms. Whittle asked for her opinion, and she presented it in a memo on July 11, 1997.

Commr. Cadwell asked that staff meet with Mr. Compton and Mr. Ellis before the October rollover date to review the necessary information.

Mr. Minkoff reviewed the language in the contract that stated that they have the right to increase the fees by sending the County notice within 60 days, and unless the County objected to the new fee schedule, it would be approved, however, the County can object, in which case it would not be approved.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was not comfortable turning over a contract to a company that, other than some brief information the Board had a year ago, he did not know anything about, and the County has had no relationship with. He felt that some of the issues that they needed to sit down and talk about were ones that needed to be talked about with the partners the County has been in the relationship with and not AMR's employees.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the Board does not have a requirement to approve it, so the contract would stay in full force with the requirement that is there. If the interest was transferred without the Board's approval, it would be a default under the agreement.

Mr. Compton stated that it was his complete understanding that their obligations have been met under the terms, and they were absolutely in understanding that, if they do make the change without the Board's approval, they would be in violation of the agreement.

Commr. Swartz suggested to the Board that, if it was the Board's desire to approve the request, it directs staff, on behalf of the Board, to begin some detailed negotiations with the parent company and try to arrive at some accommodation of any issues or questions the members about the parent company before it transfers without any recourse. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had discussed with staff the idea of sitting down and discussing the whole dispatch issue, so the Board can make some determination. The contract says that RES will provide dispatching for fire and EMS and it does not say without regard to the growth that would occur, and if that growth has occurred, the County needs to make some changes.

Mr. Compton explained that he has done a special report for Chief Haun regarding this issue, and he stressed that RES was going to make the necessary changes, because it is part of their contract, but if the County wants to fund fire dispatching, that would not be for them to say, but they did want to work with the County on this issue.

Ms. Whittle explained that the County's contract is between Florida Hospital Waterman and RES as their manager, because the hospital was actually the provider of the ambulance service and they have a management contract with RES. She has had some preliminary conversation with the new president of Florida Hospital Waterman, and he has asked to set up a meeting where they can begin to address the issues of the financial fixture, and it has been set for August 18, 1997. She stated that Mr. Compton did send a report at the end of December, 1996, and a request was sent back for additional information in April, which he sent in May, and they have not had any further conversations since Ms. Lehman's memorandum of July 11, 1997.

Commr. Swartz stated that he did not think that all of the issues, including the additional discussion with the President of Florida Hospital Waterman, were things that were going to fully be discussed and explored in a timely manner in order to meet the other requirement. He felt that it would be in the best interest of the Board to open the contract up for bidding at the time of September, 2000, so it would be his position that the Board should exercise the provisional clause. He noted that the Board has done something similar with the solid waste haulers, and this was another rollover that the Board should do. This contract has been in force since 1985.

Mr. Compton stated that he would have no problem with this direction, because it would be closing the contract through 2000, which does not preclude him from coming back in 1999 and renegotiating a deal with the County.

Commr. Swartz felt that staff should proceed on this assumption and prepare a response. He stated that the Board was suggesting that staff come back with an agenda item that does stop the rollover.



Commr. Swartz reported that he has begun to set up the Land Use Forum with Mr. Randall Arendt, Vice President of Natural Land Trust, and a public forum had been set for Wednesday, August 27, 1997, 6:30 p.m., at Lake Sumter Community College. He noted that letters were being sent to elected officials, appointed officials, Planning and Zoning Commission members about the meeting. On the following day, there would be more specific breakout sessions for staff.



Commr. Hanson requested that Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, get a recommendation back to the Board as soon as possible on the TDC dollars and how they are to be repaid.



Commr. Good reported that he has had several calls regarding ratites, and there has been the question of whether ratites are livestock or not, and the Department of Agricultural Extension Services has taken steps to address this issue. He stated that people are having one to four ratites on their property, and they are not intending to be ratite farms, or ranches, and they are pets. The County was presently saying that a person with a ratite or two ratites has to get a CUP, which is cumbersome and inconvenient for those people, because they are not a kennel, or a farm, or a nuisance. He would like to request that staff, on behalf of the Board, address the question of ratite CUPs, and why people have to go through the CUP process for a minimal number of ratites and get back to him as soon as possible, to let him know if there is a way that the County can find relief for those people with pet ratites as opposed to being ratite ranchers.


Vested Rights Determination for Property Owner by Wilber A. And Dale C. Boggs

Lake County will not deny the owner of Parcel "A" the opportunity to develop the property in accordance with the A (Agricultural) Zoning District. Specifically, Lake County will not deny the owner of Parcel "A" issuance of building permits based on land use designation established in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.