FEBRUARY 23, 2001

            The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, February 23, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., in the Magnolia Room Everett Kelly Convocation Center, Leesburg Campus, Lake-Sumter Community College, Leesburg, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender Others staff members present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Alvin Jackson, Deputy County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; Wendy Breeden, Library Services Manager; Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management; Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works; Bill Gilley, Senior Director of Solid Waste; Tad Stone, Senior Director of Emergency Services; Bruce Redus, Director of Economic Development; Fred Schneider, Engineering Director, Public Works; Jeff Richardson, Chief Planner, Growth Management; Christian Swenson, Public Works; Noble Olasimbo, Engineer, Public Works; Patty Michel, Community Outreach Coordinator; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

            There were a total of 62 individuals in attendance.




            Commr. Hanson introduced Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, a Professor from Florida State University, and stated that he is an author of ten books and is currently the Associate Director at the Florida Institute of Government.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he has worked with counties around the State, and he was the Executive Director of the Local Government Commission II, which looked at local government powers in Florida, in preparation for the Constitution Revision Commission in 1998. Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that Lake County has a good framework with its draft of the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). Dr. deHaven-Smith explained the format that would be used today for discussion and introduced Ms. Westi Jo deHaven-Smith, his wife and President of deHaven-Smith and Associates.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith began his Urbanization and Governance in Lake County presentation by noting that he would be discussing the following:

                      The Challenge: Mismatch of urbanization and city borders

                      Historical Origins of Unincorporated Urbanization

                      Problems Caused for Counties and Cities

                        -Financial pressures, duplication, conflict, other problems

                        -At bottom: land-use, money, power

                      After Lunch: Partial Remedies

                      Ideas for Reform

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the biggest challenge that the County faces, in terms of inter-governmental issues, is that the urbanization pattern does not fit city borders. He stated that this is true everywhere in Florida. He explained that the legislature for the State of Florida has left local government with a woefully inadequate situation for resolving these issues, and nobody is in charge and everybody has some power. He stated that Lake County has a large unincorporated population; it fits the historic pattern; but it has a more manageable situation than some of the counties, because it is addressing all of this early.

            Dr. deHaven- Smith explained bar charts and pictures, which illustrated the number of people living in the cities and in the unincorporated areas of the State in 1970, 1980, and 1990. In 1970, most of the people lived in cities. By 1990, it was about evenly split, as noted by statewide figures. There are about 16 million people in Florida, and eight million live in unincorporated areas. He addressed the chart of Population Distribution and noted that there are no large cities in Florida. The largest city would be Jacksonville, and the next largest would be Miami, which has about 365,000 people. In Lake County, there are no cities over 20,000. The charts showed a breakdown of the size of the cities in the State, and the percentage by each size, and noted that half of the cities in Florida have less than 5,000 residents, and there are about 400 cities. He also noted that 80% of the cities have less than 25,000 residents. He stated that Lake County has about 100,000 in the unincorporated area. Dr. deHaven-Smith had pictures of the Lake County’s old courthouse and new administration building for Lake County, as well as the soldier, because he felt they are a good symbolic statement of what it has in the County, in terms of its governmental structures. He stated that most areas start out with a small population mainly in the cities, and as they grow, they become mainly unincorporated over time, which is a normal pattern, and Lake County fits that pattern. Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that Lake County is serving a bigger urban population, and it has to decide how it is going to provide urban services to that population that is living outside of the cities. At this time, he reviewed the following:

            Problems from Unincorporated Urbanization

                      Counties must deliver urban services with a “shire” system of government

                      Counties have many service levels and districts

                      Duplication of services with cities

                      Commissions must deal with traditionally urban issues (e.g., zoning)

                      Developers can pit the cities against the county

                      Intergovernmental conflict, especially over annexation




                      Patterns of Population Growth

                      City and County development

                      Rigidities of Form


            Mr. deHaven-Smith discussed patterns of growth, in terms of population, and stated that, on a day by day basis, they are expecting about 550 a day moving to the State of Florida, which is a slower pace than the spurting periods (about 1,000 a day), but it is still very fast. The high growth in Lake County is being driven by the retirement population. He referred to a chart that showing the percentage of population 65 and older in 1970, and noted that, in 1994, it had gone up 18 percent. He stated that this is the period where Florida really became a senior state. He noted that, by 2010, that number is not going to change that much, because the baby boomers have not begun to retire, but by 2025, over one in four Floridians will be a senior. Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that, in an area like this, he would suspect that the senior population could approach 50% or more. He noted that, if you take the percentage of seniors in a population and double it, that is the percentage of seniors that will make up the vote in any given election. He referred to a population map showing 65 years and older (1990) and stated that seniors do not live directly in the downtown areas. They like to live about a county away to be able to use the facilities without having to deal with the obnoxious aspects of urbanization. At this time, he discussed the following:

            Stages of Urbanization

                      Stage 1: Rural

                      Stage 2: Retirement Boom

                      State 3: Young and Old

                        - Jobs serving retirees

                      State 4: Retirement Decline

                        -Retirees move to the next county

                        -Backfill by ethnic minorities

            Dr. deHaven-Smith discussed the City and County History, in detail, from 1821 to 1940,

and presented detailed information on the following:

            Why limited incorporation after 1970?

                      Politically difficult to annex

                        -City Council must pass ordinance

                        -Majority of electors in the area being annexed must vote for it


            Approach of 1968 Constitution


                      1968 Constitution: Home Rule

                        -Authorizes county charters

                        -References municipal powers

                        -Prohibits dual taxation

                        -Encourages city-county consolidation


            Lake County


                      When cities formed

                      Where growth occurred

                      Who resides where


            Incorporation Dates

            Lake County Population, 1930-2000

            Population Growth 1980-1996

            Percent Retired 1998

            Suburban Commuters

            Hispanic Population

            The Impacts of Urban Sprawl and Unincorporated Urbanization

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he would like to tell the story from the city side and then the county side, so that everyone becomes aware of the challenges for each. He then presented the following:

            The Problem for Cities:

            Providing “Free” Services

            Regional Burdens:






            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that, if a city does not levy taxes outside its borders, it is often carrying a regional population, and yet it is not able to tax on a regional basis. This is especially a problem for cities that attract a lot of tourism and shopping, etc. The other problem is dual taxation. A county can levy two types of millage, a countywide millage and a millage in the unincorporated area, either in part, or all of the unincorporated at once (municipal service taxing unit (MSTU - ad valorem and/or special assessment) or municipal service benefit unit (MSBU - special assessment). The tendency is for the county to rely on countywide millage to pay for services that are primarily in the unincorporated area. The cities have high property values and commercial corridors, and the county is taxing countywide and using that money to pave roads that are drawing people away from the cities, and then coming back and being “free riders” on their services. So the cities are faced with things that are dual taxation problems and “free riders”, which puts them in a very difficult financial situation.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith presented the following for discussion:

            The Problem of Urban Counties

            Countywide Service

            Needs: Police

            Fire Protection



            Environmental Protection

            Dr. deHaven-Smith explained that the county is trying to put into place rational services from a countywide perspective. He further explained that the county puts in sewer lines and water lines, and it builds fire stations, and suddenly a city comes along and it needs some neighborhood to annex for a developer, and it reaches out and does something called “cherry picking” donor communities, which is when you get the best stuff in the unincorporated area. Dr. deHaven-Smith discussed water problems in the State and stated that the biggest problem that Lake County should worry about is surface water pollution. He stated that the cities and urban areas will determine the fate of the county, but if there is a very serious blighted area, it will become a city and county problem, because it is going to impact everyone, in terms of their reputation, and the overall vitality of the county. Dr. deHaven-Smith discussed the following:

            Florida’s Tax System:

            Built for Tourism


                      Constitutional prohibition against personal income tax

                      10 mill cap on property tax per unit of local government

                      Agricultural exemption

                      Homestead exemption

                      Save Our Homes

                      Sales tax primarily on commodities

                      Second Homestead Exemption for Low Income Seniors

            Dr. deHaven-Smith explained that, once Lake County becomes increasingly urbanized, the costs for public services and facilities sky rise, and that is the per capita cost, because the intensity of the service has to increase. He explained that the County is going to be able to pay its bills, but the crisis is that the County will experience a declined quality of life. He stated that, if the County is providing high intensity urban services in the unincorporated area, then it ought to put a separate millage (MSTU) on that and make them pay for it. He explained that, when the city comes along and expands and annexes, the County loses that MSTU money, and typically the County will end up with the same costs. He reviewed the following:

            A Quick Summary

                      In Florida, counties and cities share responsibilities for services

                      However, their interests differ

                        -Cities: concerns about free riders, tax base, surrounding land uses

-Counties: concerns about county-wide services, sunken investments, urban growth patterns

                      Interdependence combined with different interests causes conflicts

                      But all lose if there is not coordination on annexation, environmental protection, etc.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith opened the presentation to questions. The first question asked was how to bring the School Board into the discussions. He stated that there have been efforts in trying to bring them into the concurrency model, and he suggested that staff contact Broward County first, because it is a contentious issue. He stated that the biggest problem is keeping the historic schools open and vibrant while you also accommodate the urbanization that is coming in, and because the County is approving developments, and the School Board is trying to build schools to accommodate the development, it impacts the facility and racial balance issues being dealt with by the School Board. He suggested that perhaps the School Board can enter into local agreements with the County, and maybe they can get some strategies about the long term development patterns for the County and thinking about how land development affects school issues.

            Mr. Jimmy Crawford stated that the Florida Growth Management Study Commission, that was mandated by the Governor to look at how growth management has failed or succeeded in Florida and how to revise it accordingly, has just issued a report on their website http://www.floridagrowth.org and it recommends, short of school concurrency, which has proven almost impossible to do in comprehensive planning, a closer coordination be developed and required in planning from local governments and schools, and it also addresses the increasing costs in urbanization. Mr. Crawford stated that it recommends that every new development that is proposed be required to do a cost effective analysis, to show that the growth pays for itself. He stated that the JPA has to work in concert with what is going to go on with the Legislature this year and probably next year.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that there is an annexation overlay that can be put into their Comprehensive Plans, and they can do things through their interlocal agreements. Ultimately the land development pattern, in the unincorporated area, is the issue for the schools.

            Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, referred to the issue of mobile homes and stated that the County makes money off of the retirement communities, which Dr. deHaven-Smith had indicated makes up about 28% to 29% of the County’s population, because they do not put burdens on the schools, or such services as police protection. He explained that the County loses on the urban sprawl found on five acre tracts. He referred to The Villages in Sumter County, which creates the market in Sumter County, and noted that the same thing is happening along Highway 27 in Lake County. He stated that the County is creating a lifestyle, and a marketing plan, that brings these people here, which is different than what has happened historically.  Mr. Richey stated that they are talking in terms of the cities and the County, and one of the major areas talked about in the Comprehensive Plan is providing water and sewer services, and the Lake County Commission, and the Lake County Plan, puts that on the private sector to do this through Public Service Commission certificated utilities, and those individuals are not even asked to be at the table for the discussion. Mr. Richey stated that they are a major player that needs to be equal at the table, when it comes to providing urban services to some of the areas, and they are a third party and a team player with the County that deserves to have some equal footing, when it comes to dealing with the cities, and the counties.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith explained that the County is really fairly early in its growth stage, and it is not all that urbanized, and the elected officials of the County and cities have got to think through this policy, and perhaps revisit this policy, because he has seen places where they rely on the private sector to do the utilities and have not worked that out very well, in some cases.

            Mr. Richey explained that there are hundreds of thousands of septic tanks in Lake County, and there are major good soils that accommodate those septic tanks safely and wonderfully well, and there has not been a failure that has caused a catastrophe in the history of Lake County, since 1884, which is why the County has not spent resources on building mammoth sewer plants in the middle of the rural areas, because the quality of life did not dictate it, or mandate it. He stated that the County has substantially protected its lakes, and the quality of Lake Apopka has no been affected by residential development.

            Mr. Hal Turville, Mayor of the City of Clermont, stated that one of things that has been very useful from this morning is that Dr. deHaven-Smith has showed them data that reflects the experience of others, and when you can relate that to exactly what is going on here, they can offset the notion that they are different, or particularly special, or blessed. Mr. Turville stated that everybody that has gone down this path, from a data perspective and has experienced similar problems. He does think they are early in the process, and if they can get a handle on it, they can probably end up somewhere they would prefer to be, as opposed to where they are predictably headed right now. He did not think that anyone could have described the problems that they have all experienced and can anticipate any better than Dr. deHaven-Smith, and it was very enlightening to have a third party present this data. He extended his appreciation to Dr. deHaven-Smith.

            Mr. Scott Strong, School Board member, stated that the school systems are playing catchup, as described in the headlines today. Mr. Strong stated that counties and the cities have the authority to approve these developments, and the school system has responsibility to build and put the infrastructure in place. He stated that, for example, to build a new student station for a high school, it will cost a little over $18,000 a piece. If a family of five comes in with three high school students, there will be $54,000 in immediate impact, but the impact fee that will be derived from that house may be only $1,300, so the economic factors are not in their favor. Mr. Strong stated that Orange County recently took a bold step and put a moratorium on some of the development, and he asked Dr. deHaven-Smith to comment on this issue.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that a moratorium is something for the development community to think about. He stated that the retirement community moves into the high growth counties, and they moved here with an expectation of quality of life. When it starts urbanizing around them, and the traffic gets worse, etc., a moratorium will typically become a very powerful political force. He stated that the moratoriums that have occurred were driven by the retirement community, because their view was that the quality of life was declining. From a developer’s point of view, his advise would be to encourage them to put in place frameworks that assure that the capital facilities can be paid for and the quality of life is preserved. He noted that it is not just the quality of the individual development, but it is the whole character of the community that has to be protected.

            Commr. Pool stated that a lot of developments that are seen today are retirement communities, so they are not the impact, and he would agree with what Mr. Richey had mentioned earlier, but cumulatively the County does not understand how many units a city, or the County itself, has planned in the next ten years, and this is something that everyone needs to know, and they need to recognize how many residential communities have been approved. He stated that they need to recognize that they can work this out together, and today is an opportunity to figure out where they are going and how they are going to get there.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith explained that there are very specific things that have to be resolved, which he will discuss after a recess.


            At 10:45 a.m., Commr. Hanson, Chairman, announced that the group would take a short recess.



            Commr. Hanson extended her thanks to the Commissioners and staff for putting together this meeting, and to Lake Sumter Community College and Dr. Westrick for the use of their facility.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith referred to the discussion questions that had been presented to everyone in their packet and stated that he would like to review them and see whether or not they were problems that existed in Lake County. It was noted that the following were problems for the cities:: water/sewer, roads, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, land uses on the borders between the cities and the unincorporated areas. The following were problems for the County: city cherry-picking, lost sunken investments, unpredictable changes in development patterns, unplanned for demands, turf wars with cities or private utilities.

            Mr. Turville explained that there are situations where someone comes to the City with already guaranteed densities and land uses, and once it comes to the City in that form, there is really not much to do at that time. It is compounded by situations that are starting to emerge where there may be city-city, city-county all in the same project, and it is beginning to get very complicated.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the question would be what the framework would be to evaluate these types of situations.

            Mr. Richey stated that he sees it differently than Mr. Turville in that, from a developer’s perspective, the person that controls the project is the one who can provide water and sewer, and generally speaking, it is either the private utility company, or the city that ultimately has that leverage in Lake County, because the County does not provide water and sewer, so the ultimate controller of that is the provider of the service.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that, at the pleasure of the cities, the County has a requirement in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that says that the developer has to get the utilities, and the cities are still in favor of that rule, because it is a benefit to the cities.

            Mr. Crawford explained that a city might adopt a 180 district surrounding private utility districts, and that is where they get into territorial disputes.

            Mr. Turville explained a typical scenario, which would be when a developer has a development approved on septic tanks, and then they appear at the city, with the ability to do exactly what they got approved by the County, and stated that, in terms of private utility providers, there is no requirement for them to provide sewer. He stated that, in the long term, the city is looking at water jurisdictions that will be invalid by urbanization, and there are no sewer lines, and there are no provisions for sewer, and this is going to be a very expensive problem to overcome, when it happens. He does not know if that is a State issue, but if you are a utility provider, and you are required to provide the utilities, instead of just the profitable water, it will probably make growth a lot more reasonable to deal with over time.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith clarified that the concern being addressed by Mr. Turville is that this may be “cherry-picking” by the private utilities. He questioned whether there was a County policy that addresses a development that comes in and it is on septic tanks, and there is a city nearby.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that, through the approval process, the cities are notified of proposed developments. It was noted that the cities have provided input when notified.

            Mr. Richey stated that any urban development in the County requires central water and sewer, and how that is provided is either done in the cities, or it is a private utility that provides water and sewer. He stated that there are no projects being built with density/intensity in the County that do not have central water and sewer.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that this was created by Board action several years ago, when it said it was not going to be in the utility business, and they were going to let the cities do it where they can and the private utilities where they can. He stated that it was a policy decision.

            There was discussion about vested developments and how sometimes the requirements are unclear, in terms of utilities, and the issue of development approval being given by the County on the city borders, where the city has to deal with the question of providing utilities, and the possibility of losing revenue potential.

            Mr. Richey explained that the projects being approved are pursuant to the County Comprehensive Plan, but the problem is conflicting interpretation of this Plan by the cities and County.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he is hearing that there are some informal processes that work pretty well, and there are some built in conflicts, in terms of approved development near the cities, which puts them in an awkward situation when they have not been made aware of it. Even if they have been alerted, it still puts them in a difficult situation, so there are questions about how well the informal process works. His suggestion would be to formalize some of these things, so that it is very clear who is going to be doing what, as applications for development approval come forward, and what standards are going to be used.

            Mr. Greg Beliveau, The Land Planning Group, explained that this was the third time they have met at this table for discussion of a JPA. Mr. Beliveau stated that the first time interlocal agreements were passed by ordinances, by the cities and the County. The original interlocal agreements were then voided some time in the 1990s, and sub-committees were created, based on regions, to have participation by the municipalities and the County. He stated that the Town of Lady Lake initiated quarterly meetings, without realizing the fact that they had road pressures from Marion County and Sumter County, because of The Villages, and they felt incumbent on them to start talking with developers, and municipalities and counties close to their boundaries. Then in 1994-1995, discussion started again about interlocal agreements and new JPAs, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was invited to the meetings to do some training sessions, and a draft of a JPA was presented, but those JPAs were never adopted. Mr. Beliveau explained that, during that period of time, they actually drafted new JPA land use maps, and utility service maps. The cities sent them to the County, and the County responded with a series of maps, and there was never any negotiation of the maps. About two years ago, the JPA process was resurrected and that is where they are today.

            Mr. Turville stated that this is a two step process. The first step is to make a decision on governance, as it relates to a joint planning area, and then have individual cities make submissions for their proposal, which can be negotiated and voted on individually. He stated that the strength of this meeting is that there may be cities that do not make a submittal, or have a proposal, but there are some cities that can benefit from this process. The County still retains the political authority, because they are going to look at the proposal, and the land owners affected, and make a reasonable decision on whether that is a good joint planning area, after having already decided what the governance is going to be, if, in fact, they do adopt one.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the idea is to adopt the draft JPA, for all of the cities, as a sort of framework, and for the cities to come forward with specific details to be negotiated by the County.

            Mr. Turville stated that it was his understanding that the maps that were presented with the last proposal were a reflection that the cities had an area of influence, a line that they arbitrarily drew on a map, and submitted to the County in hopes of being notified, or having some partnership in whatever was going on in the line that they arbitrarily drew. He stated that, if he had been a County Commissioner, he could not have signed onto that arrangement either, because it probably would have covered the majority of the County, the way the cities are spread out, and that is why the approach was taken that what they should do is basically come up with the governance method, and then make their submittal. He thought that the city should submit to the County one proposal, as a whole, and the County would have to void, or veto any proposal.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that, after they break for lunch, he would like to have discussion about what some of the principles would be to proceed with this process.

            Mr. Turville stated that one of the issues that relates to defining an area is the State annexation law itself, and there are definite mechanics that need to be worked out, as it relates to the government’s issue.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that, if they could work out joint planning agreements that are sound for the County, and the residents of the County, then they may get help from the legislature in resolving some of the issues, because the legislature can make changes by Statute.


            At 11:45 a.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the meeting would recess for lunch and reconvene in 30 minutes.



            Dr. deHaven-Smith continued with Part II of his presentation on Urbanization and Governance and stated that he would like to review some of the options that have been used in different parts of State and some of their experiences. He stated that those present today are working with the best option. He reviewed the following:

            Partial Remedies

                      City-County Consolidation

                      Regional Government

                      County Charters

                      Single Function Authorities

                      Annexation Planning


            Consolidation: The Strategy in

            Florida’s 1968 Constitution


                      1968 Constitution: Home Rule

                        -Authorizes county charters

                        -References municipal powers

                        -Prohibits dual taxation

                        -Encourages city-county consolidation

            Dr. deHaven-Smith pointed out in his material the number of times consolidation has been voted on in different counties in the State and noted that there was one successful consolidation, which was a very special circumstance in Jacksonville/Duval (1967). He noted that this does not appear to be a politically viable option, because people view it as creating another big government, and not as creating a streamline government. He stated that there have been some things done in Florida with regional government, and noted the following:

            Regional Government


                      Two major initiatives in Florida

                        -Water Management Districts

                        -Regional Planning Councils

                      Limited Effectiveness

                        -Works when:

                                    High benefits from cooperation

                                    High costs from conflict

                        -Water management, DRIs

                      Ineffective in tertiary issues

                        -WMDs and land-use

                        -RPC’s and resources of regional significance


            Dr. deHaven-Smith addressed the issue of county charters and noted that the county can adopt a charter that overrides city ordinances, and it has to specifically say this in the charter and be adopted by the majority of the electors. He further noted that this is authorized by the State Constitution. There are 17 counties out of 67 that have charters today, but rarely do they override the cities, and mostly the urban counties have charters. He stated that three-fourths of the State’s population resides in a charter county, and this is probably something that Lake County will go to, as it becomes urbanized, because it gives it some flexibility that it does not have now, in terms of creating special purpose districts. It was noted that Lake County has twice turned down a charter. He reviewed the following:

            Limited Effectiveness of Charters

                      Most are “starter charters”

                      Constitutional Officers (specially the Sheriff) are the most powerful local elected officials

                      Need to redirect energies away from Constitutional Officers to other uses of the charter


            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that his advice, if the county wants to use a charter, is not to deal with the Constitutional Officers. He stated that you do get the ability to create single purpose authorities, which can be very useful to them. He stated that, since consolidating government really is not politically popular, and the charters do not solve very many problems, in terms of consolidation of the Constitutional Officers, one thing that people have done around the State is create special purpose districts, or authorities, that deal with specific things that people have decided that their county needs to be deal with on a countywide basis. He noted the following:

            Single-Function Authorities



                        -Broward and others

                      Environmental permitting


                      Criminal justice

                        -Palm Beach County


                        -Many counties, including non-charter

                      Juvenile justice

                        -Hillsborough, Palm Beach and others

                      Health care

                        -Palm Beach


            Annexation Planning


                      Orange County

                        -Joint negotiation


                        -Voluntary only


                        -Mandatory via state legislative delegation

                      Lake County?

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the leading county in the joint planning agreements is Orange County, and the Local Government Commission used that as one of its models for trying to straighten out the intergovernmental issues in Florida. He stated that the one that was developed for Mount Dora by Mr. Gary Cooney and negotiated as part of that is viewed as a model by the State, and if they are able to adopt the JPA, it will be a model as well. He stated that he would now like to go down the list of services that might be dealt with in the joint planning agreement

            1. General strategy with respect to urbanization and annexation/incorporation.

            It was noted that the whole Comprehensive Plan for Lake County is focused towards annexation, and to the cities, because if you look at the Future Land Use Map, it has concentric circles of densities surrounding the cities. It was further noted that there is no actual County policy for annexation.

            Commr. Pool explained that historically the County has not stopped the cities from annexing, but the County does not have a policy.

            Mr. Richey stated that the County’s whole Comprehensive Plan requires the annexation and directs it towards the cities, even though there is no active policy, and there are hundreds of acres being annexed into the cities. In addition to requiring the annexation, based on the Comprehensive Plan, the County has only objected to two annexation proposals in the last 20 years, and those were pulled after the character of the Board changed.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the Board has twice adopted an Ordinance encouraging annexation of enclaves, so there is that one policy.

            Mr. Gary Cooney, Attorney, explained that the cities are interested in having the assurance out there that they can say, as they deliver those services, that those folks will annex to the cities, once they become contiguous, and they will not have the specter of the County saying that they are not going to make them do that.

            Mr. Richey explained that right now, the cities require developers to sign annexation agreements, and then historically, the city sits back and does not require those things to be executed, until the city decides it wants to take them in, at their convenience, which poses a problem for the County, because there are County tracts that are being served by water and sewer, and the city has the keys to bring them into the city, which brings up the question about the County extending a potential of services, when its up to the cities to decide when they can exercise that option to bring them in or not. The second part of that option to annex in a joint planning area ought to be when that is done. Right now it is all done on a case by case basis, and every city looks at it differently.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith suggested that, in the JPA, the County may want to look for specific approaches to annexation, in terms of when, where, and under what conditions they are going to annex. He hopes the County is looking to encourage annexation, and he thinks that is a very good policy. For the cities, it gives them control of the land uses, and it also creates an identity for the people that are on those borders, so that they can be a part of the city. He stated that, if there was any policy that he would encourage in Florida, it would be to try and make the annexation occur in a rational orderly way.

            It was noted that, since there is no County policy, the issue of annexation may need to be taken up by the County Commission. Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the Board may want to hold a workshop and discuss it and maybe officially adopt a policy, or they might want to talk to the cities about modifying the JPA, so that it has in it, as one of the policies of the County, to encourage annexation.

            Mr. Turville explained that the assumption is that the joint planning area is not going to be so narrow that it only includes single ownership, so once you go beyond that first owner, then you might have contiguous problems with an automatic annexation type policy. He stated that there is going to have to be some latitude there, as it relates to the provision of services, and when the annexation actually takes place. There is going to have to be some margin in that policy that allows annexation, when it cannot occur, to occur.

            Mr. Crawford explained that the draft joint planning agreement that is under discussion today, has a “whereas” clause that says “each municipality has determined that the lands included in the area that is adopted under these agreements are those which each respective municipality could reasonably anticipate annexing during the term of this agreement and the County agrees with this determination.” He further stated that there is a provision also that allows cities to annex rights-of-way, which could then reach noncontiguous property.

            Discussion occurred regarding situations where people do not want to be in the city, with Dr. deHaven-Smith stating that, with the JPAs, they may be able to put together situations that allow voters to vote on annexation, from a larger point of view than just the individual neighborhood.

            Mr. Richey explained that, when the cities extend water and sewer lines to anybody within 1,000 feet, or 300 feet, they have to hookup, and the County has never required a mandatory hookup, unless there was some environmental reason, so clearly those enclaves, if they had to hookup and pay the city services, they may be more inclined to do so.

            2. Planning for, withdrawing, and selling drinking water

            3. Wastewater treatment

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he was hearing that the County is not going to get in the water supply business, and it is leaving the unincorporated area to be served by private utilities, as a rule.

            Commr. Pool noted that they should never say that the County will not get into that business, because the future remains to be seen.

            Commr. Hanson stated that this goes back to the study that was made prior to 1990, when Astor and Mount Plymouth were potential areas for utilities, but to date, the Board has chosen not to enter into the water and sewer business.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he was hearing the Board say that it was not excluding the possibility, but he was also hearing that, generally speaking, if the cities wanted to provide water in the area in its JPA, the County was going to be inclined to let them do that. He stated that the Board may want to add this issue to a workshop and perhaps have staff look at it, to see if they see anything in the future that may be a problem to serve, either from a municipality or a private utility standpoint, or it may be an area where they will say that they want one of the private utilities to serve.

            Mr. Crawford addressed the proposed JPA, and noted that it states the following: Section B, “municipalities and the County agree that the joint planning areas that are adopted are of such compact size that they will both jointly oppose the issuance of certificates for the establishment or expansion of PSC utility areas without exception.” It further states that the County will not issue permits for expansion of any private water or sewer plants with those areas either. He stated that, to him it seems like bad utility planning, because there may very well be a private utility that has an area within one of these joint planning areas that is adopted by a city. He stated that, under the agreement, as it stands right now, they would legally be prohibited from serving that area, and the County would be prohibited from allowing them to serve that area, and not only does he feel that this is illegal, he feels it is bad planning, and it is something that they would like to address.

            Mr. Turville stated that, if you have an expanding water utility in an approved joint planning area, the assumption is that the development is going to occur potentially with no sewer service, if indeed it does exist, because that utility provider is not going to be offering sewer, they are only going to be offering the water, and that is a problem.

            It was noted that water and sewer are an issue and needs to be addressed.

            Mr. Marty Friedman, Utilities Inc., stated that the cities adopted 180 service areas to give themselves the right to provide water service to areas, yet they were not always able to provide service to all of those areas.

            Mr. Crawford stated that, if that is the case right now, then the JPA areas would be limited to where the cities are able to and have the capacity to serve the utilities, and he does not feel that this is the intent of everybody here today.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith felt that there was a general policy, because of water supply, and there is concern about how rigid they want to make it He suggested that, if the County is wanting to address the cities’ problems, in terms of not just annexation service delivery, but to help as a political body, one of the main financial things that they have is water, and it is a moneymaker for them.

            Mr. Cooney stated that one problem is the certificated areas, which the Public Service Commission (PSC) deals with, and the JPA has contemplated that we are asking the County for their support in that regard. The other area is that there are those private utility providers, which are mentioned directly in the JPA, which are not certificated, because they provide a package plant for a condominium, a package plant for a RV park, etc., and they are not regulated by the PSC, but they are sitting right in a city’s 180 district, and a city’s JPA, and they would like to have the ability for the County to say we are not going to let you build one of those anymore, because the city has as sewer line that runs in front of your place, and just because you are in unincorporated Lake County does not mean you get to build it.

            Mr. Richey clarified that, under the scenario given by Mr. Cooney, if they are within 1,000 feet of that line, they have to hook to the city. If there are no lines out there, then they have the right to put their own plant in.

            Mr. Beliveau noted that there is another problem where there are those areas that are contiguous to a certificated service area through the PSC, and at the same time, they are contiguous to a city.

            Mr. Crawford stated that they do not feel it is appropriate for the County to get involved in whether or not the city, or private utility, provides the service. The most efficient provider should provide it, and that is what State law and the County’s Comprehensive Plan says, and disagreement would shift that balance.

            Mr. Cooney explained that the way the JPA is structured, they have asked the County for their support in those battles, and they would like the County’s complete cooperation in the instance of private package plants that are not in certificated areas and do not come under PSC control.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that everyone has agreed that the County Commission is going to talk about the annexation issue as a policy, and he questioned whether, in regards to the water supply and wastewater treatment issues, they want to put a group together that will work with the cities and County together, or do they want the County Commission to look at this separately, and the cities to look at it separately, and then come back together with proposals.

            After some discussion, Dr. deHaven-Smith pointed out that they have a generic draft agreement, but it is very specific about how to handle water supply, and the cities are saying to go ahead and adopt that, and they will make proposed specific joint planning agreements, and they will take them up case by case, and they are saying that they do not anticipate creating problems for themselves, by putting in private utilities that raise these issues.

            Mr. Crawford stated that, if these are joint planning areas, and they want to adopt city LDRs to do joint emergency services, and to provide the best of everything, then within these areas they cut out the certificated areas, because of utility purposes, and then they have knee-capped their joint planning agreement. He feels they need to deal with this on the front end.

            Mr. Cooney agreed with Mr. Crawford in that, if you are drawing a joint planning agreement map, and you have a certificated area sitting in it, obviously there needs to be discussion between the cities and County as to how that is going to work, and Mr. Crawford needs to sit at the table at those discussions to say how this is going to work and what the plans are for this area.

            Mr. Beliveau stated that a sub-committee could be put together for that purpose, because there are alternatives where they can co-op with the private utilities, and they can utilize a franchise agreement, or a utility tax, or some format where those residents do not continue to get a “free-ride” and come up with a revenue stream, to support those services that are being used.

            Mr. Richey stated that the only way that the private utilities can get to the table is to be invited, and if you accept the language in the agreement now, then there is no incentive to ever invite them to the table. He would like everyone to realize that they are a partner in this and they should be at the table to discuss these issues, and the overall context of things, when historically they may not have been at the table.

            Mr. Turville stated that he could not foresee extending one service without the other, and he feels that they would have done the citizens in this County a great disservice, if they had tied the ability to have joint planning areas to whether or not they could satisfy the specific needs of water utilities that exist out there with defined areas.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the market it out there, and they can provide it, at what point does the city get a step up on them, if they are providing it cheaper than the city. If the County did make whoever was providing those utilities provide both of them, then it would answer the concerns voiced by Mr. Turville.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that there is a problem, because some cities do not have wastewater, and cities like Minneola, or Montverde, only have a water utility.

            Discussion occurred regarding the provision of water and sewer, with it being noted that, if someone was in a planning area where the city had both water and sewer, then the private utility would have to provide those services.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that he has heard Clermont say that, if a landowner in the JPA asks for service, the City will agree to provide it, so if it is on the map, and it is in the area, the city is going to commit to do whatever has to be done to bring the line there to hook it up. He clarified that, ignoring the private issue right now, if the city says it will hookup somebody in that area, the city is saying it will hook them up and not make the county resident pay a lot of money, extend lines, or otherwise.

            Mr. Turville stated that, if they were obligating themselves to provide service, it would be much more compact than a map that would reflect an area of influence, as they have seen in the past, which has created an urbanized county.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith noted that there were several issues that he wanted to add to the list for discussion, if everyone was in agreement, and those would be schools and roads.

            Mr. Turville requested that Dr. deHaven-Smith add to the list permitting and land development regulations.

            Mr. Strong stated that, from the School Board’s standpoint, they would like to be on the check sheet, when the development is going in, whether it is in the city, or in an unincorporated area of the county. He stated that he would like to see consideration given to the economic impact, and the cost factors, not only the impact fees, but other creative mechanisms, to help at least address some of the infrastructure issues that the school system, children, or retirement communities might have as far as impacts on the system.

            It was noted that the School Board has been invited to the forums in the past, but there has been no representation.

            4. Countywide transportation - roads - land development regulations

            Discussion occurred regarding whether the County and the cities had a way of coordinating road planning, with it being noted that the County will not be eligible to have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), until the census results are out.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he has seen essentially that the joint planning areas would be under the standards of the cities.

            Mr. Turville explained that the expanding entity, assuming that it is the city, should have within the designated area, their land development regulations being enforced, so that, as the city grows, the infrastructure is in place, so there is continuity. The assumption is that, right up front, the land development regulations, whichever are most stringent, would probably be the ones that moved forward, and the burden for that would be on the cities.

            Mr. Richey explained that the agreement, as it currently reads, presumes that the cities have the more stringent rules, but that is not the case in several areas, with signage being an example. He noted that what was expressed by Mr. Turville makes more sense than what the agreement currently says.

            Mr. Turville explained that there would be times when the more stringent rules may not be the city’s rules, and that would be one of those issues that could be raised at map approval time, specifically as it relates to individual rules that might really have an impact.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith noted that he had raised an issue about having the responsibility for service provision in joint planning areas, but not having authority over the standards for it, specifically roads. He questioned whether the County would have a problem abiding by the city’s standards on the transportation on roads given that they are going to set the standards, but the County is going to be delivering the work.

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, explained that there are two factors involved that would have to be addressed, in terms of roads. He stated that, if the city has higher standards, in situations where, for example, water retention may be required, or a section exceeded the right-of-way standards, then there may be a parcel that has to be purchased, which is probably in the city limits. The second factor is the cost associated with that improvement, and you have to make sure you get a match.

            Discussion occurred regarding MSTUs, with Mr. Stivender explaining that private developers and other entities, including the cities, want to all work together, so that there are several types of agreements, and there is a joint effort between the entities.

            Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager of Clermont, explained that, when discussing this particular section of the JPA, they were not particularly talking about the roads that the County is going to be building, but mainly about roads that are going to be built in new development projects by the developers. Mr. Saunders stated that, at some point, the cities are going to have to maintain those roads, and they want them built throughout at the same standards. The County and the cites have worked well through the impact fee project situation, so that is really not the issue.

            4. Stormwater

            Mr. Turville stated that he was not sure that stormwater is a major issue simply because what they are talking about is new development, and almost all of that is covered by the St. Johns River Water Management District’s (SJRWMD) rules.

            Mr. Beliveau stated that, whether it is a Department of Transportation (DOT) system, or a county road system, or city road system, they all have to be addressed on a stormwater basis, because right now it is all going into the lakes, and that would be more of a team effort, so they need to establish a methodology to look at roads and try to do some retrofitting for stormwater.

            It was noted that stormwater is a county-city cooperation issue, but it is not related to the JPA.

            6. Fire protection services

            Mr. Cooney explained that fire really comes into the MSTU, because if you build the joint planning area correctly, and the County institutes a MSTU to cover fire, as the city moves out, it can take that over and then institute their taxes to pay for it.

            It was noted that there are separate interlocal agreements that deal with the issue of fire services.

            7. Emergency medical services


            8. Law Enforcement

            It was noted that these issues were being addressed.

            9. Permitting

            Mr. Cooney stated that one of the problems that the cities have is the question of enforceability, once this has been set in place, and how they ensure that something that is built within the JPA is built to the city’s standard. He stated that they have heard from the County, in the past, that they do not want to learn all of the LDRs from the 14 cities, so they felt that the easiest way to deal with that is to simply let the city do the permitting within the joint planning area. He explained that Mount Dora sits on the permitting agency with Orange County, and they have veto power. He noted that, in Mount Dora, for the most part, most of their LDRs are going to be more stringent than the County, but in some of the other cities, he did not know if that was the case, and they would have to determine how those are going to apply in the JPA, and who is going to enforce them.

            Mr. Turville stated that what was envisioned was the notion that the cities would do the permitting, which would relieve the County from the burden for having to do that, but if there is a city that has LDRs that are quite different from the County standards, in a negative fashion, then the County will probably talk about the things that they are sensitive to, and the city would probably readopt their LDRs to reflect what the County has so that their map could be adopted. As it relates to the City of Clermont, they contract with the County to do their permitting. In other cities, where they do their own permitting, the County would have to look at the map and see if there are any areas that they think they need to deal with before they approve it.

            Mr. Richey stated that they have talked about centralizing service, and he thinks that this would be a part of any JPA, to try and centralize it either in the county, or in the city.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith wondered if there were any questions about the distribution of fees, when issuing the permits.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that, if the County adopts the same LDRs, then the city and the County should enforce the same LDRs. The scenario that Mr. Cooney pointed out has a county resident applying for a permit at the city and appealing to a city board, or ultimately the City Council, where that resident had no say so in electing that person, or how they were appointed, and then that County resident calls his County Commissioner and says that they are turning down his permit, and he does not agree with their interpretation, and the County Commissioner has nothing to do with the decision. So he does not see how the County can transfer the ultimate control of the permits for the County residents to the city. He explained that the same result occurs, if they draw a line a mile outside of Mount Dora, and they agree that the LDRs inside Mount Dora and within that mile square are going to be this, and the County enforces the LDRs on the County side, and the city enforces them on the city side. He noted that the current JPA says that, if you are a County resident, you have to go to the city, and the city has the absolute final say. He further noted that it is different in Clermont, because if Clermont appeals the County’s decision, ultimately it goes to Clermont, and it does not necessarily come to the County.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that this can be done by policy, but he questioned whether, from a county perspective, it is good policy to give up a citizens’ rights, that they have right now, to come to the County and give them to a Board that they do have any say so as to who is on that Board.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that there may be a legal problem with the actual transfer of powers, but he was not raising a legal question, but more of a policy question. He questioned, when a person comes to the County Commission, are the County Commissioners going to have to say they cannot do anything.

            Mr. Cooney explained that one of the issues is not so much as who does the permitting, but it is the enforcement, to make sure that what has been agreed upon gets put in place, so that when the development gets finished, it looks like the city that wanted it in the first place.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith questioned whether there could be an appeal process that goes back to the Commissioners.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that it would be simpler to have each jurisdiction do its own permitting, with a concurrent notice provision, and if the city did not agree with the decision, they would have the right to appeal it.

            Mr. Strong stated that, as a developer, he has to read 14 different sets of LDRs, and everybody’s permitting requirements, and it is extremely onerous, and with the universal building code that is in place, the County and the cities should also come together, with this unique opportunity, to try and get some of those standardized building requirements equal.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he is hearing three things on the table, one, the city permits in the JPA; two, the County permits and uses the city’s standards in the JPA; and three, the city issues its permits, the county issues its permits, but they are both notified

            Mr. Beliveau explained that each community has its own uniqueness, and each community reflects that uniqueness within their LDRs. He would be saddened if all of a sudden Lake County adopts a uniform LDR system, so that they all have the same sign code, the same landscape code, etc. Mr. Beliveau stated that, even though the County may have a more stringent rule, this does not mean that there is not going to be a lot of variety. In regards to the LDRs, he did not think that collectively they have as much of a potential negative impact as some issue over zoning, or an actual land use designation might have within the joint planning area. He feels that the appeal process would ultimately be the responsibility of the County, even if they try to delegate that to the city, as step one.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith questioned whether there was a problem with the County doing the permitting with the JPA standards, assuming that the cities are notified, or whether that is the issue, in terms of having things slip through the cracks.

            Mr. Cooney stated that, in terms of Mount Dora, they are assuming that the JPA standards are going to be the Mount Dora standards, and the question would be whether County staff is going to want to figure out those standards, and to have some form of input from the Mount Dora staff, to ensure that the development looks the way it is supposed to look. He stated that, if they are going to go through all of that trouble, why not just have the Mount Dora city staff do the permit.

            Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, stated that she does not recall comments being made that the County does not want to look at other LDRs, and she does not believe it would be that difficult to implement them, so she does not see that as a problem.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the current agreement says that the city will do permitting but not the enforcement, so the County is going to have to learn those codes anyway, in order to do the enforcement process, as the development occurs.

            Mr. Mark Reggentin, Planning Director of Mount Dora, explained how the city works with Orange County, and noted that all of the city’s codes are stricter than Orange County.

            Mr. Richey stated that he felt that Lake County had a problem reading and understanding LDRs, and he felt there may be a problem, if 14 more sets of standards are placed in JPAs. He explained that they are talking about zoning and land use issues in the JPAs versus sidewalks, and two inches of asphalt versus copper tubing, and he cannot envision anybody who represents a city giving up or acquiescing to the county making those land use decisions within its JPA, and he cannot envision the County Commissioners giving up their right to do that, when their constituents are going to be looking at them for those issues. He feels that such issues as sidewalk widths would be easily resolved, but when it comes to issues such as putting in a 100,000 square foot building or not, they are not dealt with in this agreement right now, and they are going to continue to either be decided in the cities, or decided in the county, no matter what the JPA says. He stated that independent boards, the Board of County Commissioners and the cities, are still going to have to control sovereignty over their lands, but this agreement has to give them criteria.

            Discussion occurred regarding land use and the establishment of boundaries, with it being noted that the land use is the boundary map, and Orange County and Mount Dora have agreed on joint land uses, with the development of a boundary map.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that they need to work out the zoning and the land uses in the JPA, and if there were a change to that, a person would have to go to both the county and the city, which is separate from the permitting issue. He stated that permitting did sound like an issue that needs to be resolved at some point.

            10. Recreation

            Commr. Pool stated that cities provide recreation, and the County is hopefully going to enhance their recreation, and there may be opportunities not to work separately, but together on some areas of amenities that they all could use.


            At 2:15 p.m., Commr. Hanson announced that the meeting would recess for ten minutes.



            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he would like to address the items that he feels have been agreed upon by everyone. At this time, the following information was put together for consideration:

            In terms of agreement, there was agreement on the two tiered approach - the idea of putting in place a policy framework that would identify how they are going to handle some of these joint planning areas. Then each city would come forward and make a proposal, in terms of the particular JPA that it is going to focus on. There is an agreement that this will include the LDRs that the city would apply in that area, and the city would provide services there, and they would provide them right then, not at a later date. There was also some mention of revenues, such as MSTUs, which may be something they may want to discuss and include in the proposal. Also the cities would say when they were going to annex these areas. There is a problem of contiguity that they have to deal with, but aside from that, there would be some predictability, in terms of when they were going to annex, or the conditions for when they were going to annex, and the cities would be providing some certitude, or at least some predictability, for the county and residents. They also agreed that they would involve the school district.

            In terms of the issues, there is generally a policy in the County to encourage annexation, but there is some question about what services the county may want to get into, and he believes that they all have agreed that they want to talk about that among themselves. It was noted that water supply is a big issue, and one thing they agreed on was that, in the joint planning areas, they were going to require the delivery, assuming that there is the capacity for both water and sewer. There were three circumstances that everyone has to work out and decide how they are going to handle them, and they dealt specifically with the private utilities. The cities are asking for the county to expand the municipal delivery in these joint planning areas, and when the County Commissioners talk about the annexation issue, they need to revisit the question of what kind of service provision they are going to do, with respect to water and wastewater in the unincorporated area. The three questions are how to handle certificated deliverers; the non-certificated areas; and those that are contiguous to a city, or in between a city and a certificated area. He noted that the county may want to discuss how they want to respond to the proposal from the cities, with respect to those private utilities. The other issue brought forth that needs to be addressed is private utilities.

            There is an agreement to use the standards in the city, and to lock themselves into the zoning up front. They need to resolve where someone would appeal to, and who is going to do the permitting. There are also some issues to do with stormwater and roads and retrofitting.

            Mr. deHaven-Smith stated that he feels there is a lot of overall agreement. He stated that the County Commissioners are going to hold a workshop on these issues, specifically on annexation and water services, and he would advise them go into it thinking about urban policy, and then address the detailed items. He noted that everybody is involved in the issue of water supply, and the issue of how to deal with the land development regulations.

            Ms. Sue Whittle, County Manager, stated that they would like to aim for reconvening in about 90 days. She stated that there are several issues that the County Commissioners are going to have to workshop, and she did not think that they could do it all in one workshop.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that, in 90 days, they ought to have another draft of the JPA, and then they can start looking at more detailed things.

            Commr. Hanson felt that each Commissioner would be intimately involved with at least the cities that are in their district, or at least have a comfort level about their feelings on issues.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith explained that the Commission is going to workshop the issues on the urban policy for Lake County, and address two specific issues, the water issue, and annexation.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, in this whole process, they need to have the policymakers involved. He explained that most of the issues being noted are really not staff issues, but policy issues.

            It was noted that there is a Joint Planning Committee, with members that were appointed by the League of Cities, but there is no representation from the County Commission.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she has no problem working with that same committee that was working on it before, and in addition, she would ask that Commr. Cadwell serve on it, and Mr. Minkoff and Ms. Whittle.

            Mr. Crawford questioned whether this committee was going to deal with the utility issues, as well, and stated that he feels the private providers ought to have a place on it.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he was sure that the private providers would have a voice there to present their views, but he feels it is going to be an agreement between the cities and the County, and they know their interest is there. He noted that the private providers would be notified.

            Commr. Hanson stated that it will be a relatively informal group, and the goal would be to meet or report back no later than 90 days. She further noted that the Board is going to workshop these issues as soon as possible, and there are some issues, that there is a consensus on, that the Committee can address and get out of the way. The other issues will be discussed in a workshop with the Board, and then those decisions will be given to the Committee as soon as possible. She stated that the 90 day time frame may not be realistic, but it is a good goal.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that he will get the feedback from the Committee and redraft the JPA for them. The goal is to come back within 90 days with that redraft of the JPA.

The Board is going to workshop the Lake County urban policy as soon as it can, and the Committee is going to meet to deal with the other two issues, the utilities and the LDRs. He stated that this group has done a great deal today, and he feels that, if this agreement can be pulled together, it can be a model, and they will see a lot of other counties looking at it.

            Commr. Cadwell extended his appreciation to Commr. Hanson and Ms. Whittle for bringing this forum together, and to the cities for all of the work they have done.

            Commr. Hanson stated that one issue they did not touch on was open space.

            Dr. deHaven-Smith stated that the issue of open space would be included in the annexation, urban policy discussion.

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.