The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner Training Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good; Catherine C. Hanson; and Rhonda H. Gerber. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue B. Whittle, County Manager; Sue Michaelsen, Executive Secretary; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, Finance Department; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Swartz announced that the meeting today would be a Board Workshop on Water Supply Planning, Solid Waste Hauler Agreements, and Community Development Districts and that discussions would be between the Board and staff and that no public comment would be made other than by those making the presentations.
WORKSHOP - WATER SUPPLY PLANNING
Mr. Gene Caputo, Intergovernmental Coordinator, St. John's River Water Management District, appeared before the Board and introduced Ms. Barbara A. Vergara, P.G., Director, Division of Water Supply Management.
Ms. Barbara A. Vergara, P.G., Director, Division of Water Supply Management, appeared before the Board to discuss the District's water supply planning efforts. She stated that the St. John's River Water Management District was developing a regional water supply plan that would assure affordable and dependable sources of water and said plan would be called Water 2020 to reflect their year 2020 planning horizon. She stated that the plan would be developed cooperatively with local and regional governments, major water suppliers/users, and interested citizens and that their mandate was to assure that there was adequate quantities and qualities of water available to meet the reasonable beneficial needs of people through the year 2020. At this time, she noted that a document titled Water 2020 had been distributed prior to the start of the presentation. She explained that the District's goal was to identify sources of water and implement strategies that were adequate to meet the water supply needs without unacceptable impacts to wetlands, surface water bodies, and other existing legal users of water in an economically feasible manner. She presented a map identifying priority water resource
caution areas which defined regions where alternative water supply strategies were needed to meet future needs and discussed same. She explained that the Floridan aquifer could not provide all future water supplies without damaging wetlands, reducing spring flows, increasing salt water intrusion, and creating interference among users. She further explained that the District performed an alternative water supply strategy investigation and has prepared a series of feasibility assessment reports that have investigated possible alternatives, and that the feasibility assessments would be provided to the major water users for the basis of making decisions about what they might like to do in the future. At this time, Ms. Vergara introduced Ms. Sarah Whitaker, Consumptive Use Permitting Representative, who was present to address questions. Ms. Vergara noted that, at previous workshops, the issue of most interest to the public was the feasibility of withdrawing water from Haines Creek and Lake Griffin. She stated, for the record, that the St. John's River Water Management District has not proposed that water be withdrawn from Lake Griffin, and clarified that the District did investigate the feasibility of withdrawing water from several surface water bodies in the district so major water users could use said information to make decisions. She explained that the investigation did provide an estimate that approximately 14,000,000 gallons of water a day could be withdrawn without an adverse impact.
Ms. Vergara explained that the District has investigated alternative water supply strategies which would be made an integral part of the water supply planning process, identified work group planning areas, and set a plan development schedule which would begin with a series of work group meetings in January and continue for approximately 18 months. She stated that the work group meetings were intended to bring together all of the major water users, local governments, and other interested parties to participate in the development of a draft plan, and that Lake County would be in Work Group Area I. She requested that the Board designate an official representative to attend the work group meetings.
At this time, Commr. Swartz designated Commr. Good to represent the Board at the work group meetings and stated that Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, would assign one County employee to attend the meetings as a representative of the County.
Commr. Hanson brought up for discussion the feasibility of establishing a separate work group area for Lake County; at which time, Ms. Vergara stated that discussion on establishing a separate work group area for Lake County has occurred; however, she explained that half of the impact projected in the Lake County area was coming from counties outside the area, and that it was pertinent that Lake County be present when discussions occurred at the work group area meetings in the counties that are impacting Lake County.
Commr. Good briefly discussed minimum flows and level studies that have been done along the coast and noted that he has seen no minimum flows and level studies done on the ridges where the big impacts are expected to occur. He questioned what steps could be taken to get minimum flows and level studies established on the ridges where Lake County would see impacts.
Ms. Vergara suggested that the Board make their desires formally known to the Projects Manager for the Minimum Flow Level Project prior to the adoption and submittal of the priority schedule each year to the Department of Environmental Protection.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes and reconvene at 10:15 a.m.
WORKSHOP - SOLID WASTE HAULER AGREEMENTS
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, introduced Ms. Kathleen Thomas, the new Director of Operations for Solid Waste Management Services.
Mr. Don Post, Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Services, appeared before the Board and noted that representatives from Town and Country Refuse, Industrial Waste Service (Browning-Ferris Industries), and South Lake Refuse were present in the audience. It was noted that additional backup materials were distributed prior to the start of the presentation. Mr. Post stated that the discussion this date would be on the negotiated amendment of the terms and conditions of the Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Services Contracts and Residential Collection Level of Service Options. He explained that the Board directed staff to negotiate an extension of the July 1, 1997 deadline for notification of exercise not to renew, and the haulers have agreed to an extension until December 31, 1997 to discuss the areas of road serviceability, yard waste collection, increased types of materials collected for recycling, equipment availability, charges and rates, and holiday schedule. He stated that, after meeting regularly with the representatives of the franchised haulers to negotiate amendment of the existing agreement terms and conditions, County staff's position was to increase the levels of service while maintaining the lowest possible cost to the customers.
Mr. David Crowe, Senior Contracts Administrator, Solid Waste Management Services, appeared before the board and briefly discussed the following issues:
Participation in County Community Clean-up Program
• Thirty-six Roll Off Containers
• Collection available County-wide.
• No additional cost to participants.
• Number of containers provided to amount of customers in each hauler area compared to county-wide total.
Ability to Add Curbside Yard Trash Collection
• Available to be added after October 1, 1999.
• Set out placement and frequency same as existing recyclable collection.
• Set-out limited to 3 cubic yards per week, with existing size and packaging requirements.
Expansion of Existing Curbside Recycling Program
• Current recyclable materials limited to newspaper, clear glass, aluminum cans, and plastics.
• Ability to expand numbers and types of materials:
- County designates materials to be collected, up to 6 different sorting categories.
Standardization of Commercial and Container Rates between Haulers
• Uniform rates averaged to be same for each hauler:
- Commercial Can Collection
- Commercial and Residential Container Service.
- Compactor Service.
Residential Rates and Levels of Service in Other Counties
Current Residential Level of Service
• 2x/week garbage; 1x/week recycling
• 1x/week garbage; 1x/week recycling (BFI limited area only)
Level of Service Options (Options 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Use of Trucks with Scales for Studies
• Haulers will provide the use of collection trucks equipped with truck mounted scales, at no additional cost, for use during generation studies and route audits.
- Maximum of 2 weeks every calendar quarter.
• Haulers will be required to service all "on-service" customers.
• Burden placed on hauler to demonstrate a specific road is inaccessible to their trucks and, therefore, unable to provide service.
• Determination of accessibility by County is final.
Renewal of Contract
• Renewal from September 2000 to September 2005.
• Additional 2 year renewal periods remains same.
• Addition of Memorial Day as a recognized holiday.
• Added provision that, if Recycling Collection Day falls on New Years Day, hauler must collect within 72 hours before or after.
Mr. Crowe discussed the charts illustrating Can Commercial Rates as of October 1, 1997, and the Average Rates For All Haulers.
Commr. Swartz requested that staff prepare an accurate comparison chart illustrating residential rates and levels of service in other counties. He further requested that staff prepare a chart illustrating the areas receiving one time per week garbage and recycling pickup and two times per week garbage and one time per week recycling pickup. He requested that an analysis be prepare on the increase in the number of residences that have received collection, noting that the revenue stream that was coming in to the haulers should be increasing from the new collections.
Discussion occurred regarding the community cleanup project. Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board consider providing large item pickup service for a fee to residences that are not on collection service in an attempt to prevent dumping. Mr. Crowe interjected that currently residences not on collection service have the ability to pay for large item pickup. Commr. Swartz suggested that a large item pickup fee schedule for those not on collection service be incorporated into the contract.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the only open issues at this time were changing the level of service, adding yard waste and increasing the fee by $1.57. He stated that a request for approval to extend the December 31, 1997 notification deadline to June 30, 1998 would be on the December 16, 1997 BCC Regular Meeting agenda.
Discussion occurred regarding one time per week versus two times per week garbage pickup; at which time Mr. Minkoff explained that the level of service did not need to be determined at this time and that the contract could include options.
WORKSHOP - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented the workshop on Community Development Districts (CDDs). He directed the Board's attention to the handouts in the backup and stated that the presentation and said documents were created by Orange County and that the presentation at this time would be on the nuts and bolts of CDDs. He briefly discussed the document, Impact of Community Development Districts in Florida, which examines how CDDs have been implemented in Florida and provides a brief summary of what a CDD is and how it functions. He noted that the document indicates that there were 67 CDDs listed in its records as of April 1996, and he informed the Board that currently there were 77 CDDs listed. He explained that a Community Development District was governed by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes and there was no flexibility for the Board of County Commissioners to make any changes to the statutory provisions or the way CDDs operate. He further explained that a CDD was an independent local government of substantially limited and highly specialized single purpose; a CDD's purpose was to provide infrastructure to community developments with the power to plan for, construct, implement, and maintain infrastructure; a CDD was not a general purpose local government such as a county or city and does not have home rule power and cannot regulate development; and a CDD was not a development and does not offer any land uses. He briefly discussed advantages and disadvantages of CDDs. At this time, he discussed the following issues:
Definition of a Community Development District
Legislative Findings, Policies, and Intent
• Legislative Purpose and Intent
• Legislative Policy
What Can a CDD Do?
• General Powers
• Special Powers
What Can a CDD Not Do?
What power does the county have over CDDs?
What can the county consider during establishment of a CDD?
Who runs the CDD?
• Board of Supervisors
• District Manager
• Upon attaining 5,000 in population, the CDD must hold a referendum on whether to incorporate into a new municipality.
What financing methods are available to a CDD?
• General Obligation Bonds
• Revenue Bonds
• Special Assessments
• Ad Valorem Taxes
Who must participate in a CDD?
• Establishment of a CDD requires 100% landowner participation.
• Disclosure to subsequent purchasers.
What is a landowner's recourse?
• CDD Imposed taxes are collected and enforced in the same manner as county taxes.
• A landowner may vote for the Board of Supervisors
• The county has no control over the operation of the CDD.
What happens if a CDD terminates?
• A CDD shall remain in existence unless:
- The CDD is merged with another CDD or Special District
- All CDD services are transferred to the County
What happens if a CDD just becomes non-functional?
• A default on bonds or obligations of a CDD shall not constitute a debt or obligation of the county or the state.
• If the landowner has not obtained any development permits within 5 years, the CDD is automatically dissolved.
• Inactivity of a CDD may be declared by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the two current Community Development Districts that have been created by the Board of County Commissioners were South Lake and Deer Island. He noted that a new Community Development District would be brought before the Board in January, and Florida Statute requires that the County shall hold a public hearing on a petition for a CDD. He explained that the state treats CDD hearings as quasi judicial hearings because a hearing officer was appointed and makes a recommendation to the Governor and Cabinet. He stated that there was no case law to support the state's position and an argument could be made that this was a legislative decision versus an administrative decision and, if it was legislative, it would not fall under the quasi judicial process. He noted that the Board had the ability to waive the quasi judicial process for the upcoming CDD petition under current policies.
Commr. Swartz noted that there would be a retirement party today for Chief David Hall, Lake County Sheriff's Department. He further stated that Mr. Jim O'Neal, South Lake Foundation, has invited the Board to attend a reception for the Olympic rowing team in Clermont on December 11, 1997. Commr. Good stated that he would represent the Board at the reception.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, informed the Board that the Clerk of the Court would be closing operations on Friday, December 26, 1997, and Friday, January 2, 1997 due to the holidays, and that the Judicial Center would be closed based on the fact that the judges would not be holding court. She stated that discussion at this time would be consideration to make December 26, 1997 an additional holiday for Board employees. She noted that the employees currently receive one floating holiday.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote, the Board approved to add December 26, 1997 as an additional holiday for 1997.
It was the consensus of the Board to continue to hold Board workshops in the Training Room on the second Tuesday of each month as needed. Ms. Whittle noted that, at the January workshop, the Board would be discussing issues pertaining to Lake County Central Park, and the Fairgrounds.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.
G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK