The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Robert A. Pool, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender. Others present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, Acting County Manager; Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioner's Office; and Kathryn A. Schwartz, Deputy Clerk.
The Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance were led by Commr. Cadwell.
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board of new litigation that has come in that she would like to put on today's agenda for discussion and requesting direction from the Board.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the placement of the item regarding new litigation, as noted, on the agenda, under the County Attorney's Business.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of April 3, 2001, Regular Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of April 6, 2001, Special Meeting - Board Workshop, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of April 10, 2001, Regular Meeting, as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of April 17, 2001, Regular Meeting, as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS' CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts' Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 8, for the following requests:
Bonds - Contractor
Approved Contractor Bonds, as follows:
4701-02 Bradshaw Electric, Inc.
5833-01 Darryl A. Vickers d/b/a Elite Electric & Controls
5834-01 Erik Larsson d/b/a United Roofing Co.
5835-01 Scott MacKenzie d/b/a Sunshine Pool Service
5836-01 Tony Clark d/b/a Clark's Roofing
Acknowledged receipt of the 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.
Miscellaneous Ordinance No. 414-M, an ordinance under the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, providing for the annexation of a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present city boundaries; providing for an effective date; providing for severability; and providing for publication. Passed and ordained the 10th day of April 2001, by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida.
Resolution Nos. 01-22 through 01-37, from the City of Eustis, Florida, relating to the Annexation of Enclaves. Passed and resolved by the City Commission of the City of Eustis April 5, 2001.
Application/Transfer of Control/Utilities/Water and Wastewater
Notice of Application for the Transfer of Majority Organizational Control of Southlake Utilities, Inc., dated April 19, 2001, pursuant to Section 367.071, Florida Statutes, from Southlake, Inc., and Robert L. Chapman, III, to Southlake Utilities Investments, L.L.C. Southlake Utilities, Inc., provides water and wastewater service in Lake County, Florida, pursuant to Certificate Nos. 533-W and 464-S. The certificated service area of Southlake Utilities, Inc., is located in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, Township 24 South, Range 26 East, Lake County, Florida. For further information on the certificated service area of Southlake Utilities, Inc., please contact Southlake Utilities, Inc., at (352) 394-8898 or 710 Avenida Cuarta, No. 204, Clermont, Florida 34711.
Accounts Allowed/Satisfactions of Judgment/Courts/Criminal Cases
Satisfactions of Judgment, as follows, and authorized proper signatures on same:
State of Florida vs. Gerald Dewain Ishman, Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 00-2163CFA01LC, in the amount of $750.00, which fully releases and discharges the Final Judgment Assessing Attorney's Fees and Costs against Gerald Dewain Ishman. This Final Judgment entered on the 26th day of February, 2001 and recorded in OR Book 01921, Page 1575, of the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
State of Florida vs. Gerald Dewain Ishman, Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 99-2208CFA, in the amount of $750.00, which fully releases and discharges the Final Judgment Assessing Attorney's Fees and Costs against Gerald Ishman. This Final Judgment entered on the 25th day of January, 2000, and recorded in OR Book 1815, Page 1134, of the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
State of Florida vs. Gerald Dewain Ishman, Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 00-979CFA, in the amount of $750.00, which fully releases and discharges the Final Judgment Assessing Attorney's Fees and Costs against Gerald Ishman. This Final Judgment entered on the 19th day of July, 2000, and recorded in OR Book 1858, Page 1866, of the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
State of Florida vs. Gerald Dewain Ishman, Satisfaction of Judgment, Case No. 98-2001CFA, in the amount of $750.00, which fully releases and discharges the Final Judgment Assessing Attorney's Fees and Costs against Gerald Ishman. This Final Judgment entered on the 25th day of January, 2000, and recorded in OR Book 1815, Page 1133, of the Public Records of Lake County, Florida.
Accounts Allowed/Satisfaction and Release of Fine
Satisfaction and Release of Fine, which releases and discharges Paul F. Verville, Jr., and Amy C. Verville from any claims, demands, causes of action and judgments arising to of the Reduction of Order of Fine, in the amount of $1,000.00 dated April 23, 2001, and recorded in OR Book 1938, Pages 1071 and 1072, of the Public Records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida, on the 25th day of April 2001, and authorized proper signatures on same.
Utilities/Public Service Commission/Water Tariff
Before the Florida Public Service Commission, in regard to request for approval of tariff filing to add "set rate" late fee to water tariff, by Lake Yale Treatment Associates, Inc., in Lake County. Docket No. 010232-WU; Order No. PSC-01-0998-TRF-WU; Issued: April 23, 2001. Order Approving Tariff Implementing Late Payment Charge.
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, stated that he would like to pull Tab 11 from the Consent Agenda, regarding a Special Assessment Case between the County and Kavin and Rebecca Steiner. Mr. Minkoff stated that they have not received the stipulation as of yet regarding settlement of same. He stated that they would reschedule once they received the stipulation back from Mr. and Mrs. Steiner.
Mr. Minkoff also brought to the attention of the Board that there was one additional item for the County Manager's Consent Agenda, found at Addendum No. 1 to today's meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda, for the following requests, pulling Tab 11, as noted above, and adding the additional Economic Development Consent item found at Addendum No. 1.
Accounts Allowed/Community Services/Libraries/Furniture
Request from Community Services for approval to purchase furniture on State Contract through Library Interiors of Florida, Inc., for the Lake County Library System: Paisley County Library and Astor County Library in the amount of $144,399.50.
Municipalities/Invitation/Community Development Block Grant
Request from Community Services for approval to extend an invitation to the non-participating municipalities to join the final year of the Lake County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Urban County Partnership.
Accounts Allowed/Environmental Services/Aquatic Plant Management
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval to apply to the Department of Environmental Protection, Upland Invasive Exotic Plant Management Program for a grant, in the amount of $34,000.00, to remove invasive exotic plants from Haines Creek Park.
Recreation Facilities/Infrastructure Sales Tax Funds
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval for the Chairman to execute a second amendment for a second six-month extension to complete the project and a reduction in the scope of work from three tennis courts to two in the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Tavares relating to contribution of infrastructure sales tax funds for community recreation facilities.
Accounts Allowed/Recreation - Water Authority/Improvements/Contributions
Request from Facilities and Capital Improvements for approval for the Chairman to execute an Agreement between Lake County and Lake County Soccer League relating to Contribution of Regional Park Improvement Funds - recipient of grant funds for FY 2000/2001 in the amount of $15,000.00 for construction of a concession stand and restrooms at Hickory Point Park. Also, to accept and authorize payment of Rogers Grant in the amount of $15,000.00 as a matching contribution.
Accounts Allowed/Budget Transfers, Excess/Network Administrator/GASB 34/Bonds/ Special Assessment/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Resolutions-Lake County Day/Impact Fees - Refunds
Requests from Fiscal and Administrative Services - Budget, for approval of the following:
Budget transfer in the amount of $35,000.00 from Contingency to Fiscal and Administrative Services, Personal Services - $26,729.00; Communications & Freight - $648.00; Office Supplies - $3,278.00; Operating Supplies - $120.00; Books, Publications & Dues - $2,925.00; and Machinery & Equipment - $1,300.00 (total amount $35,000.00). A Network Administrator is needed in the Information Technology Division of Fiscal & Administrative Services due to increasing workload demands. Pursuant to Board action on April 17, 2001, the new Network Administrator position was approved with funding from Contingency.
Budget transfer in the amount of $25,000.00 from Contingency to Transfer - Clerk of Courts. Funds are needed to pay for GASB 34 assessment for Clerk of Courts' Office.
Budget transfer in the amount of $48,000.00 from Transfer/Law Enforcement - Other Expenses to Contingency. Monies are budgeted in two places. Transfer excess budgeted to Contingency.
Budget transfer in the amount of $4,269,093.00 - from Line of Credit - Taxable; from Proceeds of Long-Term Borrowing - $45,381.00 and from Land - $69,051.00 (total amount $4,383,525.00) to Fiscal and Administrative Services, Proceeds of Long-Term Borrowing - $4,269,093.00 and to Costs of Issuance - $114,432.00 (total amount $4,383,525.00). Transfer is needed to adjust budget for costs of issuance incurred for the Pari-mutuel Revenues Replacement Bond Issue and to reclass dollars to appropriate object code.
Budget transfer from Contingency in the amount of $50,000.00 to Fiscal and Administrative Services, Aids to Private Organizations. The Board of County Commissioners approved on March 20, 2001, to assist in funding a Regional Development Program that shall be created by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Lake County's portion of the funding is an annual special assessment in the amount of $50,000.00.
Budget transfer in the amount of $25,116.00 from Contingency to Fiscal and Administrative Services, Other Current Charges and Obligations. Funds are needed to pay for final judgment for payment of two months' lease and damages to property owned by Joseph H. Nolette and leased by Lake County until December 31, 1995; and approval of Check Request (Direct Pay) to Joseph H. Nolette for lease and damages. The request exceeds the Interim County Manager's approval limit of $25,000; total payment is for $25,115.29.
Resolution No. 2001-91 to amend the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 in the amount of $2,550.00 from Donations (Lake County Day) and to provide appropriations for the disbursement of these funds to Promotion/Special Events (Lake County Day).
Impact Fee Refund to Great American Homes in the amount of $3,833.23 due to the City charged for four-bedroom homes in error. Homes are three bedroom.
Impact Fee Refund to Colonial Homes, Inc., in the amount of $1,601.00 due to home being located in adult community in the City of Clermont and incorrect road rate was charged. School impact fee and fire impact fee should not have been charged.
Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Mechanical Engineering
Request from Fiscal and Administrative Services - Procurement Services, for approval and authorization to award RFP #01-065, encumber funds and authorize a contract, subject to County Attorney approval, to Brian Cumming & Associates, Inc., to provide mechanical engineering services to Facilities and Capital Improvements, in the amount of $91,000.00.
Settlement Agreements-Special Masters
Request from Growth Management for approval of a Special Masters Settlement Agreement for Here & There Palm Shores RV Resort.
Public Works/Letters of Credit/Environmental
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to release a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $25,000.00 that was posted for tree-planting requirements at Marsh Hammock Phase I.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Road Projects-Culverts
Request from Public Works for approval to award CR-455 Culvert Replacement Project No. 2001-12, Bid No. 01-056 to J. Malever Construction Company, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $68,046.00 from the Transportation Trust Fund.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Road Projects-Widening and Resurfacing
Request from Public Works for approval to award #2-2119 Lake Emma Road "Part" Widening and Resurfacing Project No. 2001-06, Bid No. 01-057 to Pospiech Contracting, Inc., and to expend funds in the amount of $371,434.57 from the Impact Fee Fund. Commissioner District 2 - Benefit District 6.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Road Projects-Dirt Services
Request from Public Works for approval to award Huffstetler Drive Phase 1 Construction Project No. 2001-09, Bid No. 01-058 to Professional Dirt Service, Inc., and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $472,470.00 from the Impact Fee Fund. Commissioner District 3-Benefit District 2.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Maintenance/Resolutions/County Roads/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for B-Tween Waters Subdivision, accept a letter of credit for maintenance in the amount of $8,250.00, execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and John and Winifred C. Kennedy, and execute Resolution No. 2001-92 accepting Winken Lane (County Road Number 5-7972A) into the County road maintenance system. Subdivision consists of ten lots - Commission District 5.
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Maintenance/Resolutions/County Roads/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Venetian Village Estates Subdivision, accept a Cashier's Check in the amount of $4,557.00 for maintenance, execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and CWR Prop, Inc., and execute Resolution No. 2001-93 accepting Eagle Watch Drive (County Road Number 3-3260) into the County road maintenance system. Subdivision consists of six lots - Commission District 3.
Request from Public Works for approval to accept two Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds, one Statutory Warranty Corrective Deed, one Statutory Quitclaim Deed, and five Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds, as follows:
Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds
D. R. Horton, Inc., a Florida corporation - Clear Creek Alt. Easement
Antonio Busquets Llorens, et al. - Green Swamp Road (2-0439)
Statutory Warranty Corrective Deed
A. H. Muller - County Line Road (5-8161)
Statutory Quitclaim Deed
Calvin L. Kinney and Marilyn J. Kinney - Central Avenue
Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement Deeds
R. M. Cottrell - C-468 at C-44C
Barney Edward Dillard, Jr. - Huffstetler Drive
Sprint-Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation - Huffstetler Drive
Rose M. Tundis and Jeanette Tedesco - Nell Way
Paul J. Holmes and Donna J. Holmes - Nell Way
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Bonds/Agreements/Resolutions/Maintenance
Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Windscape Phase 1 (also known as Loghouse Village); accept a performance bond in the amount of $8,560.00, and accept a Cashier's Check in the amount of $856.00 for landscaping requirements; execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Banyan Construction and Development, Inc.; accept a maintenance bond in the amount of $19,296.03; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Banyan Construction and Development, Inc.; and execute Resolution No. 2001-94 accepting the following road into the County road maintenance system: Lake Hasson Circle (County Road Number 2-0834A).
Accounts Allowed/Public Works/Municipalities/Condemnation
Request from Public Works for approval of request to reimburse the Town of Lady Lake for the cost of condemnation on Rolling Acres Road in the amount of $129,722.23.
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-95, advertising Vacation Petition No. 960 by Pennachio, Representative Robert Q. Williams, P.A., to vacate easement in S31, T22, R26 recorded in the replat of Minnehaha Terrace in the Clermont area - Commission District 2.
Public Works/Resolutions/Vacations/Utility Easements
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-96, advertising Vacation Petition No. 961 by Hazelrigg, Representative Steve Richey, P.A., to vacate utility easement in S19, T19, R24 recorded in the Pennbrooke Fairways subdivision in the Leesburg area - Commission District 1.
Public Works/Resolutions/Vacations/Utility Easements
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-97, advertising Vacation Petition No. 962 by Rohland A. June, II, President, to vacate utility easements in S15, T22S, R25E recorded in March Hammock Phase 1 in the Groveland area - Commission District 2.
Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County & State/Signs
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-98, authorizing the posting of 25 mph speed limit signs on the following roads in the Bassville Park area:
Patrick Drive (3-5034)
Kaylee Way (3-5034A)
Grant Avenue (5-5336A)
Lee Avenue (5-5237B)
Washington Avenue (5-5336)
Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County & State/Signs/Subdivisions
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-99, authorizing the posting of "No Parking This Side" signs in the Westchester Subdivision on the following roads in South Lake County:
Wilkinson Drive (2-0159J) - Signs located on the North side of the road.
Burnham Court (2-0159E) - Signs located on the South side of the road.
Buxley Court (2-0159G) - Signs located on the West side approaching stop sign.
Herring Lane (2-0159N) - Signs located on the North and West side of the road.
Northfolk Court (2-0159K) - Signs located on the East side approaching stop sign area.
Public Works/Resolutions/Roads-County & State/Signs
Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2001-100, authorizing the posting of a "STOP" sign and a "YIELD" sign on the newly constructed section of Umatilla Road (5-8047) and removing a "STOP" sign on Julia Boulevard (5-8046A).
Request from Solid Waste for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute
Resolution No. 2001-101, extending the term of the County-Wide Solid Waste Study Committee to June 30, 2003.
Request from Economic Development for approval of Resolution No. 2001-103, Easement Agreement between Trammell Crow Company and Lake County and extension of the due diligence date from May 17, 2001, to June 18, 2001.
Commr. Hanson read Proclamation No. 2001-89, proclaiming the week of May 20 through 26, 2001, as Emergency Medical Services Week in Lake County, and encouraged the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. It was noted by Commr. Cadwell that Mr. James A. Judge, Executive Director of Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services (EMS), was present today to represent EMS personnel. Mr. Judge addressed the Board, thanking them on behalf of emergency-room nurses, emergency-room physicians, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, firefighters, and law-enforcement officers, stating that he was happy to accept the Proclamation on their behalf.
PRESENTATION - LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - BY REPRESENTATIVE
Commr. Hanson welcomed Rep. Carey Baker, stating that he has done an outstanding job in Tallahassee for Lake County, along with the rest of the Delegation, and was appreciative that he could attend the meeting today.
Rep. Baker addressed the Board, thanking them for giving him the opportunity to speak with them today. He made a formal announcement of his and his staff's willingness to work with the Board to do what is best for the citizens of Lake County. He apologized that Rep. Hugh Gibson could not be present today, as planned. Rep. Baker introduced his legislative aide, Ms. Gail Bass, stating that she has 14 years experience. He also gave a presentation regarding the Legislative Update and highlighted the Lake County Budget Allocations as follows:
Regarding the Legislative Update, Rep. Baker stated that they have spent $3.8 billion more this year than last year, a lot of which has been tied up in Medicaid-type expenditures and that, therefore, there has not been as much money to spend on education. He stated, however, that they have raised education spending by 4 to 6 percent.
Regarding important senior-citizen issues, particularly nursing homes, Rep. Baker stated that there were many nursing homes in dire financial straits due to their liability insurance having gone up tremendously. He stated that a bill has been passed that addressed both quality and liability issues. As far as nursing-home inspections, Rep. Baker stated that they will be having one team of inspectors going into the nursing homes solely to advise and help, not doing anything punitive; that they will also have a second team of inspectors that will then be going into the nursing homes which will be following up on any required corrections. He stated that if any of the corrections are not being done, then the State will be stepping in and will be fining and/or closing down any of the bad nursing homes. Concerning liability issues, Rep. Baker stated that there was a requirement that in order to sue a nursing home, some negligence has to be involved. He stated that there was not a negligence standard in the past for lawsuits, which has contributed to some of the problems that they have had. Regarding prescription drugs, Rep. Baker stated that there was some help on the way; that they have passed a bill that will promote the use of generic drugs in lieu of brand-name drugs. He stated that the price of a generic drug can be up to 80 percent less than the equivalent brand-name drug, which, of course, would mean a lot to a senior citizen on a fixed income. Rep. Baker then discussed reductions in some of the taxes that affect senior citizens, the intangibles tax in particular, taxes on stocks and bonds, which affects 82 percent of all seniors. He stated that they have not done away with the intangible tax entirely; however, it is their goal to do so, hoping to achieve this next year. Rep. Baker explained that they were going to continue the sales-tax break that they have been giving families, for clothing, etc., right before the school year begins.
Regarding the environment, Rep. Baker stated that the Harris Chain of Lakes Task Force has been formed. He stated that the Task Force should make a difference in the Chain of Lakes. He emphasized that Lake County does have a serious problem, having one of the worst lakes in the state. He stated that he felt the Task Force was a move in the right direction to make a real difference in the Chain of Lakes.
Election Reform was discussed by Rep. Baker. He informed the Board that several things have been done in this regard, one of which is to provide for a state-wide uniform ballot, which would basically outlaw punch-card ballots and would go to a system of precinct-based optical scanners. Rep. Baker stated his concern that the State of Florida was not going to fully fund the optical scanners and that he was definitely against any unfunded mandates. He pointed out, on the positive side, that run-off elections have been eliminated, thereby providing for absentee ballots to be returned in a more timely manner.
Rep. Baker next distributed to the Board the Lake County Budget Allocation Report. He stated that through the hard work of the Lake County Legislative Delegation (Delegation), Lake-Sumter Community College has received over $2 million; Lake Louisa State Park has received over $800,000; Water Initiatives, including Astor Park Wastewater Treatment Facility, has received roughly $6 million, with Astor Park receiving $1 million; Children's Comprehensive Behavioral Services (LifeStream, mental-health beds) received $1.3 million; Community Medical Care Center received $250,000; Department of Transportation received over $20 million; Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program received over $500,000, which includes the Cale Field Expansion, Carver Heights Recreation Park, Hancock Recreation Area, Trailhead Park, and Veterans Park; and C-NOW Interactive Video received $350,000. Rep. Baker pointed out that all of the above-mentioned items were subject to the Governor's approval, except possibly the Florida Department of Transportation, which would come out of the trust funds. With that, Rep. Baker opened the floor for questions.
Commr. Cadwell stated that, through the Florida Association of Counties, he was in Tallahassee a lot during this legislative session and stated that the Delegation's door was always open. He expressed his appreciation for the efforts of Rep. Baker, as well as Representatives Randy Johnson and Hugh Gibson, and Senator Anna Cowin.
Commr. Hanson stated that she looked forward to increasing communications between the Delegation and the Board. She also expressed her appreciation for Rep. Baker's efforts.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance No. 2001-77, if approved by the Board:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 21, LAKE COUNTY CODE, WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL TO PROVIDE FOR UNIVERSAL COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND RECOVERED MATERIALS, TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM WASTE MATERIAL ASSESSMENT, TO CREATE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO YARD TRASH AND TO ACCURATELY REFLECT CHANGES MADE BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE II, LITTER, SECTION 21-21, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-51, DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-53,VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-57, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-62, DELIVERY OF SOLID WASTE AND RECOVERED MATERIALS TO DESIGNATED FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 2, APPLICATION PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-82, APPLICATION, FEES AND GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-83,INVESTIGATION, APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF FRANCHISES AND PERMITS, FEE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-86, DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 3,EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISEE, FRANCHISEE OR PERMITTEE REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-111, GENERAL REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-112, RECORDS REQUIRED; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-115, CHARGES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-118, DISPLAY OF EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE, FRANCHISE OR PERMIT NUMBER REQUIRED; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF SECTION 21-119, COLLECTION EQUIPMENT, DAMAGE TO ROADS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 4, REGULATIONS FOR CUSTOMERS OF COLLECTION EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISEES, FRANCHISEES OR PERMITTEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-137, PREPARATION OF SOLID WASTE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 21-138, GARBAGE CANS AND CONTAINERS-GENERALLY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-140, GARBAGE CANS AND CONTAINERS-PLACEMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF SECTION 21-144, YARD TRASH; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE III, WASTE DISPOSAL, DIVISION 5, PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR PAYMENT OF WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-147, IMPOSITION OF ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-148.1, COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH SOLID WASTE COLLECTORS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-148.2, INDIVIDUAL SELF-HAUL PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 21-150, APPLICABILITY, GENERAL PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Bill Gilley, Senior Director of Solid Waste Management, explained some of the proposed changes to Chapter 21, which would include Universal Assessment and Collection for the County and would also provide for one billing option and a more effective level of service. Mr. Gilley pointed out that two of the largest components of the waste-management system were the incinerator and the hauler contracts. He stated that he felt that if they could more effectively and efficiently handle waste as they collected it, and where they disposed of the waste, that they could, therefore, control the costs to the customers of Lake County that were going out to Covanta (f/k/a Ogden). The purpose of the changes, as explained by Mr. Gilley, was to get an effective and efficient, minimum level of service, called 1-1-1, which is once-a-week garbage, once-a-week recycling, and once-a-week yard waste, as well as bulky-item pickup, thereby reducing litter and illegal dumping, increasing recycling and recycling revenues, and increasing the efficacy of billing and collection. He stated this proposed system would equitably spread the costs of the collection system to all users, with the added benefit of stabilizing the budget revenue stream. Mr. Gilley further discussed the proposed Universal Assessment and Collection System, highlighting its pros and cons, and as found in the backup material presented to the Board. In summary, Mr. Gilley stated that the 1-1-1 service would allow for the ability of Solid Waste to segregate yard waste, which is cost effective; it would encourage recycling; and it would achieve the ultimate goal, which is to reduce the amount of tonnage going to the incinerator. With that, Mr. Gilley turned the floor over to Mr. Jeff Cooper, Director of Support Services.
Mr. Jeff Cooper, Director of Support Services, Solid Waste Management Services, directed the Board's attention to the handout provided by Solid Waste, which covered budget issues and the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (Enterprise). Mr. Cooper highlighted the issues involving the current litigation with Covanta. He stated that one of the major issues for Solid Waste was the $1,630,000 increase in bond payments that the Enterprise Fund had to absorb, i.e., no increase in tipping fees, no increase in disposal fees, and no increase in the self-haul fees that the County receives. He stated that another concern for Solid Waste was the legal fees incurred since March 18, 2000, in the amount of $689,190.44, and through this fiscal year, through March 31, 2001, in the amount of $340,795.31.
Mr. Cooper then discussed the County's Budget Projection for Incinerator Costs, highlighting the Covanta budget changes that were causing concerns at this time, in particular the Operations and Maintenance (O & M ) fee reduction. Mr. Cooper stated that in their negotiations with Ogden, they were disputing some of the charges that Ogden was making in reducing the actual annual cost of the O & M fee. Also, Mr. Cooper stated that something new this year was having to absorb the ash disposal bonus fee of $850,000. He explained that if in fact Recycle 100 does take the ash (even though some people feel that this will save the County money), that on a cash-flow basis they are going to have to pay the extra $850,000. Mr. Cooper stated that something else new this year was that due to the Title 5 requirements that the state and federal governments have imposed on the incinerator, Ogden has found that it is not profitable for them to continue to accept medical waste, and Ogden, therefore, is in the process of getting out of the medical-waste business and is, therefore, receiving reduced revenues from outside-waste ticket fees. He stated that this all resulted in a total increased expenditure for the County of $1,986,581. Mr. Cooper then discussed, as follows, three possible options to help make a decision:
Option 1, described as the current system, would have no change in the system, in any of the fees. However, as Mr. Cooper pointed out, with the contract as it stands right now, there was an annual hauler increase, or a rate refuse index collection increase; in other words, the haulers were entitled to an increase. Mr. Cooper further explained that he assumed that the rate refuse index collection increase would be 5.0 percent for Option 1, but, he stated, last year's increase was 5.87 percent, a large component of the increase being gasoline, in fueling the trucks. He explained that with no changes, the Solid Waste budget, or the Enterprise Fund budget, will reflect a $2,026,982 deficit. He pointed out that the rate refuse index only applied to the collection portion, not to the disposal portion, which would result in everybody having an increase this year, except the self-haulers.
Mr. Cooper continued and explained Option 2, which imposes higher fees, under the same system, in an effort to balance the budget. He stated that, under Option 2, they assumed the same 5.0 percent annual rate refuse index collection increase described in Option 1. He explained that after having done an analysis on the cost to operate the six drop-offs for self- haul customers, the new fee for self-haulers should actually be $25.56, as opposed to the current fee of $13.06. He further discussed an increase in the tip fee and the disposal fee, which worked out to be about an 8-percent increase, which would bring the tip fee to $98.68, and the disposal fee to $97.70.
Mr. Cooper then discussed Option 3, the proposed Universal Collection System, which would provide equal treatment for all taxpayers to help fund the Enterprise Fund and the Solid Waste System in Lake County. Under the Universal Collection System, he stated that they are proposing an approximate $195 charge for every citizen who has a liveable unit in Lake County. Under this new system, there would be no rate refuse index collection increase, as found in Options 1 and 2. He pointed out that the self-haul fee would increase by 88.4 percent; that the tip fee would decrease by 1.5 percent; and that there would be no disposal fee increase at this point since it is incorporated into the $195 charge. Mr. Cooper stated that they anticipated that due to the change over to the new system from the old system that there would be an approximate $717,537 deficit the first year; however, in the second year, the deficit would be eliminated and would be approximately the same as Option 2, $35,000 to $50,000, which is basically a balanced budget. He pointed out that if the County could efficiently manage its waste, which would include recycling and separate pickup for yard waste, that it would reduce the tonnage to Ogden, thereby providing a savings to the County of over a half a million dollars on an annual basis.
Mr. Cooper discussed that one of the issues that they had to deal with was the effect of the generation rate on the Solid Waste System. He explained that under the current system what makes it very difficult is they have to provide credits to the haulers based on the generation rate, which is the tonnage that each household generates in solid waste annually. He stated that when they did their generation study in December of last year, due to the rate increasing, they had to pay the haulers $926,872. Mr. Cooper stated that there are approximately 19,000 people on self-haul, with only 4,700 of the people having a self-haul permit, which left the question of what the other 15,000 people were doing with their garbage. He stated that it was suspected that the people without the self-haul permits were putting their garbage in with a neighbor's garbage for collection, or possibly in a Dumpster. He stated that because of that, Lake County has a generation rate that is high and way out of line with the rest of the counties in the State of Florida, and even within the country. However, Mr. Cooper stated, with Universal Collection, the County, with its 65,980 customers, and dividing the tonnage out by all the customers, would have a generation rate of 1.04, which would be consistent with the rest of the state. Mr. Cooper then gave a countywide cost analysis of the proposed Universal Collection System as compared to the various options and different cities in the County and the unincorporated areas, which showed that the fee of $195 for the proposed Universal Collection System was less as compared to 68.8 percent of the rest of the cities and options in the County at this point in time, thus providing an effective and competitive rate that would be able to be used for the collection of solid waste.
Mr. Cooper stated that an analysis of the current self-haul customer was done and that they came up with a population of 18,311 of unincorporated self-haul customers. It was found, through extrapolation, that there were 343 self-haul homes, of which only 96 had a self-haul card and that 247, or 72.1 percent, did not. Mr. Cooper further stated that there was a Hardship Assistance Program available in the County for those who felt that they would need financial help due to the proposed increase in rates with the Universal Collection System. He recommended working with Community Services to revise the current procedures under the Hardship Assistance Program, to identify the 343 people, especially the 247 that have not claimed homestead, to find out if truly this was a second home or if it was not, and to allow for situations with extenuating circumstances.
In conclusion, Mr. Cooper discussed the proposed budget, comparing fiscal year 2000-2001 with 2001-2002, and stated that there would be an overall 7.5-percent decrease in the operating budget of Solid Waste by bringing the proposed Universal Collection System online. He pointed out that the only increase in Solid Waste's budget would be in personnel services, due to three positions that were required for regulatory compliance, and also the County would normally budget a 4.55-percent increase in salaries. He stated that other than the increase in personnel services, there would be found to be a decrease in all the different sectors of the proposed budget.
Commr. Pool returned to the topic of the effect of the generation rate on the Solid Waste System and questioned whether there was a tonnage generation rate assigned to the 19,000 self-haulers. Mr. Cooper responded by stating that of the 4,700 people who were assigned a self-haul card, the generation rate was approximately 5,000 tons, which would be about the same as the 1.04-percent generation rate assigned to other customers and was consistent with the rest of the state.
Commr. Hanson inquired of Mr. Cooper regarding Option 2 and a balanced budget, asking if Solid Waste balanced the budget, and the figures actually showed the true cost of just self-haul, what that total cost would be. Mr. Cooper responded by saying that the cost of the six drop-offs for self-haulers was approximately $490,000 per year, and that if you divided that by the 19,192 (number of self-haulers), you would come out with the figure of $25.56 (self-haul fee increase), up from the current fee of $13.06. He pointed out that the disposal fee would also increase to $97.70, which, added to the $25.56, would give you the new county-billed self-haul rate of $123.26.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Gilley what the options would be if you had a self-haul permit, and you wanted to pay your fair share of the costs of solid-waste removal, but you did not want the truck coming down your road, and you did not want to have to leave your garbage at a transfer station. Mr. Gilley responded by stating that the option would be that if you did not want the trucks coming down your road, you could either bring the garbage to the closest point where you felt it was okay, or use the drop-off centers at no additional cost. He stated that the drop-off centers will continue to be in place because they collect items which are not collected at curbside, such as batteries, demolition debris, etc. He stated that by paying the $195, you still could utilize the transfer stations.
Commr. Hanson asked if the people that currently have twice-a-week pickup, who would go to once-a-week pickup, would have a reduction in their costs. Mr. Gilley responded that yes, for 70 percent of the people under a collection system, either paying the hauler or paying the County, there was an actual decrease. He stated that one of their goals was to stabilize the cost and hold that number for three to five years. Commr. Hanson then asked what would happen if a customer wanted the twice-a-week pickup. Mr. Gilley stated that they could either contract with the hauler or they could take advantage of the drop-off locations.
There was further discussion between the Board and Mr. Gilley regarding the types of trucks used for solid-waste removal and the necessary repairs to the roads due to any damage done by the trucks; the fact that Public Works and Solid Waste would need to work closely together for upkeep of the roads; regarding other counties using Universal Collection and the associated rates with and without an incinerator; that cities unanimously voted to support Universal Collection in unincorporated portions of the County and that some cities even wanted to participate in Universal Collection, thereby reducing their costs; that there was a discussion of the container sizes and how many containers per week, the number of days between regular pickup and recycling, the types of recyclables; and regarding three new employment positions that would be necessary for billing purposes.
Mr. Gilley, in closing, pointed out that Universal Collection and Assessment is recommended and supported by Keep Lake County Beautiful, the Solid Waste Study Committee, the Lake County Litter Team, as well as the League of Cities. He asked that the Board approve the recommended changes to Chapter 21.
Mr. Henry Wolsmann, Chairman of the Solid Waste Committee, was present and stated that, as a group, the Committee has been studying the Universal Collection Program for months and that they are unanimously in favor of the program. Mr. Wolsmann asked for the Board's support and approval of the proposal.
Commr. Hanson recognized the following as being in attendance and that she appreciated their being present today: Mr. Leo Vaughn, City Council of Tavares and Vice President of the Lake County League of Cities; Ms. Dottie Keedy, City Manager, Tavares; and Mr. Jim Coleman, City Manager of Lady Lake.
Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment.
Mr. Roy Hunter, Paisley, representing the members and friends of the Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce and the poor working class people and the poor elderly people of Lake County, addressed the Board in opposition to the Universal Collection System in Lake County. One of the reasons given for his opposition included the issue of Ogden's lack of cooperation in the negotiations that were stemming from the lawsuit filed by the County. He stated that he was pleased that the County's government was in excellent financial condition; however, he noted that Solid Waste's assessment fees had gone from $74 in 1993 to $103.52 in 2000. He questioned the justification of these increases over time. Mr. Hunter also stated that they were very grateful to the Board for some of the positive things that have been happening in the Northeast Lake County area through the assessed ad valorem taxes, etc., but that they were still looking for just value for their taxes. He stated that before the Board had the right to increase taxes, they had the obligation to justify the value of previous taxes. Mr. Hunter stated that there were quite a few people present today in opposition to the Universal Collection System. He presented to the Board approximately 700 individual petitions that asked the Board to vote "No" to Universal Collection.
Mr. Hunter stated that possibly some neighbors had their garbage collected as one unit. He stated this, in effect, would cost the County money, with the County getting hit with a higher tonnage fee. Mr. Hunter further stated that with the new system there would be more trash barrels scattered throughout the County, probably put out the night before, which would attract bears, racoons, and wild dogs hunting for food. This, he stated, was of special concern regarding children who were waiting for school busses; that they would be put in danger, as well as adults. Mr. Hunter also pointed out that there was the concern that bears and other animals would be killed as a consequence of them being out on the roads hunting for food in the trash barrels, and also with cars colliding with the animals, posing a danger to citizens. Mr. Gilley discussed, as a possible solution, the purchase of bear-proof garbage containers. Mr. Hunter responded by stating that he did not feel that this was a good solution to the problem due to the prohibitive cost for such containers.
Mr. Hunter then expressed his concern that having the heavy garbage trucks coming down their roads three times a week would destroy the sand roads. He asked if the garbage-collection company would pay for any repairs necessitated by the travel of their trucks on the roads; and that if they did take responsibility for the damage, would their fees increase to cover the cost of repairs. The Meadows, in Kismet, was of particular concern to Mr. Hunter, with the roads having been greatly damaged with just once-a-week curbside collection. His concern was that if currently the trucks go over the roads only once a week, the Universal Collection System would cause the trucks to go over the sand roads three times a week, thereby causing three times the destruction.
Mr. Hunter then suggested some solutions to the above problems as follows:
Regarding neighbors possibly combining their trash for collection, Mr. Hunter suggested that each home be allowed to have only two trash barrels with a Lake County identification tag on them.
Regarding transfer stations, Mr. Hunter suggested that the County do away with the punch cards so that the attendant could concentrate on more important things, like monitoring the garbage so nothing toxic goes into the landfill. He also suggested that the transfer stations be set up like gated communities by having a sensor box stationed at the entrance so that a card could be slid through for identification.
Finally, Mr. Hunter stated that the County simply needed two plans: one for people who have their garbage hauled by the County, and one for people who haul their own garbage.
Mr. Hunter stated that he spoke to Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director of Community Services, who stated that possibly a large number of people who needed help were hindered by the income/asset limits and that he would contact the Board to try and get the income levels and total assets raised so that more people could possibly qualify for financial assistance. Mr. Hunter felt, however, that there would still be a very small number of people who would benefit. Mr. Hunter stated that in all of Lake County, only 40 people qualified for assistance (it was not known how many applied), and that there were probably a lot more elderly and poor working class people out there that needed help.
Mr. Hunter stated, in closing, that people strive to have their homes paid for, with no liens, especially the elderly, and that if $100 were added to their tax bill for Universal Collection, they would pay it, because they pay their taxes, but the people at the lower end of the pay scale would have to cut back on their medicines and groceries to compensate for the added burden. He asked that the Board reject the Universal Collection System by voting "No" today.
Mr. Wayne Turville, who lives south of Clermont, addressed the Board. He stated his concerns regarding Ogden-Martin (Ogden); that the contract between Ogden and the County was not in the best interests of the taxpayers. Mr. Turville was concerned for the rights and interests of the poor and their ability to refuse the Universal Collection System. He also expressed his concern that collection rates would only increase over time and that citizens would have no place to turn for redress.
Ms. Brenda Bragg addressed the Board on behalf of seniors in Lake County, expressing her concerns as to how the increase in the yearly hauling fee would affect them. She stated that many of the seniors in the County are poor working class and on a fixed income, depending on their Social Security and possibly a small pension to get by. Ms. Bragg stated that if Social Security were to give them a small cost-of-living raise, that it, most likely, would be taken away by the increases in their Medicare insurance. She stated that seniors did not want to give up a cost-of-living raise in order to pay increased property taxes. She emphasized that fixed incomes are fixed; that when prices increase, when taxes increase, the senior citizen suffers by either doing without daily essentials, like medications and groceries, or not paying the bills, many choosing to do without the daily essentials rather than not paying the bills, especially the property taxes on the property that he or she has worked for all of their lives. Ms. Bragg pointed out that many seniors take their waste to the transfer stations because they do not have the extra $100 to pay for curbside service.
In conclusion, Ms. Bragg asked the Board to remember the senior citizens of Lake County who were on a fixed income, and the working class who were trying to make ends meet each week. She reminded the Board that these were the people whom they worked for, the same people who voted for them to do what was best for them. She asked the Board to vote "No" to Universal Collection.
Mr. Vance Thornton addressed the Board, stating that when he and his wife first built their house in south Lake County in 1995, the first thing they did was to try to get garbage service. They could not, as well as 17 other homeowners in the neighborhood. The collection service had informed them that they needed to haul their solid waste to a collection station that was about a mile away. Mr. Thornton stated that all types of service trucks use the roads in their neighborhood, yet the garbage-collection company servicing their area refuses to come down their roads to pick up their garbage. He stated that he would be glad to pay for garbage pickup at the end of his driveway, but if they were going to have to continue to load their garbage in their cars to haul it out, he did not think they should be penalized with additional costs.
Mr. Murphy Cameron, Tavares, addressed the Board, stating his concerns regarding the Universal Collection System. He emphasized that it was not the self-haul people who were trying to avoid the tipping fees or doing the illegal dumping.
Another concern Mr. Cameron had was that the citizens of the County were not being provided adequate notice of the public hearings, other than the statutory requirement of newspaper publication, and that the agenda for today's meeting that was published on the County's Web site failed to mention the public hearing. He questioned how the Board could vote on something that people, for the most part, were unaware of. Mr. Cameron had some suggestions for the Board to help keep the people of Lake County more informed. He suggested that the Board members take turns writing a weekly newspaper column that advised people of what was going on in the County, or putting the entire Board's agenda on the County Web site. He also suggested that the department that was most affected by the action of the Board have accurate and up-to-date information to give to the people who made inquiries. He stated his main concern was the frequently asked-question sheet. Mr. Cameron stated that he could not get the information that he needed that was appropriate for today's meeting. He stated that the information that he was looking at this morning was different from what he was looking at the night before and that this was not conducive to giving an informed speech today.
Another topic that was especially important to Mr. Cameron was the current billing system. He stated that he felt that the current system was complicated because the County did some of the billing and the contract haulers did some of the billing. It was his thought that if the Board voted for the Universal Collection System, they were giving the contract haulers a large profit margin because the proposed system would require that only the County do the billing; therefore, the contract haulers could reduce their rates to some customers because they now have no need to put so much time, energy, and money into the billing process. He questioned whether the contract haulers would reduce their rates under such circumstances.
Ms. Jean Kaminski, south Lake County, addressed the Board. She stated that she was only speaking on behalf of herself and her family. She stated that her family self-hauled and that one of the reasons for this decision was they did not want their roads destroyed because of garbage trucks traveling down their roads. She stated that her family has always used the self-haul card since it was instituted. She stated that she strongly believed that everybody generated garbage and, therefore, ought to pay for the service of trash removal at some level. She asked the Board, in making their decision, to look at all the information presented and assess fees at a level that was fair. She asked the Board to take into consideration the fact that self-haulers, like her family, use their cards responsibly; that one size does not always fit all; and that there must be some way that everybody can pay their fair share.
Mr. Gerard O'Toole, Clermont, stated that he was under the impression that citizens would have a choice under the new system of Universal Collection of choosing self-haul or going with curbside pickup. He was wondering if that was correct or whether you must subscribe to the curbside pickup, pay for it through your tax bill, and then, if you so elect, to additionally pay for the self-haul option. He also asked if the transfer stations would be open, with no extra cost involved, for not just batteries and white goods but also for general household waste.
Commr. Cadwell responded, stating that citizens must pay for their collection, but if they chose not to have the curbside pickup, there would still be transfer stations open, at no extra charge, under the new fee structure. He stated that the transfer stations would still be open for everything that they are open for currently.
Commr. Hanson stated that under the Universal Collection System , everyone would pay the same and everyone would have the ability to use the transfer stations; whereas, currently, people who are on curbside collection now do not have the ability to use the drop-off stations unless they were to pay extra.
Mr. O'Toole stated that his understanding was that all the self-haulers who were currently using the card system would pay for waste removal through their tax bills and then have the option of not utilizing the curbside service but to use the transfer stations instead to dispose of their household waste and at no extra cost to the homeowner. The Board responded in the affirmative, reiterating that everyone will pay the same under the new fee structure but that fees were going to increase.
Mr. O'Toole stated his concern that the demographics study that was done by the County's administration for the Universal Collection System was not accurate and complete and that a further study by staff personnel should be considered.
Mr. Alex Hougasian, Clermont, addressed the Board with his concerns and recommendations, one of which was that the community, as a whole, did not get proper notification of the pending changes to the current waste-disposal system. Another issue he brought up was recycling, stating that it does tremendously reduce the load at the landfill. Mr. Hougasian also pointed out that the illegal dumping was probably being done by a handful of individuals, not by the self-haulers. He concluded, therefore, that the elimination of self-haul permits would not discourage improper disposal of waste, nor will once-a-week trash pickup discourage improper disposal.
Mr. Hougasian suggested that the County establish Neighborhood Watch programs near the illegal dump sites, more police presence near the dump sites, random police stakeouts at illegal dump sites, and to arrest and fine the lawbreakers. He recommended establishing an advisory committee on waste management for the surrounding counties and to create a five-year plan the first year of the committee's existence, and to make no changes to the current plan and see if, after all the recommendations had been put into use, it does not have an impact on the main problem, which is illegal dumping. He suggested in the second year that the strategy be evaluated, and, if necessary, hire five additional people, one for each of the districts, to stop the illegal dumping. Then, in years three to five, he stated , purchase additional equipment and hire additional personnel as needed.
Ms. Beverly Wells, Deer Haven, addressed the Board, stating her concerns and her opposition to the Universal Collection System. She stated that curbside pickup would attract wildlife, which, in turn, would cause garbage to be scattered and thus creating a safety issue for the children of the community. Her concern was that there are many people in the community who self-haul because they cannot afford mandatory curbside pickup. Ms. Wells stated that Section 21.119, page 28, which mandates that the haulers repair the roads to a condition equal to or better than they were before the damage, was exemplary. She noted that many of the County's roads do not have a solid base, and any truck will damage them.
Ms. Ann Sadler, Secretary/Treasurer of the Deer Haven Homeowners' Association, addressed the Board and stated that the Deer Haven community, at their own expense, has provided two very large, on-site, bear-proof Dumpsters in their community for solid-waste collection, rather than taking it all the way over to Paisley to dispose of it. She stated that this also prevents the roads from being damaged. Ms. Sadler explained that they have also paid for their self-haul cards, which they do not use. Many of the people, she stated, are recycling. Ms. Sadler reiterated that the Deer Haven homeowners want to pay their fair share for services received from the County and to continue to pay their fair share but that they considered it unfair for the County to impose Universal Collection on their community, charging a flat rate, when they are not receiving the services and have no need of it. She pointed out that the County needs to maintain their roads but that it has been very difficult to get anybody to do so. In closing, Ms. Sadler stated that the community of Deer Haven would like to continue to provide their own trash service, which helps keep their children safe and prevents their roads from being damaged.
Ms. Elyse Rainey addressed the Board, stating that she was present representing herself. She stated that she likes the system of pay as you go for garbage removal and would like to continue with the self-haul system. She stated that she opposed the increase in her property taxes to pay for the costs of Universal Collection. She also stated that she realizes that Ogden has been promised, in their contract with the County, a certain amount of tonnage from waste collection throughout the County, but she felt that it was a good thing that the County did not, due to recycling, provide the amount of tonnage required under the Ogden contract. She emphasized she is not an illegal dumper but that she simply does not supply enough trash for the contract. She pointed out that illegal dumping would exist whether the County raised their rates or not. Ms. Rainey thought it was important to note that the unincorporated areas of the County make up some 30 percent of the population and would not be able to utilize the curbside service imposed by Universal Collection. She felt that the County should reduce its governmental budget in order help curb the deficit. She asked that if the County must raise taxes, to do it responsibly, fairly, and with exemptions for people who would not benefit from the Universal Collection System.
PRESENTATIONS - CANCELLATIONS
Commr. Hanson announced that the presentation scheduled for today by United Arts of Central Florida, by Mr. Harvey Massey, President and CEO of Massey Services, Inc., has been canceled and will be rescheduled for a later date.
PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, LAKE COUNTY CODE,
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL
Mr. Allen Gaskins, south Lake County, next addressed the Board. He stated that in the last four years he and his family moved to a rural setting and had a home built; that they moved from a development in the city and did have curbside service. Now, he stated, they self-haul and recycle anything that they possibly can and that it is disheartening when he goes to the drop-off station and the recycle bins are full, and they are told to just throw their recyclables in any garbage container. He felt strongly that the Board should look into other options that might still be available. He also felt that everybody should pay their fair share.
Mr. Travis Whigham, Forest Hills area, addressed the Board in opposition to the Universal Collection System. He stated that he was a self-hauler but has never had a self-haul card because he hauls his rubbish to Deland to a landfill off of Highway 44, which was a lot closer for him. He stated that a majority of the self-haulers that live in the Forest Hills area also haul their trash out to the Deland landfill and that some of the neighbors even get together and have loads hauled off collectively. A concern he had was that an increase in the hauling rate would cause landowners who own rental property to increase their fees charged to their tenants, thus hurting the people who could afford it the least. He proposed the idea that people who have not used their self-haul cards to the maximum should get a reimbursement check for what they have not used on their cards. Mr. Whigham also expressed a great deal of concern for the sand roads and the repair and maintenance of them due to damage done by the large garbage trucks.
Mr. Herman Thornburg addressed the Board, stating his concern about the increase in cost for garbage collection. He also discussed recycling bins in the City of Astor; that the bins are being filled with raw garbage rather than recyclables and that this situation needed to be checked into by the County.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 11:38 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a lunch break and reconvene at 1:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING (RECONVENED)
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, LAKE COUNTY CODE, WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE DISPOSAL
Ms. Pat Congdon, Forest Hills, addressed the Board. She described some of the transfer stations located in her area. Having personally traveled to many of these stations, she found that people were not aware of the Universal Collection proposal. After talking to citizens at the transfer stations, she found that many were not familiar with the terminology of curbside pickup and self-haul and the ramifications of each. Ms. Congdon displayed pictures for the Board, showing road repairs being done by citizens, repairs that were necessary due to the large trucks. She suggested a plan where you paid only for what you produced, which gives an incentive to people not to set out more bags of garbage than necessary. If the Board was interested, she also had names of people who would be willing to share with them other viable ways of collecting garbage in the County. Ms. Congdon stated that, in her opinion, the County needed to reduce the amount of trash generated; therefore, public-information programs needed to be presented in all parts of the County; that evening educational programs needed to be held for those people who worked during the day; and that meetings should be held in the fall, as well, when seasonal residents were present in the County. She encouraged the Board to enforce the laws as well as to educate the people. She urged that the Board go with a $15 across-the-board fee, and she suggested that the department of Solid Waste do public-information programs on site, at the transfer stations, and various other places in the County at times that people could make it to the meetings. Ms. Congdon described the pictures she had that depicted a trash container in the Pine Hills area with a defective cover and suggested that if the County was going to raise taxes, to at least buy appropriate covers for the containers.
Mr. Eric Vey, Mount Dora, addressed the Board regarding Universal Collection, Option 3, stating that he was opposed to it. He stated that he was, however, in favor of Option 2, Balanced Budget, because Option 2 increased the self-haul rate only by $20, the twice-a-week rate by $13, and the once-a-week rate by $3. He stated that these were small increases compared to $100-a-year increases found in Option 3. Mr. Vey stated that he advocates user fees; in other words, if you use it, you pay for it. He stated that he understood that the County has fallen behind on the self-haul rates and that he does not mind paying higher rates as long as everybody is paying their fair share. He felt that Option 2 should have gotten more consideration by the Board.
Another concern of Mr. Vey's was the generation rate. Mr. Vey stated that, from reports he has read, people were generating one-third more waste than contracted amounts. The generation rates, therefore, needed to be adjusted to accurately reflect how much waste was actually being generated per household. He stated that the County needed to start looking at ways to start reducing solid waste; that this was a national issue. Retailers, Mr. Vey stated, needed to have incentives implemented so as to reduce their solid waste that they put into the mainstream. He stated that historically Universal Systems have not proven to be effective in deterring illegal dumping, nor in reducing litter.
Mr. Jack Styer, Forest Hills, addressed the Board. He stated that they have maintained their own roads out in the Forest Hills area for quite a long time. Mr. Styer stated that the big garbage trucks continually tear up the roads in his neighborhood Another issue Mr. Styer brought up before the Board was the issue of hauling clay in to fix the roads. He was disappointed in the fact that he was unable to negotiate a deal with the County and the Forestry Division to provide the clay and hauling at a reasonable rate. He stated that the garbage trucks are so big and heavy that they have even broken up the six-inch layer of clay that he personally had hauled in to fix the roads. He stated that his offer was still good; that if the County were to come up with the clay, he would pay for the hauling.
Ms. Barbara Newman addressed the Board, representing herself; although, she stated, she does serve on the Lake County Solid Waste Committee (Committee) and also serves on Keep Lake County Beautiful. She emphasized that the Committee was made up of people who were everyday citizens; that there was someone on the Committee who represented each area of the County, plus there were at-large members. Ms. Newman stated that the purpose of the Committee was to listen to proposals concerning solid-waste issues and to make recommendations to the Board. She stated that months of consideration was given to the Universal Collection proposal, and it was a unanimous decision by the Committee to ask the Board to approve the Universal Collection System for the County. Ms. Newman stated that the same was true with the Keep Lake County Beautiful group; that they also made a recommendation to the Board in favor of Universal Collection. She emphasized that anything that can be done to stop illegal dumping should be done, firmly believing that Universal Collection was a step in the right direction. Having, at one time, been a commissioner in Saint Johns County, Ms. Newman stated that they too faced the issue of Universal Collection, having gone through many public hearings and listening to many of the same or similar comments as what she has heard today. She pointed out that while the majority of the people present today were voicing their protests to the proposed Universal Collection System, there was a larger majority of people who were satisfied with what the Board was doing and felt that the Board was acting responsibly in carrying out their wishes by making decisions based on information received from professionals whose job it was to put together proposals from the best facts they could garner from the surrounding counties and states on all facets of what a Universal Collection ordinance would take. In conclusion, Ms. Newman commended the eloquent speakers she heard today and the efforts of those who had gone throughout the County gathering the signed petitions and doing research, feeling that they had done an outstanding job. The Board too, she stated, should be commended for trying to do what is best for the County. She encouraged the Board to vote in favor of Universal Collection.
Ms. Patti Runyon, Forest Hills, addressed the Board. She stated that she was in favor of Option 2, the Current System - Balanced Budget. She acknowledged that garbage collection rates do tend to go up year after year and was willing to pay her fair share but that she still wanted the choice to be able to self-haul. Currently, she stated, she takes her garbage across the Lake County line to Volusia County and drops it there for a $2 fee. She pointed out that her rates have increased threefold over the past few years. Ms. Runyon discussed the twice-a-year bulk-item program. She stated that one year she called Solid Waste to pick up her bulk items that she had set out by the road and that it was two weeks before it was picked up. She stated that her neighbor had called and complained to Code Enforcement because her bulk items were not picked up in a timely fashion. Ms. Runyon suggested that there be better communication with the haulers. She also suggested that if the self-haul cards are not picked up by some people, then to mail them out; that they may not have the time or the opportunity to pick up their cards.
Ms. Eloise Brumbaugh, Astatula, addressed the Board. She stated that her husband had been the mayor of Astatula for approximately four years and that, as the ex-mayor's wife, she would like to say that her husband diligently tried to clean up Astatula during his years as mayor, and it did not work. She stated that she used to work with the House of Representatives and helped to rewrite the state statutes for senior long-term healthcare. She stated that she also has worked in long-term healthcare for the last 40 years and knows very well the issues seniors face. However, she stated, she strongly suggested that the Board vote in favor of Universal Collection, for the benefit of the County as a whole. She stated that whether you are poor or wealthy, you should take pride in the county that you live in. She strongly suggested that the County hire more Code Enforcement officers and that the County needed a program like Universal Collection that was controlled by the County and not individual towns and families that have controlled certain areas for many years. She stated that if people wanted their property values to increase, then the County desperately needed the Universal Collection System. She suggested that the neighborhoods get involved. Ms. Brumbaugh also addressed the indigence program and strongly suggested that people read it to see if they qualify for assistance through this program. In closing, she asked that the County be allowed to take control of the garbage-collection situation by passing the Universal Collection System. And, finally, as a senior citizen herself, she asked that the Board vote in favor of Universal Collection.
Commr. Hanson, at this time, closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and reserved comments to the Board for discussion.
Commr. Stivender discussed Option 2, stating that she realized that the County was trying to get a balanced budget. She stated that she also understood that there was a litter problem and that Code Enforcement needed to be more diligent in tracking down and following up on the offenders who dumped litter in the County. Commr. Stivender then discussed the new rates found under Option 2, page 4, of the backup material distributed by Solid Waste Management on Universal Assessment and Collection. She asked Mr. Bill Gilley, Senior Director of Solid Waste Management, if his department limited the billing to county billed self-haul, and county billed once a week (which, she pointed out, was basically Universal Collection), and hauler billed once a week, and added all those together, would they come up with basically the same number of Total Revenue versus Total Expense Budget. Mr. Gilley responded that, in effect, everybody would pay more in the unincorporated areas. He stated that they were also talking about increasing the tipping fees so that the cities and the commercial customers would be paying $6.46 more per ton.
Commr. Pool then asked if the County went with Option 2, did the new rate of $123.26 account for the increased tipping fees, or did that figure just get them where they were or should be. Mr. Gilley responded that the $123.26 would include the tipping fee.
Commr. Stivender asked if Option 2 was something that would be workable. Mr. Gilley stated that Option 2 would be perpetuating the same exact system. He stated that if the Board would like to explore that, he could come back, but he felt that Option 2 would be perpetuating a system that was difficult to explain and administer, unless the Board wanted to do away with the hauler billing and have everything on a tax bill. Commr. Stivender pointed out that it was easier to have everything on a tax bill.
Commr. Stivender then asked Mr. Gilley to explain the self-haul options for her. Mr. Gilley stated that people currently have four options. They are: You can self-haul; you can pay for collection and disposal on your tax bill; you can pay for disposal on your tax bill, and pay the collector for collection; or you can choose to pay the hauler directly for both collection and disposal, at which point nothing appears on your tax bill.
Commr. Hanson asked that if you did what Commr. Stivender suggested, and you had both the option of county billed self-haul, and county billed once a week, but with no hauler billing, would there be a significant number of people who would then go to self-haul. Mr. Gilley stated that that would be a person's option, unless the County closed off that option and stated they were going to grandfather everybody else in, and all the new Certificates of Occupancy would be on the tax bill, with no option for self-hauling.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the County now has 66,000 households (with an average of at least two people in each household) that use curbside collection and that have, up to now, paid an unfair portion of the solid-waste bill. He stated he felt that if the County were going to move forward in the direction that it needed to, and to keep from perpetuating a system that was somewhat flawed, that the County needed to go ahead with the Universal Collection System for everyone, knowing, however, that the transfer stations would be left open, and that people who did not want the garbage trucks to come down their roads could still go to the transfer stations to dispose of their garbage. Commr. Cadwell stated that under Universal Collection, everyone would be paying the same amount and would have both options to utilize, and he stated that Universal Collection was the only fair way to go.
Commr. Pool asked Mr. Gilley if Solid Waste Management followed the garbage trucks around as part of a study and if they also followed the trucks around in the north end of the County and whether they found any evidence that the garbage trucks had damaged the roads. Mr. Gilley responded that, as part of their waste audit, they did follow the trucks around in the north end of the County but that it was hard to tell whether the garbage trucks had done any of the damage. He stated that they have talked about using mulch or adding some material to the bad areas to make the roads passable by the garbage trucks. Mr. Gilley stated that his department was trying to get everybody on the Universal Collection System so that there was no more confusion.
Commr. Pool stated that a lot of information was given to the Board today. He asked if staff had had a chance to go over some of the material prior to today's meeting. Mr. Jeff Cooper, Director of Support Services, stated that if Commr. Pool was referring to the correspondence where Mr. Cameron requested information, that he himself was the one who had written back to Mr. Cameron and had answered his questions, and that he had read the material mentioned by Commr. Pool.
Commr. Hanson stated, in summary, that her biggest concern was damage to the roads but suspected that the garbage trucks were probably already driving down the roads at least once a week, perhaps even twice a week because someone on the road had twice-a-week pickup. She stated that she felt that Universal Collection was an effort to streamline County government and would stop confusion in the billing system. She reiterated that self-hauling would still be available to those citizens who chose to use it. She stated that of concern to her was the issue of senior citizens meeting the qualifications for the cost exemption; that the County also needed to look at the qualifications criteria for hardship cases and needed to make sure that all the citizens who qualified for homestead exemption were taking advantage of it.
Commr. Pool stated his concern for people who were handicapped and who could not get their garbage out of the house and down to curbside collection. Mr. Gilley explained that there was a provision in the County's hauler contract that stated that if a person were truly disabled and could not bring their garbage to the curb for collection, that the hauler would provide side-door or back-door pickup for those people at no additional cost. Commr. Pool also asked about citizens who were indigent and who could not afford an increase in their collection costs, whether they would still have their garbage collected without the additional fees imposed. Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director of Community Services, responded by saying that if they had homeowners who met the criteria for hardship, that the County would take care of their bill; that if a homeowner had already paid their tax bill, the County would send their bill to the finance office and a check would be sent to them; and that if they had not paid their tax bill, they would be reissued a new tax notice that did not have those assessments included.
Commr. Pool stated that if after six months or one year the Universal Collection System did not work, as it had not in another county, it could be rescinded. He stated that if the Universal Collection System was not going to work in Lake County, the Board could make changes, but he felt that Universal Collection was an opportunity to make some changes for the betterment of the County.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2001-77, as read by title only.
REPORTS - COMMISSIONER CADWELL - DISTRICT #5
CONTRACTS, LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
Commr. Cadwell asked the Board to initiate the 120-day notice of the termination of the lease of the Southside Umatilla Fire Station with Vision for Life Ministries, Inc., which is being utilized by the Southside Umatilla Pastoral Alliance (SUPA). Commr. Cadwell stated that after having a meeting with SUPA, they have come up with a plan that they think will benefit the entire community. He asked that the Board endorse said plan, which is, number one, to initiate the 120-day notice of the termination of the lease, and number two, to train new volunteer firemen or have the previous firemen recertified back into the system He stated that he hoped the Board would approve a fast-track training schedule in the community for those firefighters. Commr. Cadwell stated that he has been looking into a couple of different options for a new home for Crime Watch, 4-H, and Vision for Life Ministries, even to the extent of doing something to the park across the street, which, as he pointed out, there were long-range plans for a building to be there anyway, suggesting maybe a portable building be erected to house these groups. He stated that he has also given the training groups and 4-H his word that the Board will find them a place to relocate somewhere locally in the community, because outside the community transportation then becomes a problem; that the children needed to be able to walk to their 4-H meetings as they are doing now. Commr. Cadwell asked the Board to endorse the above plan and in a timely manner.
Ms. Estella Chapman addressed the Board, stating that she was concerned about the 120 days, and the relocation of the groups as well, and asked if the 120 days would start now. Commr. Cadwell stated that if they could find them a new home sooner, the groups would be out in 30 days. He stated that the contract with Vision for Life Ministries allowed for a notice of 120 days, and he stated that they would start to initiate that notice today. Ms. Chapman stated that the community would like to have the fire truck back now, not in 120 days, and was willing to cover the truck with something until they got the fire station back. Commr. Cadwell stated that once they had the volunteers and reactivated the station, they would reequip the station with the equipment that was there before. Commr. Hanson stated that the lease with Vision For Life Ministries required 120 days, but that if the building were vacated sooner, at that point the truck would return. Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, pointed out that the commitment to reopen the station was contingent upon the volunteers coming out and getting training, because if they could not get enough volunteers, there was no reason to have a truck without the volunteers. He stated that training of the volunteer firefighters could start sooner, whether the building was vacated or not. Ms. Chapman asked what protection the community would have if a fire were to break out in Umatilla. Commr. Cadwell responded that the closest full-time station would be in Altoona. Commr. Hanson stated that she would structure the motion so that Ms. Chapman would feel the commitment from the Board to do the things that had been agreed upon. Ms. Chapman stated that the community was not happy with the situation at present, feeling that the fire station never should have been closed.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the issuance of the 120-day notice terminating the lease with the Southside Umatilla Fire Station and Vision for Life Ministries, Inc.; to have staff work to find the groups of Crime Watch, 4-H, and Vision for Life Ministries another meeting facility, within walking proximity to where they are located now; to help the community with fast-track training of new firefighter volunteers and any prior volunteers that needed recertification, assuring that everything that could be done training-wise in the community would be done; and to reactivate and reequip the fire station, which includes the fire truck, as soon as the above-mentioned groups have a new location to congregate and volunteers trained and ready to go, clarifying that the termination of the lease with Vision for Life Ministries, Inc., was effective no later than 120 days from May 16, 2001.
PRESENTATION - GOVERNMENT ACCESS CABLE TV PROGRAMMING IN
LAKE COUNTY - BY MICHAEL B. MUSTARD, GOVERNMENT ACCESS CONSULTANT
Mr. Michael B. Mustard, Government Access Consultant, addressed the Board. He stated that the purpose for which he was brought in was to evaluate government-access television as it currently existed in the County and to make recommendations on where the County could go with a five-year plan that would enhance public outreach, education, communication, and awareness of cable-television programming. He stated that after interviewing the Board members and the County Manager and her assistant, he came up with a plan for Lake County, the end result of his research being the submitted report, which outlines the equipment, modifications, cost, budget, and timeliness.
Mr. Mustard proceeded to summarize the five-year plan found in his report. He stated that currently, after the taping of a Board meeting, the tapes are carried down to Lake-Sumter Community College and then aired from there on what is now the only channel that can be considered to be an access channel in the County. He discussed the technology available that affects the quality of the picture that the citizens are seeing. He stated that he did a complete analysis of what it would take to get a quality level of government-access television at a price that everyone would hopefully be pleased with. Mr. Mustard stated that technical issues needed to be addressed, after which the end result would be the ability to broadcast live Board meetings, and other informational programming, from the Lake County Administration Building. He recommended having a separate channel that was used just for the broadcast of educational information and another channel used just for government-information programming. He briefly discussed the Comcast Communications cable agreement and the Time Warner cable agreement, and stated that he had the following recommendations that he felt would help enhance the County's current system.
Mr. Mustard advised the Board on the topic of staffing (found at page 5 of his report), and suggested that the County hire an access manager who had knowledge of production, knowledge of equipment, and knowledge on how to do all of this without a lot of money. He stated that the report that he generated provides a step-by-step plan on how to activate a government-access channel dedicated for Lake County through its cable-franchise agreements. He further stated that the Board needed somebody who could come in and take his report and integrate it into a budget, which would be determined by the Board. He felt that this position was necessary before the Board could go to the next level of government-access programming.
Mr. Mustard stated that currently the County has an employee who part of the time his duty is to make sure that the Board meetings are videotaped and who the rest of the time works with Facilities and Capital Improvements. He stated that as the County moved into government-access television, that that part-time position would need to be turned into a full-time position, with the employee, who was chosen, working with the government-access manager. Mr. Mustard stated that the other positions recommended in his report should be filled over time, the first being a producer to help produce tapes and edit segments that would appear on the government-access channel, and the second position being a traffic coordinator. He stated that in talking with the Board members they generally expressed the desire to have text information available on the channel.
Mr. Mustard then addressed the on-air look of the Board meetings as they are today, (found at page 7 of his report) and recommended modifications to the chamber.
Mr. Mustard next made the recommendation to purchase two cameras as new equipment necessary to provide improved programming (found at page 8 of his report). He emphasized that the County would still keep the old cameras but that the new cameras would give additional viewing shots. He stated that this was something that should be done as soon as possible. He clarified for the Board that originally he was making a recommendation for three new cameras, but after having spoken with the Commissioners and getting a budget number in mind, and after completing the first draft of his proposal, he realized that he was over budget. He felt that he was now within the budget range. He also recommended to the Board the purchase of an editing system, a graphics system, a system that you could switch the cameras with that was more like a broadcasting system and less like the computer-based system that was used currently.
Mr. Mustard went on to describe the proposed system as a television station in a box. He pointed out that costs have gone down considerably in the technology sector, as well as the size and number of pieces of equipment. He stated that this was another important aspect of the next level of being able to do access programming; that when there was nothing going on in the Board meeting room, some of the editing could be done there; that this was where they could be creating some of the graphics that would be on the channel. Mr. Mustard stated that the proposed system was also well on its way to being able to be a system by which you could play back your programming right out of the same box, which might help to eliminate some of the playback costs. He also mentioned the purchase of audio levelers, wireless headset systems, and that all of the new equipment was designed where you could take it out in the community and do a two- or three-camera production with just the box that it was in.
Mr. Mustard stated that the rest of his report explained when to purchase the above-mentioned. He described the Canopus DV Station personal PC (found at page 10 of his report) and that he would provide information when the County got to that point. He suggested not putting any of the equipment out for bid before the County had hired someone who was going to run the system and make it work.
Mr. Mustard discussed the February 2002 schedule (found at page 11 of his report). He recommended an automated online digital playback system for storage and playback of scheduled programming. He stated that this item was about a $50,000 expense and that due to its cost he did not want to lump this in with the first year's capital expenditures for equipment. Mr. Mustard discussed the April 2002 schedule (found at page 12 of his report). He suggested the purchase of a dedicated utility-tow vehicle and a dedicated mobile-production trailer in which to house the production equipment and out of which staff could also operate. He emphasized that mobility was very important for government-access programming and explained that if the Board planned to have the control room in Board chambers but also wanted staff to have the ability to go out and do other programming in the community, that time would be needed to load the equipment back and forth into the truck, or the County would have to purchase two sets of equipment, which generally meant that the County would end up buying two sets of less-expensive equipment that would not get the job done as well. He suggested that the better option was to put all the equipment into something that has wheels and provided the space and mobility to do productions from inside and outside chambers.
Mr. Mustard discussed the April 2003 schedule (found at page 13 of his report). He suggested a mobile microwave-transmission system for live productions throughout the County. He stated that there would be a demand in the future for live-television production held outside in the community.
Mr. Mustard summarized, for the Board, the 2001-2002 budget (found at page 15 of his report). He stated that the estimated cost for the activation of the government access channel was $16,200; for the operating budget for Lakeview TV (suggested name for Lake County's government channel) was $62,400; for Lakeview TV staffing was $183,000; for chambers equipment modifications was $14,000; for new equipment necessary was $225,991. The total estimated 2001-2002 budgetary expenditure was $501,191. With that, Mr. Mustard opened the floor for any questions the Board members might have.
Commr. Hanson stated that Mr. Mustard would be working closely with Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, and that the Board's concerns were budget issues. She directed Mr. Mustard to speak with Mr. Minkoff to see what parts of his proposed plan they could put in the budget.
Commr. Stivender stated that there were a couple items in Mr. Mustard's report that she would like discussed between Mr. Minkoff and Mr. Mustard, which were the activation of the government-access channel, and the chamber-equipment modifications.
Mr. Minkoff stated that some of the less-expensive modifications would be items that they could consider. He stated that as far as the channels were concerned, Mr. Alvin Jackson, Jr., Deputy County Manager, had a meeting scheduled with Lake-Sumter Community College to see what could be done with the channels. Mr. Minkoff stated that, budget-wise, he did not think that the County had the financial resources available at this point in time for the government-access programming but would continue to work on it.
Commr. Hanson asked that Mr. Mustard give his comments to Mr. Minkoff and that then the Board would communicate back and forth.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
RIGHT OF WAYS/ROADS AND EASEMENTS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bruce A. Redus, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Board. He stated that their department had been contacted by a developer, Residev, Inc., several months back that wished to acquire an easement from the County which would grant them utility and road right of way across the south end of Lot 1, Phase 1, in the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park (Industrial Park). He stated that Residev, Inc., was planning to purchase 20 acres adjacent to the Industrial Park. Mr. Redus stated that he took the project before the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), after which, he stated, he worked closely with Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, and with the Florida Department of Transportation, discussing their future requirements. He stated that after those discussions, he went back before the IDA and was able to present something of substance to them for their consideration and approval. Mr. Redus stated that the Residev project had some marketing benefits that they currently did not have in the Industrial Park, that is, some smaller lots that could now be developed. Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, was recommending approval of granting the easement to Residev.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, for the Board to approve the request from Economic Development for approval of the easement to be granted to Residev, Inc., for road and utility rights of way across the south end of Lot 1 and accessing Independence Boulevard in the Christopher C. Ford Industrial Park.
Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell inquired whether tying in with Independence Boulevard would trigger any of the transportation requirements for Development of Regional Impact (DRI), with Mr. Redus responding that, after discussion with staff, it was determined that it would not.
The Chairman called for a vote, and the motion made by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool, as stated above, carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
PRESENTATION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
FIVE-YEAR WORK PROGRAM - BY MR. DAVID MARSH OF FDOT
Mr. James Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, introduced Mr. David Marsh to the Board, stating that he was the present Lake County representative from FDOT and that he had a quick presentation to give to the Board on the kick-off program for the coming five-year work program from FDOT. Mr. Stivender informed the Board that Mr. Mike Szunyog of FDOT had moved on to Volusia County.
Mr. David Marsh addressed the Board. He stated that his offices were at 133 South Semoran Boulevard in Orlando. He confirmed that he has taken over the liaison position for Lake County, as well as Marion, Flagler, and Sumter counties. He stated that Mr. Szunyog was present in chambers earlier this morning but had to leave. Mr. Marsh stated that he has been with FDOT for nine years and has had a good deal of institutional knowledge.
Mr. Marsh called the Board's attention to the handout that was given out earlier this morning; that it was an overview and summary of the Annual FDOT Work Program Process. He stated that this year the process was a little different because the Florida Legislature in its session next year would be going into the reapportionment process. Because of that, the Florida Legislature has moved everything up two months, which meant that FDOT's schedule had to be moved up by two months in terms of submitting their work program to the Legislature, to the Governor, and getting their work program officially approved by October of 2001. He stated that normally they had until December. Mr. Marsh stated that this was the reason why he was before the Board a little earlier than normal for his annual presentation. He stated that because of this mandate by the Florida Legislature, FDOT was making this announcement to all of the county commissions, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, etc.
In closing, Mr. Marsh stated that he was glad to be here, was looking forward to the new challenge and that it was nice to meet the Board members today.
PRESENTATION - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
BY TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Bob Wallace addressed the Board, with Mr. Steve Tindale, of Tindale-Oliver & Associates (Tindale-Oliver), and gave a presentation, as follows, on the Lake County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. He stated that now that they were toward the end of their study, they were before the Board at this point to give an update of where Tindale-Oliver was headed as they began preparation of their final report, which would eventually lead to the update of the County's transportation/impact fee ordinance. Mr. Wallace stated that he would focus his presentation on the main areas of the actual transportation impact fee and administrative-policy issues. He stated that Tindale-Oliver would need direction from the Board on how to move forward with the implementation strategies concerning the County's ordinance. Mr. Wallace stated that the Tindale-Oliver study has shown that the transportation trends in Lake County were higher than the average for the State of Florida as a whole. He pointed out that this study was the first update of the transportation program in the last seven years and that the purpose of the study was to provide a comprehensive update of the County's program. He went on to describe what an impact fee was, explaining that it was a tool and a financing mechanism to finance the capital costs of growth (not maintenance costs) associated with transportation and that it was really the difference between the cost to provide infrastructure and how much revenue you would currently generate that was used to fund the transportation program. He stated that the impact-fee formula was the demand that a particular land use generates on the road system, times the cost to provide that infrastructure, minus a credit for money that was already available to be used to fund the transportation programming.
Mr. Wallace explained to the Board how the County's impact fee was calculated. He stated that, based on a study done in 1994, one lane mile of road cost $484,183 to construct, providing for 5,580 vehicles on the roadway; that a home generated 24.6 vehicle miles of travel per day; therefore, a home would consume $2,138 of a lane mile of road, resulting in the current gross impact fee in place in the County today. Mr. Wallace then described Tindale-Oliver's calculations for the County's updated gross transportation impact fee costs. He stated that one lane mile costs about $1.6 million to construct today, including design, right of way, construction, inspection of the road. He stated that a lane mile generates the capacity of about 9,500 vehicles and that today's home consumes about 40 vehicle miles per day, which was significantly more than the 1994 study. He stated that from Tindale-Oliver's study they have found that people travel farther, per trip, in Lake County than they do in other areas of the state, largely due to there not being a grid system in place in the County, the number of lakes, and the lack of a well-defined arterial-transportation system, which drives the cost of a single-family home, from the gross-impact-fee perspective, up; in other words, a single-family home puts enough traffic on the road to consume $5,278 of the $1.6 million that it costs to construct one lane mile.
Mr. Wallace, at this time, reviewed statistical information provided to the Board as follows:
Residential Study Sites (3 Sites)
Fast-Food Study Sites (3 Sites)
Shopping Center Study Sites (2 Sites)
Transportation Impact Fee Demand Assumptions
Transportation Impact Fee Preliminary Review
Transportation Impact Fee Benefit Districts
Mr. Wallace then discussed some of the more significant changes concerning transportation construction and right-of-way general cost trends. He stated that over the past ten years construction costs have increased from approximately $1 million per lane mile up to approximately $1.8 million, largely due to right-of-way increases. He pointed out that currently the County does not charge for right of way and that one of the concepts currently being looked at is that the County should be considering charging for right of way.
Mr. Wallace, at this time, reviewed the Transportation Impact Fee Costs, highlighting the following:
Mr. Wallace reviewed the credit-calculation assumptions with the Board, discussing interest rate, the facility life, miles per gallon, and days per year. He discussed the Transportation Impact Fee Offset as follows: Current Gas Tax Offset, 9.03 cents per gallon; Proposed Gas Tax Offset, 10.00 cents per gallon; Offset Consideration for Local Road, add 0.5 miles to trip length; and Impact of Methodology Adjustment, 26-percent increase in all current fees. Mr. Wallace also touched on the topics of Current Transportation Impact Fee - Single-Family Home; Potential Transportation Impact Fee - Single Family Home; Effect of Across-the- Board Reductions on Potential Fee; and Comparison of Potential Lake County Fee Schedule to Other County-Adopted Fees.
On Administrative/Policy Issues, Mr. Wallace highlighted the following:
Finally, Mr. Wallace reviewed with the Board Implementation Strategies as follows:
Transportation Impact Fee Update Schedule:
- IFERC Meeting - May 17, July 19
- Staff Meeting - Week of June 4
- P & Z Meeting - June 6th, August 1
In closing, Mr. Wallace stated that the above was an overview and summary of the presentation. He stated that he hoped that he adequately explained why some of the changes were occurring and how those changes affect the magnitude of the fee being calculated for Lake County.
After further discussion and questions from the Board, Commr. Hanson thanked Mr. Wallace for his input and a good presentation.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
There was no one present who wished to address the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and requested modification of 11 fee rates currently collected in the Planning and Development Services Division.
Commr. Hanson questioned Ms. Farrell regarding the lot of record determination fee of $80, up to four contiguous lots, and asked what would happen if there were more lots. Ms. Farrell stated that, in that case, there would be a separate application; although they do not see many that are more than four. In terms of whether it was four contiguous lots and not necessarily four contiguous buildable lots, she explained that they did not know whether they were buildable until they ran the lot of record stating that it was four contiguous lots.
Commr. Stivender questioned Ms. Farrell regarding the zoning conformance letters; she stated that she had a concern with the $50 fee. She asked Ms. Farrell how much time she thought was involved in looking at a map to verify zoning. Ms. Farrell responded that it was not just the zoning that they were looking at but also future land use, commercial-location criteria, flood, etc. She stated that a lot of the letters that come into the Planning and Development Services Division will ask for specifics, not simply about zoning. Ms. Farrell pointed out that in a lot of instances there were just verbal requests or telephone calls and that there was not a charge for that; that a lot of time was spent researching those requests. She stated that most of the zoning conformance letters were for closings or for commercial properties and that there was a lot of staff time involved in putting their findings in writing, which was then further checked by a senior staff person before the letter would go out. Commr. Stivender stated that if a person asked for the zoning on their property and wanted a letter stating that it was zoned, for example, agricultural, it would not cost any money. Ms. Farrell stated that if the person wanted it in writing, there would be a fee charged. Commr. Stivender inquired as to why this was the case, since people pay taxes. Commr. Cadwell explained that it was a fee-based department. Ms .Farrell suggested that her department could develop a simple form for citizens who just wanted to know what their zoning was; however, she stated, there could be some problems associated with this type of a simple process.
Commr. Stivender questioned Ms. Farrell regarding the fee being charged for roadway vacations. Ms. Farrell explained that the time spent on roadway vacations varies in that sometimes they spend an hour researching roadway vacations, and sometimes they will actually go out into the field to take a look at them, which was very time consuming. Commr. Stivender stated that was her point; that maybe the roadway vacation fees should be more than $80, as compared to a zoning conformance letter which was also $80. Commr. Hanson asked if Planning and Development was a fee-based department, and if at the end of the year there were extra funds, where the money would go. Ms. Farrell responded by stating that the current Planning and Development budget has always reflected about a $300,000 subsidy from General Revenue. She stated that they might have a year where they collected more than they anticipated, but never more than they spent. She emphasized that there were a lot of functions that they performed, such as occupational licensing, where a lot of time was spent, and there was no fee collected.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved the modifications to the 11 fee rates as requested by the Department of Growth Management, Planning and Development Services Division.
Commr. Stivender voted, "No."
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/SHORELINES/LAKE COUNTY CODE
Mr. Allan Hewitt, Manager of Lake County Water Resource Management, addressed the Board regarding Growth Management's request to advertise changes to the Lake County Code on shoreline protection. He pointed out the basic differences in the two ordinances as follows: He stated that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) requirement for shoreline alteration/aquatic plant removal was 50 feet or 50 percent, whichever was less. He explained that if you were on waters that were designated by the state as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), a permit would be required by FDEP due to the extra protection afforded these uncontaminated bodies of water. Mr. Hewitt stated that only under very rare circumstances would FDEP permit over 50 feet of alteration/plant removal on a residential site but that FDEP will, with a permit, allow over 50 feet or 50 percent on commercial/public-use activities. He pointed out that Lake County's requirement was basically the same as the state's, 50 feet or 50 percent, whichever was less. Mr. Hewitt stated that the County also allowed mechanical harvesting of its shorelines, as did the state, with the caveat that review and notification were required for the sake of compliance. He stated that if someone would want to completely clear their shoreline, they would need a permit from FDEP, but they would also need to provide a restoration plan and be required to replant back to 50 feet or 50 percent, whichever was less. He explained that this option was useful for the removal of the invasive, exotic plants. Mr. Hewitt also explained that the state allowed for a corridor to open water. The County, he stated, required 150 feet, which would probably get everybody out to open water. However, he stated, if someone were to need more than 150 feet, they would need to come in to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance.
Commr. Hill asked Mr. Hewitt what the permitting costs were for shoreline alterations in the County. Mr. Hewitt stated that there were not any permitting costs; that it was more of a notification requirement so that the County was made aware of any mechanical harvesting that was being done and that it was also an opportunity to ensure that all plans for shoreline alteration or plant removal were in conformance with the rules and regulations.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Growth Management's request to advertise for changes to the Lake County Code on shoreline protection.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS/LAND ACQUISITION
Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board regarding a request to purchase a piece of property off the Lands Available list, in lieu of foreclosure, to get the piece of property cleaned up and then put back on the Lands Available list for sale. Commr. Stivender asked if, when choosing these properties, Growth Management looked at the possibility that they could use the land for other purposes, such as Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, stated that in the future the Board was going to see where the County was trying to take all of the unused County property and get it out for use, either for community services, affordable housing, parks, or for sale. He stated that the plan was that the directors of the different departments would be notified to see if their departments needed a particular piece of property, or, if a particular piece of property were near a municipality, to see whether that municipality would need the piece of property, and, if nobody wanted it, that they would hopefully use the new process, as mentioned in Rep. Baker's bill, and get the land sold as quickly as they could.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Growth Management to authorize staff to purchase one piece of property that is now on the Lands Available list, for unpaid taxes, in lieu of foreclosure, for Code Enforcement liens in the amount of $2,342.78.
PURCHASE AGREEMENTS/PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board regarding a request to purchase a piece of property through an agreement with Mr. Charles Farrell for a piece of right of way for Oak Street in Lady Lake for $25,000, to allow them to realign C-25 and stub out to Oak Drive for future development that would connect to First Street, which has already been built. He stated that the funds for the purchase would come out of impact fees.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request from Public Works to execute a purchase agreement with Mr. Charles Farrell for right of way in conjunction with the Oak Street project at the intersection with C-25 in the Lady Lake area in the amount of $25,000, with funding to come out of impact fees.
ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COUNTY PROPERTY/DEEDS
Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director of Public Works, addressed the Board regarding a request to proceed with the sale of a small piece of property, which was left over from previous surveys, to Mr. Marvin E. Brandt, the adjoining property owner. Mr. Stivender stated that the piece of property in question had a more or less clear title. He stated that Mr. Brandt offered the County $1,450 ($1,200 for the land/$250 for title costs) to purchase the piece of property from the County. Mr. Stivender explained that there has been a lot of debate over this issue and that after lengthy negotiations felt that both the County and Mr. Brandt were ready to settle the issue.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the designation of J. Fred Kurras, MAI, as fee appraiser, and approved for execution a County deed for the sale of County property (CIN #244.01) located at the northwest corner of Bloxam Avenue and Trafford Street, in Tavares, to Mr. Marvin E. Brandt.
At 4:10 p.m., Commr. Pool left the meeting.
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board requesting approval and execution of a resolution to ratify the issuance of the multi-family housing revenue bonds, which the Orange County Housing Finance Authority would issue. She recommended approval for the acquisition of the Oakwood Apartments located in Mount Dora.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney's request for approval and execution of Resolution No. 2001-102, to ratify issuance of multi-family housing revenue bonds for the acquisition of the Oakwood Apartments located in Mount Dora.
OTHER BUSINESS/LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY/OUTSIDE COUNSEL
Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board regarding a lawsuit filed by Golf Communities of America, Inc. (Golf Communities), filed in the Bankruptcy Court, Middle District. She stated that the lawsuit was basically seeking a declaratory action from the Court and also asking for estoppel remedies. She stated that Golf Communities was requesting that the Court declare that they have some vested right in PUD 82-90. Ms. Fuchs explained that the main issue was that Golf Communities was originally approved for septic tank versus the sewer system; Golf Communities, therefore, was seeking to have vested rights imposed regarding the use of septic tanks. She noted that this lawsuit involved the Hillcrest Country Club, f/k/a Montverde Country Club. She asked that the Board approve and authorize the hiring of outside bankruptcy counsel to assist and/or handle this lawsuit for the County.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney's request for approval and authorization to hire outside bankruptcy counsel to assist and/or handle the lawsuit on behalf of the County, filed by Golf Communities.
Commr. Pool was not present for the discussion or the vote.
REPORTS/BOARD SCHEDULING/COUNTY MANAGER
Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, addressed the Board regarding the Board's meeting schedule for July 2001. He suggested that since the first regularly scheduled meeting in July would fall on July 3, which was right before the July 4 holiday, that the Board schedule only two regular meetings on July 10 and July 24. He stated that he would like to reserve, if necessary, three days for Budget Workshops: July 20, 23, and 27. Mr. Minkoff noted that the suggested schedule would not conflict with the schedule of the National Association of County Officers (NACO). He clarified that the goal was to set meetings with the Board members individually and to not have the workshops unless it became necessary to do so. He stated that due to the regular meeting schedule, a motion was necessary to set the aforementioned meeting dates.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the above-recommended schedule, as set forth by Mr. Minkoff.
Commr. Pool was not present for the discussion or the vote.
REPORTS/MUNICIPALITIES/LAKE COUNTY DAY
LAKE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
Mr. Sanford Minkoff, Acting County Manager, brought up for discussion the issue of coordination of Lake County Day. He stated that in the past the Board has served as the coordinator of Lake County Day, and he inquired into whether they wanted to continue in this capacity. Commr. Stivender stated that she spoke with two or three Chamber members, Mr. Bill Dees, in particular, who thought that maybe the Chambers could take over Lake County Day from the Board. Commr. Stivender stated that she would meet with the various Chamber members of the County regarding the coordination and planing of Lake County Day.
At this time, Commr. Pool returned to the meeting.
REPORTS/MUNICIPALITIES/LAKE COUNTY DAY
LAKE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
COUNTY MANAGER (CONTINUED)
Mr. Minkoff also brought up for discussion the issue of attracting the Lake County Legislative Delegation to visit with the County for a more extended period of time and asked the Board for direction in setting up such a visit. Commr. Hanson stated that she thought it would be a good idea to move forward with this plan.
OTHER BUSINESS/ADDENDUM NO. 1
Commr. Hanson requested that the Board approve the appointment of individuals to vacant positions on the Elder Ready Study Committee and stated that she would need to appoint a Board member to serve as a nonvoting liaison. She stated that there was one position available from District 3, with two applicants, Mr. Ken Cohrn and Mr. Donald Miller; and that there was one position available from District 5, with one applicant, Ms. Leona Samsel.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Donald Miller to the Elder Ready Study Committee, Commission District 3.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Ms. Leona Samsel to the Elder Ready Study Committee, Commission District 5.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Commr. Hanson as a nonvoting liaison to the Elder Ready Study Committee.
REPORTS/COMMISSIONER POOL - DISTRICT #2
Commr. Pool informed the Board that Florida Rock, a rock-mining company on Highway 427, has created a nature trail around their property and that they have in fact already opened Phase 1 of the trail to the citizens of Lake County. He stated that Florida Rock should be recognized as being a good corporate citizen for allowing the citizens of the County, Audubon Society, hikers, etc., to visit their ecosystem that they have created. Commr. Pool stated that for the opening of Phase 1 they had a very good turnout of people, who toured the facility and walked the nature trail. Commr. Pool complemented Florida Rock for their efforts and thanked them for creating a nature preserve for the citizens of the County.
REPORTS/COMMISSIONER STIVENDER - DISTRICT #3
Commr. Stivender informed the Board that Lake County has the honor of hosting the Florida Historical Society's annual meeting in May of 2002. She stated that the site of the meeting would probably be in Mount Dora at the Lakeside Inn. Commr. Stivender stated that she did not know what the funding was going to be but that the Florida Historical Society usually paid the majority of the expenses. She stated that she felt that hosting this meeting was of economic and historical value to the County.
REPORTS/COMMISSIONER HANSON - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #4
Commr. Hanson requested that the Board approve the execution of Resolution No. 2001-104, supporting Smart Growth Principles and Practices.
Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, for the Board to approve the execution of Resolution No. 2001-104, as noted.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that there was not really a lot new in the Resolution that the Board was not already doing in their group plan but that it put it on record that the Board supported Smart Growth Principles and Practices.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK