JULY 9, 2002

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 9, 2002, 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: Robert A. Pool, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Debbie Stivender. Others present were: William A. Neron, County Manager; Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner's Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Commr. Stivender gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Commr. Hill stated that she would like to add to the agenda, under her reports, the appointment of an individual to the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee, as the Industrial Development Authority's (IDA) representative. She clarified that she had brought this to the Board at another meeting and asked for the reappointment of the individual, when it was actually a new appointment, and she needed to clarify this for the record.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place on the agenda the appointment of an individual to the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee, as requested.

Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that there is a revised Tab 2 cover sheet, and he would like to pull Tab 2 regarding the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg off of the Consent Agenda for discussion under his items.

Mr. Neron stated that a correction needs to be made to Tab 4 on the Consent Agenda to revise the matching State Funds in the anticipated amount of $46,989.50 rather than $34,328.00.

He noted that there are two Consent Items on Addendum No 1.

Commr. Stivender stated that she would like to pull Tab 6 from the Consent Agenda pertaining to Echo Drive/US-441 for discussion.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he has an agreement that he would like to add under his business. It is an item that came from the Supervisor of Elections and is an agreement with the Secretary of State where they will be reimbursing the County $3,750.00 per precinct for voting system assistance.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote the Board approved to place on the agenda the item pertaining to the Supervisor of Elections, as requested by the County Attorney.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, under his business, he will have a short report on the utilities issue that was discussed yesterday pertaining to the Florida Government Utilities Authority (FGUA).


On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts' Consent Agenda (Items 1 through 6), as follows:

List of Warrants

Request to acknowledge 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.

Contractor Bonds

Request to approved Contractor Bonds, New and Riders, as follows:


5684-02 Bobby Swindle (Roofing)

5952-02 Russell Wilburth/Wilburth Landscaping (Irrigation)

5953-03 Operation Landscape, Inc. & Alan D. Giroux

5954-02 Christopher Hoinski d.b.a. Turf Design, Inc.

5955-02 Pringle Development, Inc. d.b.a. Highland Lawn Maintenance

5956-02 Charlie Vaughn d.b.a. Shalimar Landscape & Irrigation

5957-02 Bill Bass d.b.a Your Vision Sod

5958-02 Sandra Mose (Landscape)

5959-02 John Hoevenair d.b.a. Grass Roots Lawn & Irrigation

5960-02 Wendell D. Nichols d.b.a. Nichols Nursery/Landscape


1260-01 William Plant & Elisha Plant (Electrical)

5626-02 Jay O. Berry

Ordinance - City of Eustis

Request from the City of Eustis to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 02-48 to provide for Voluntary Annexation of described property (Rosenwald Gardens), passed, ordained and approved in Regular Session of the City Commission of the City of Eustis, Florida, the 6th day of June, 2002.

Budget - Country Greens Community Development District

Request to acknowledge receipt, in accordance with Chapter 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, Country Greens Community Development District's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2003 for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Resolution - Deer Island Community Development District

Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 2002-2 of the Board of Supervisors of the Deer Island Community Development District designating Scott Clark as the District Registered Agent and further designating the District's registered office for service of process as Scott D. Cark P.A.

Decision and Notice - Florida Midland Railroad Company

Request to acknowledge receipt from the Surface Transportation Board, a Decision and Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment, STB Docket No. AB-325 (Sub-No.2X), Florida Midland Railroad Company - Abandonment Exemption - in Sumter and Lake Counties, FL - Decided: June 13, 2002.


On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager's Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 through 8, pulling Tab 2 and Tab 6 for discussion, and approving Addendum No. 1, I. A. and B., as follows:

Public Works - Proclamation - Mosquito Control

Request for approval and signature on Proclamation 2002-102 designating June 23 through June 29, 2002 as Lake County Mosquito Control Awareness Week.

Public Works - Budget for Arthropod Control

Request for approval and signature on Tentative Work Plan Budget for Arthropod Control FY 2002-2003 as required by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, for mosquito management cooperators to receive matching State Funds in the anticipated amount of $46,989.50.

Public Works - Florida Department of Environmental Protection Contract

Request for approval and signature on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 10-Year Contract for the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Management Program.

Public Works - Interlocal Agreement - City of Leesburg - Thomas Avenue Extension

Request for approval and authorization to execute the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg relating to the Thomas Avenue Extension Construction Project. Benefit District 3, Commission District 1.

Public Works - Change Order - Marbek Constructors, Inc.

Request for approval and authorization for change order in the amount of $41,611.10 to Marbek Constructors, Inc. in order to replace roofs at the Leesburg and Minneola Maintenance facilities.



Procurement Services - Award Bid - Construction and Renovation

Request for approval to award Bid #02-006 Job Order Contracting for Construction and Renovation $50,000.00 and less, subject to the County Attorney approval of the base contracts to: Scheveling Construction Company, Blankenship Land & Marine, Inc.; Marbeck Constructors, Inc. and Abba Construction, Inc., and to authorize the Procurement Services Director to issue purchase orders for approved projects in accordance with the bid specifications.

Growth Management - Grant Agreement - Habitat Conservation Plan

Request for approval and execution of Grant Agreement No. 1448-40181-02-G-123 for a grant of $59,000.00 for Development of a Habitat Conservation Plan.


Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, addressed Tab 2, the request from Community Services for approval and signature on an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg where they would become part of the County's library system and, in the next fiscal year, the County would be providing them some of the State Aid funds for books and updated computer services. Mr. Neron stated that the original draft of the cover sheet had indicated that the County would provide approximately $250,000 next fiscal year. He revised the cover sheet to say that the County will consider providing an estimated $250,000 but, in light of the direction the Board gave to him yesterday on the Clermont Library, he would like to pull this item and combine the two items in the report that he will be bringing back to the Board on libraries, and the Board can consider them at the same time. Mr. Neron explained that he has already met with the City Manager on this item and, in realizing the County's budget situation, they have agreed to become part of the system, even though the County would not be providing the same amount of funding as the initial year but with the idea that there was a moral commitment, if not a legal commitment, that the County would consider picking up more of the funding next fiscal year. In order to be fair with everybody, he felt they needed to address this at the same time as the Clermont issue, so staff gets a firm consistent direction with regard to both.


Commr. Stivender stated that she had asked that Tab 6 regarding the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg, the Echo Drive/US-441 Intersection Realignment Construction Project, be pulled for discussion. She stated that she worked on this project when she worked with the City of Leesburg, and the City did obtain the grants to realign Echo Drive. She further stated that it is a major project that has been ongoing for about five years, and she would like Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, to update the Board on this issue.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, addressed Board and explained that the project entails realigning the intersection of Echo Drive and US-441 to CR-449 near the Leesburg Regional Airport, and it is a four-lane design facility. Mr. Stivender stated that the City is handling the project, the County is paying for it, and the request is to finalize that agreement.

Commr. Stivender stated that it makes the road a major boulevard into the Regional Airport, which has been an ongoing project to make it more of an economic tool for Lake County.

Mr. Stivender stated that the City of Leesburg acquired a lot of property, so this can be aligned with the existing road, so it enhances the safety and, when the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) comes back and six-lanes that section, this will all be in place.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and authorization to execute the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg relating to the Echo Drive/US-441 Intersection Realignment Construction Project, and to encumber $313,392.00 from the Road Impact Fee Fund. Benefit District 3, Commission District 1.


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance 2002-55, if approved by the Board:


Ms. Wendy Wickwire, Impact Fee Coordinator, addressed the Board and stated that the Board has just been presented with an amended proposed Ordinance that incorporates some of the recommended changes from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z Commission), and the Impact Fee Evaluation and Review Committee (Impact Fee Committee), and also some administrative type clarifications staff found since the last draft of the ordinance was advertised.

Ms. Wickwire stated that, about two and a half years ago, the Impact Fee Committee recommended, and the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to update the impact fees. In the report dated December, 2001, the County's consultants, Tindale Oliver & Associates, did this with the transportation impact fee, also known as the road impact fee. At the January, 2002, workshop, the Board chose the fee schedule that they wanted staff to pursue, and it represents 63.4% of the maximum amount that could be charged according to the study done by Tindale Oliver & Associates. Ms. Wickwire explained that Chapter 22 updates the transportation impact fee schedule, in accordance with the Board's direction. Based on recommendations from staff and the Impact Fee Committee, other changes were made and are summarized on the agenda sheet, which include moving the Ordinance from part of the Code to another part of the Code. She noted that also included in the backup material are minutes from the June 5, 2002 P & Z Commission meeting, and the June 20, 2002 Impact Fee Committee meeting. A summary, the P & Z Commission recommendation and the Impact Fee Committee responses, is also included immediately following the Ordinance in the backup material. Staff also has discovered a few areas of the proposed Ordinance that they believe require clarification, and these changes were discussed in the last Impact Fee Committee meeting and are included in the minutes from that meeting, but those changes have not been incorporated in the Ordinance in the book; however, they have been incorporated into the handout material just presented to the Board.

Mr. Steve Tindale, Tindale Oliver & Associates, addressed the Board and stated that they have attempted to answer all questions. Mr. Tindale stated that they have had a couple of inquiries, and they have transmitted all of that information to the Board. He had his staff personally make phone calls letting anyone who had questions know that they were available. He sated that their basic goal was to make sure that, when they got here today, if anybody had any questions, they would have an opportunity to have access to them. Mr. Tindale stated that they wanted to go on record saying that this was the case.

Ms. Wickwire stated that there is a Resolution from the P & Z Commission reversing one of their recommendations that was made at their June 5, 2002 meeting relating to retail. The Resolution deletes retail from the impact fee deferral in the Impact Fee Ordinance, Sec. 22-9. She noted that both copies of the Ordinance before the Board today remains the same in that the industrial and commercial deferral does not include retail. At this time, Ms. Wickwire noted the following major changes that were made to the original advertised ordinance:

Commr. Cadwell stated that, in the past, people could do a study and then using the methodology in the County, the Board would either accept it, or not accept it, if they did not agree with the fee but, in certain projects, the County has allowed them to pay the fee, and then challenge it. He did not see any language before the Board that would allow this to happen. Commr. Cadwell noted that this has always been done by Board practice and questioned the downside to having this process developed as policy.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not believe there would be a legal problem in putting such a practice of the Board into the Code. Mr. Minkoff stated that an individual agreement would still have to be brought to the Board, but staff could add some language that would say that the Board of County Commissioners may approve it, which would still give the Board individual review of those. He explained that currently they do not allow an individual challenge. It would have to be a challenge to an entire category i.e. fast food category, or retirement community. Mr. Minkoff stated that Ms. Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney, can develop such language, if that is the Board's direction.

Mr. Tindale stated that the language needs to include that someone can pull, permit, pay under protest, or at least some type of notification, and there needs to be a time limit, perhaps 60 days or 90 days, to process it and bring it to conclusion.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the County did not have a time frame, but 60 or 90 days is probably not reasonable, and it is not site specific. He stated that language would be added in Section 22-37(e) - Page 35 of the handout material that would say that an individual can pay the fees under protest and do the study and get a refund, if the study shows that the fee should be less. After further discussion, the following language was proffered by the County Attorney:

Challenge Procedures: Section 22-37 (5) If a property owner elects to file a protest, they can pay the fees at the time of issuance of the building permit and, if the study was approved by the County, which showed a lower fee, they could get a refund, and that the study would be done in a time frame agreed to by the developer and the County, at the time of payment of the fees.

Ms. Wickwire directed the Board's attention to the Recommendation/Action Summary provided in the backup material and noted that this document contains a summary of the P & Z Commission's recommendations and the Impact Fee Committee's responses to those recommendations.

Commr. Hill stated that the County Attorney's review indicated that it would be legally safer and defendable in court, if the Ordinance was taken out of the LDRs and placed in the Code. She stated that the consultants gave the Board an excellent plan, and they have cleaned up quite a bit of the Ordinance, and the changes have been made to the Ordinance. Under discussion, she explained that only the Impact Fee Committee would then be looking at the Ordinance in the future, unless they made a provision for the P & Z Commission to review any future changes to the Impact Fee Ordinance. She stated that the 6 to 4 vote by the P & Z Commission was to leave it in the LDRs and the Impact Fee Committee voted 7 to 1 to take it out of the LDRs.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he was surprised that the focus of the discussion by the P & Z Commission got to be this issue, because originally he had recommended that they take all of the impact fees out of the LDR section of the Code and move them into another chapter of the Code, because impact fees are not really land development regulations and, if you treat them as land development regulations, they become subject to a more strict scrutiny by the courts, if they are challenged, as opposed to if they are used more as a way to allocate the costs of development. He explained that this was originally discussed at a seminar of the State Association of County Attorneys, and they were pleased to hear that this was one of their recommendations. He stated that, if the P & Z Commission wants to continue to review the Ordinance, it could be moved to the other portion of the Code, and staff could add a provision that would say that any further changes to this chapter would have to be reviewed by the P & Z Commission and recommended to the Board, as well. He noted that the only reason it went to the P & Z Commission was because it was a part of the LDRs. Mr. Minkoff stated that the LDRs typically are only in the unincorporated area of the County, so city residents and cities do not look at the County's LDRs. He stated that moving the Ordinance to the Code makes it more available to everybody, and it was certainly not to eliminate a level of review by a body, and a provision could be added to say that, in addition to the Impact Fee Committee, the P & Z Commission should review any future changes to impact fees.

Commr. Hill stated that this would be her recommendation that, if they chose to move the Ordinance, a provision would be added, as stated by the County Attorney.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would prefer that the Ordinance be moved out of the LDRs and, if that was a concern of the P & Z Commission, a provision could be added, as stated.

Commr. Stivender stated that this issue was a concern, per a letter she received from Mr. James Gardner, a member of the P & Z Commission

After further discussion, it was noted that a provision would be added to the appropriate section of the Ordinance stating that this particular area of the Code would also go to the P & Z Commission for their review.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, to eliminate confusion, once staff advertises an ordinance, they are not allowed to make any changes to it. He noted that the Ordinance in the book is the Ordinance that was advertised. After discussing the proposed recommendation from the P & Z Commission and, after talking with Commr. Hill about the process to make further changes to the Ordinance, it was decided that staff would wait until the Board had time to review the document, before making the changes, in order to keep from duplicating language and spending additional hours of work on it, and it was not an attempt to ignore what the P & Z Commission had recommended to them.

Commr. Stivender referred to comments written by Mr. Gardner and questioned why the P & Z Commission feels that this is a turf war and that what the P & Z Commission members say is not important.

Mr. Minkoff stated that, on this issue, one P & Z Commission member had this comment, and the other issue was that they felt that their recommendations were not being given to the Board. Staff explained to them that the Board is given their minutes for every zoning case but, on this particular issue, this particular member felt that they were being taken out of the review process.

Commr. Hill stated that there were some other changes that they discussed that may not be on the list. She referred to the proposed Ordinance that was handed out by staff, Page 7, C. Membership, and stated that she felt it was very important to add an agriculture seat rather than an at-large seat, for a total of 12 members. She stated that it was suggested that they (the agriculture community) do not pay impacts fees but, in looking at the list, there are others who do not pay impact fees. She stated that they also wanted to take out a specific group, Page 8, C. e., because there are so many groups within the County, and they did not want to restrict it just one group, or environmental citizen that may not be a member of a group, and it would be up to the Board to choose that person for that seat. The language was noted, as follows: One (1) member of the Lake County Conservation Council or other organized environmental group, if necessary.

Ms. Wickwire explained that the P & Z Commission's initial comments were to eliminate the Conservation Council, but they amended it to open it up to other environmental groups. When this amendment was reviewed by the Impact Fee Committee, they felt that the Conservation Council gave them a focus place to ask for a person and, if something happened to that organization, there would be a provision that would allow them to go to another group.

Mr. Neron suggested that, if the Board adds an agricultural representative, they will have an even numbered committee, and it could raise potential problems. The Board may want to consider reducing the number of at-large members to three rather than four. Mr. Neron recommended that the Board designate three at-large members, and an agricultural representative and keep the membership at 11 individuals.

It was noted that the language would be changed to three citizens at-large and include a citizen with agriculture interest.

Commr. Hill referred to Page 30 of the proposed Ordinance handed out to the Board, Section 22-37. Fee Schedule - B., and stated that she would like to strike "if needed", because she feels that, if you are going to have a determination of an impact fee, you would have it documented, and it should be documented. She stated that they are setting a precedent, and the precedent should be documentation whenever they do anything.

Ms. Wickwire stated that, at this time, she would like to review the changes made in the Ordinance she presented to the Board. She referred to Page 9, D. 5., and noted that "e." has been stricken from the language noting that the Impact Fee Committee felt that, to meet the Sunshine Law, they always publish the time and location of the meetings.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, by making the change in "c." and clarifying that they will comply with the Sunshine Law, there will be no problem.

Ms. Wickwire continued to address changes to the ordinance, as follows:

Page 11, Sec. 22-10. Prepayment of Impact Fees -

Delete "upon"

Add "prior to"

Page 11, Paragraph A.-

Delete "or until the site plan has received final approval"

Add "single-family residential"

Page 12, Sec. 22-11. Refund of Impact Fees Paid - C. -

Line 31 -

Add "or Miscalculation"

Lines 32-33 -

Add "or that the impact fees have been calculated incorrectly"

Line 34-35 -

Delete "thirty (30)"

Add "one hundred and eighty (180)" and "or error"

Line 37 -

Add "or error"

Page 26, Sec. 22-37. Fee Schedule - Land Use Code 210

Add "living space"

Added definition for dwelling unit at the end of the table

Defined "sf" as meaning square foot

Page 43, Sec. 22-52. Use of Fire Services Impact Fee Funds

Delete "B. Funds shall be used exclusively within the Fire Services Impact Fee District, within which the funds were collected or for projects in other Fire Services Impact Fee Districts which are of benefit to the Fire Services Impact Fee District from which the funds were collected."

The Board members noted that both boards did an admirable job on reviewing the proposed ordinance.

Commr. Hill stated that, in regards to the school impact fees, they have not heard from the Lake County School Board, and she was not sure if they have met with the consultants at all. In regard to the dedication of land and credits, they are going to leave it as is for the time being, and they can change this after they hear from them.

Ms. Wickwire stated that Ms. Fuchs has just pointed out a change in the Ordinance she presented to the Board, as follows:

Page 32, Challenge Procedures: 2) iii) a) -

Delete "CDB"

Correct "Community Development Block" to read "Central Business District"

Commr. Hill noted that the Impact Fee Committee did make a request that the Board not use letters and acronyms but that those be spelled out in the Ordinance.

Ms. Wickwire addressed the issue of mobile homes and stated that, in the past, if it was a mobile home regardless of where it was located, it paid the mobile home rate. In the new Ordinance, only mobile homes located in mobile home parks qualify for the mobile home rate; otherwise, they pay the same rate as a single family residence.

Mr. Minkoff explained that mobile home parks are different because a lot of mobile home parks are age restricted and, in the school impact fee, if you are age restricted, you do not pay impact fees at all, so it is less of an issue there than it would be in transportation.

Commr. Pool stated that the point that they want to make is that, if you live in a mobile home park, you have a different rate than if you live on a five acre tract in a mobile home and, if the Board feels this is an important key, it may be something that they want to carry forward.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he has asked Ms. Fuchs to be the recorder of all changes so that, after the Board closes the public hearing, she will be able to tell the Board the changes that they have discussed.

Commr. Hill extended her appreciation to Ms. Sherie Ross, Growth Management, who did all of the paperwork and noted that it was a big job.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing and called for public comment.

Mr. Bill Winegardner, Sorrento, addressed the Board and stated that, on behalf of many citizens who are concerned about the increase in taxes this coming year in the garbage fee and fire fee, he appreciates the Board hearing his comments. Mr. Winegardner stated that, in his research of County records, he has found that the impact fees collected through June 1 represent less than three percent (3%) of the total budget, and a proposal has been made to increase impact fees. There is a concern that maybe impact fees will be raised in proportion to the growth of Lake County. He stated that, between 1980 and 1990, Lake County grew about 20%, and there were no impact fees. From 1990 to 2000, the growth has been about 61%, yet the impact fees are less than three percent (3%) of the total budget, while the taxpayers of Lake County pay a great deal of the percentage of the total fund, about 60% with tangible taxes. Even though the impact fees are used for specific uses, such as fire, schools, and transportation, he felt that they could defer some of the General Fund to go towards those projects.

Mr. Neron stated that they have to realize that impact fees have to relate to infrastructure costs and can only be used for the needed infrastructure related to the new growth. It cannot be used to pick up past infrastructure needs, and most of the other increases being recommended have to do with day to day operational needs, not the cost of infrastructure. He stated that this is not to say that the impact fees could be raised and should be appropriately raised, it is just that those funds cannot necessarily be used to cover some of the other operational expenses.

Mr. Winegardner stated that, while he agrees and understands that point, if the County can get enough impact fees, they can defer some of the other County tax dollars that come from the citizens to use appropriately.

Mr. Egor Emery, Eustis, addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to speak in favor of the adoption of what the Board has before them. Mr. Emery stated that he has been participating in this process through the Conservation Council for some time. Their main concern is that the rates may not accurately reflect the full cost. There was a lot of discussion through the process of the different price for road improvements, in terms of State versus County. They want to encourage the Board to set the fee at the highest possible value closest to reality as possible, and they want to encourage the Board to encourage the committees to look at that again, to try and keep it as close to 100% as possible throughout the process. Mr. Emery stated that he has seen some information from Collier County where they are looking to reevaluate their impact fees on a yearly basis, index it to inflation, and again, to try and set it as high and close to the real cost as possible. He stated that they would like the Board to do this to minimize, as stated by Mr. Winegardner, the impact of subsidized growth by taxpayers. Mr. Emery stated that he cannot speak for the Council members, but they would be in favor of the revised language, and they do not want to close any environmental group out; however, most of the established environmental groups in Lake County are members as organizations of the Conservation Council. So they would like to encourage the Board to leave the Conservation Council as a lead choice and as noted earlier in the discussion. In regards to the other changes, Mr. Emery stated that it would probably be very wise to take one of the at-large and change it to agriculture, but the problem in Lake County is that it is losing agriculture at a frightening rate, it is becoming less and less of the population, and they want to do everything possible to encourage agriculture by whatever means possible.

Commr. Pool recognized Ms. Dottie Keedy, City Administrator, City of Tavares. It was noted that she had no comments at this time.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, addressed the Board and stated that he was here on behalf of several different development organizations, and Florida Hospital Waterman, and to talk about a couple of things that were discussed earlier. Mr. Richey stated that, going back to 1985 when he served on the Impact Fee Committee that developed the original impact fees, one of things they tried to discourage was mobile homes on five acre tracts. Later on they tried to encourage warehousing and distribution. Mr. Richey stated that impact fees may not be a land development regulation as such but they do function as a part of government to encourage, or discourage, certain kinds of development in their community. Mr. Richey stated that, as part of that history, and up until the last two years, you have always been able to come in, pay your fee under protest, meet with the Public Works Department, establish and development a methodology, and do a study to determine whether your specific site and your specific use generated a specific fee, based on the table. Historically, you have been able to challenge every fee category by doing a study, and it was site specific contrary to what Mr. Minkoff indicated earlier, because, as a example, the study they did on the South Lake County First Federal Savings & Loan was exclusive to that particular branch of First Federal. It did not apply to the entire County, and it was limited to their impact fee on that site, at that location. The fee was not taken and applied countywide. As he understands, the Ordinance before them allows him to come in before he pays his fees, and to do a study on every category and determine if, in fact, the fees being proposed are appropriate. Mr. Richey stated that every time that he has done a study, it has resulted in an adjustment of the fee from the standard table that the Boards have adopted over the years including the last adoption. Historically they have been able to pay those fees under protest and do a study. Over the last two years, the County Attorney's Office advised that there was not a provision in the Ordinance allowing for payment under protest, so people were told that they could not do it, and not one has advertised to him ,or anyone else that they could do it with a written agreement with the County, because they were always told that they could not pay them under protest. Mr. Richey stated that this is why it is important to add wording, as noted earlier. He stated that there were several earlier discussions about it having to be a big user, or industry, to justify doing the study but, for "mom and pop" to have the ability to do a study, to determine the implication of impact fees on their business, is just as important and is why the current Ordinance allows everybody to do a study. Mr. Richey stated that it is important that the Board allow for the verification studies to take place, and it takes a long time to do the study, so site specific and length of study and time of year all need to be established in the criteria without prearranged timetables.

Mr. Richey stated that the Board needs to consider two kinds of studies. A verification study is the one you do to verify if the chart applies, or the chart is incorrect; a validation study would be appropriate once an industry has been operating for a year. Mr. Richey stated that it may require more than some simple wording added to the paragraph under the protect procedures of the Ordinance before the Board today, to clarify the issues in both of those studies. He stated that clearly it needs to be done and open to everybody, so that the entire impact fee system has equity to it.

Mr. Richey stated that the Board has removed, from industrial, the waiver provision, because it has not been used. He suggested that they may need to leave the option of waiving impact fees for a particular kind of industry rather than deleting that from the Ordinance, even though they have never had an industry that applied for a waiver because, as the County searches for hi-tech industry, there may be a opportunity for the County to gain and garner some of that industry that would justify them waiving impact fees. It will provide them an opportunity that may very well be important to them over the next several years, as they look to diversify and upgrade the economy.

Mr. Richey stated that, in looking at the impact fees, he and a group of individuals hired R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., to do a white paper and independent evaluation of those fees. He talked to staff months ago about this study, and he and Mr. Lassiter had an opportunity to review the study today, and he did not receive it in time to distribute to staff, or the Board, before now. Mr. Richey asked Mr. Lassiter to address the Board and review the general findings of his analysis and allow the Board to have an opportunity to consider it, as they evaluate the implementation of the Ordinance before the Board today.

Mr. Sans Lassiter, Lassiter Transportation Group, addressed the Board and stated that they took a very objective look at the Ordinance, as proposed, as well as the study that was used to back it up. Mr. Lassiter referred to the issue of the validation study, as discussed by Mr. Richey, and stated that everyone agrees that impact fees are meant to offset costs due to new development. The validation process would allow them to look at those developments for which a payment was made under protest, but where the user believes his particular type of site generates less traffic, for whatever reason, and he believes it needs to be done within a timely manner, and after that business has been established. Mr. Lassiter presented the Board with a report and read from it several very detailed paragraphs, which included reasons to look at this issue a little bit further. The following was read into the record:

Page 4, 4.1 Calculation of the Offset Component

However, the reasoning presented for using this figure is not clear. The paragraph states, "total non-impact fee funded cost affordable roadway improvements is $237,255,000 over the next 20 years. This results in an average annual funding level of $12,487,105. As indicated above, Lake County receives approximately $904,043 for one cent of gasoline tax. Therefore, the equivalent gas tax to fund the $237,255,000 cost of improvements over the next 20 years would be 13.80 cents per gallon." The assumption appears to be that the funding outlined in the long range plan will determine the percentage of gas tax dollars used for capital improvements rather than the other way around. This assumption is also surprising given a claim in Section 3 of the report, which states that the long-range planning estimates were found to be "5 years old and determined to be out of date." If this rationale is true for the cost component analysis in Section 3, then for the sake of consistency in reasoning, it should also be true for the cost offset component in Section 4.

Page 5 - 5.0 Trip Characteristics and Land Use Classifications

The Tindale-Oliver Study Update surveyed local trip characteristics for three land uses. These included single-family residential, fast food restaurants and shopping centers. The results of these surveys are included in Section 5 of the Study Update. Additionally, trip length information is provided in Section 6 for the remaining land use classifications recommended for inclusion in the fee schedule.

While the results of the land use surveys indicate average trip lengths for the selected land uses that are longer than those observed in other counties, the study only reviewed 8 total sites involving 3 land uses.

Mr. Lassiter stated that trip length conditions, if studied in particular locations that are very isolated and very remote, will produce long trips, but this may not be applicable to development that is in more of an urban core where you would expect shorter trips.

Mr. Lassiter referred to Page 7 of his report, Table 2: Cross-County Comparison of Proposed Impact Fee Rates, and stated that, in looking at the bolded values, when you compare those against rates levied in other counties, they do appear to be significantly different, as noted in the document. Mr. Lassiter stated that their firm has been involved with developing impact fees, and they are also involved in looking at impact fees for further study. He felt that, in reviewing the report, the Board will see that there can be some further tweaking of these rates.

Mr. Minkoff pointed out that the figures shown by Mr. Lassiter in the Table 2 chart are much higher than what the Board has before them from staff, and these are not the transportation numbers in the current proposed Ordinance. He noted that the consultants have studies showing all of the other surrounding counties, and they can provide those to the Board.

Mr. Richey filed a letter with the Board dated July 8, 2002 from R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., Lassiter Transportation Group, Inc.

Ms. Jean Kaminski, Executive Director of the Homebuilders Association of Lake County, addressed the Board and stated that she was going to ask the Board for three things today but, before she did, she wanted the Board to know that she has the information from the other counties, and she would be glad to share that with the Board. She noted that the information pertains to transportation only. Ms. Kaminski stated that Marion County will implement their new fee beginning on October 1, and it will begin at $1,548 for a single-family residential unit. It will reach $2,212 in the year 2004, and the fee has been tiered. In Polk County, they have it based on areas of the County, but it ranges from a low of $873 per single-family dwelling unit to a high of $1,112. She stated that Sumter County just implemented their impact fees earlier in the year, and they are also divided into a north district and a south district. She provided the Board with the following information: Volusia County - $1,184; Orange County - $2,075; Seminole County - $1,060; and Osceola County - $1,259. Ms. Kaminski stated that the fee is based on tiering according to house size. There is really no information that there is a rationale nexus based on size. She suggested that they average it, keep it per dwelling unit, or mobile home on a lot outside of mobile home parks. She also suggested eliminating tiering and base the fee on dwelling unit. Ms. Kaminski stated that she has been speaking to this Board for 19 years on Affordable Housing issues, and she is a great proponent and advocate of Affordable Housing, and there are also things in place that will help them. She is going to ask the Board to base the fee on an average; adopt the fees at 95%; and develop a phasing-in process over several years, because of unsure economic times.

Commr. Pool recognized Mr. Frank Royce, City Council, City of Eustis, and Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office and noted that he had no comments at this time.

Commr. Pool called for further public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Tindale addressed the Board and stated that he wrote down four issues from the discussion that he would like to address. He stated that, in the impact fee studies, probably 49% of single-family homes generate less traffic and 49% generate more traffic and 2% of the homes are average. For example, if the County goes to a validation process, and someone is at 8 cars versus 9 cars, they will be allowed to do a study. He does not know of anyone in the State of Florida that allows anyone to do this, and this is not something that he has ever seen in an ordinance in the last 15 years. He would suggest very strongly that the Board not get into validation.

Mr. Tindale stated that his second comment is about the trip lengths. He stated that the County's trip length was 1.4, which was 140% of the average in the State. The commercial and retail trip lengths were lower than the 140% of what was found to be the average, and they used 140% to be conservative. Mr. Tindale stated that they have plenty of information that indicates that they are not overcharging the retail and commercial.

Mr. Tindale addressed the issue of the comparison of proposed impact fee rates (Table 2 of the report) and stated that they had previously given the Board the fee ranges of surrounding counties in a prior presentation. He stated that, if anything, they were being over conservative in terms of use. He explained that they look at what it is going to take to replace and build facilities, not the current mix, and it is a very common financial process. They feel very comfortable with a mix of projects and the cost. Mr. Tindale stated that, if they do go to court and someone wants to talk about costs, he is very confident with their numbers, and they are extremely defensible in terms of the costs.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, while he understands Ms. Kaminski's concern about the square footage, he still thinks that the tier system is the best way, as opposed to averaging fee. He stated that the smaller homes generally are the folks with less money, and it would benefit them to have the tier system. He stated that they all know the problems with the transportation fund, and he would hope that they would not reduce any of these fees that are before them today. He addressed Page 35 of the proposed Ordinance and stated that he hoped they would add the language that had been proposed earlier, for someone to pay under protest and do a study themselves, with a time limit set by Public Works. He also hoped they would separate the codes, but with a revision where they could still go before the P & Z Commission.

Commr. Hanson felt they should leave in the provision for the possibility of a waiver for industrial.

Commr. Pool stated that, in regard to the term industrial, he felt there needed to be a definition, because there may be different kinds of opportunities.

Mr. Neron stated that Commr. Pool was making a good point, in terms of industrial, because right now, he was not sure how staff could address the waiver except to say that it is available to them, and then they would have to come to the Board for review and consideration, but without necessarily tying it to a specific land use category, so this process would have to be placed back in the ordinance.

Ms. Kaminski stated that, if the County stayed with the tiering, it would be $1,560 for less than 1,500 square feet; $2,080 for 1,501 to 2,500 square feet; and $2,454 for greater than 2,500 square feet. In terms of rationale, these represent 100% of county road costs, and impact fees traditionally have never been recommended at more than 95% to allow room for error. She noted that the only other County that uses square footage is Collier County, and everybody else uses dwelling units.

Mr. Neron stated that these are today's costs, and these costs will not necessarily increase over the next two to five years, as the costs of construction go up so it may represent an estimated 100% cost at some point in time, and they are always playing catchup, once they are adopted. He would strongly recommend that they go with the consultant's recommendation, because there is no rationale for 95%.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to approve Ordinance 2002-55 replacing the waiver language; the addition of item number five on Page 35, paying under protest; and the other changes presented by staff today.

Ms. Fuchs noted that, in addition to the changes provided by staff in the handout, there are about six other proposed changes on the table, as follows:

1. Adding a new section - 22-7 - to provide that the Planning and Zoning Board shall review any changes to this chapter

2. Amending Section 22-6(c) - Page 8 - regarding the Impact Fee Committee to reduce the at-large members from four to three and add an agricultural representative to that board.

3. Change to amend Chapter 22-37 (5) - regarding the fee schedule, to add a section to allow the property owner to pay under the contest while waiting determination of the appropriate land use designation and also have a time frame for that contest to take place.

4. Amending Section 22-37 to correct the error that currently provides Community Development Block - it should be Central Business District

5. Page 30, Section 22-37 (b) the Fee Schedule deleting the language that provides "if needed" in regards to the owners providing documentation to support the land use designation.

6. Leave in the industrial waiver.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted to withdraw his motion, because Commr. Hill has been working very diligently with the Impact Fee Committee and should make the motion.

Commr. Hill made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to approve Ordinance 2002-55, as read by title only, with the amendments and changes, as noted.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson noted the effective date of the Ordinance as October 1.

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


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the following proposed Ordinance on the floor, by title only, and noted that it would be Ordinance 2002-56, if approved by the Board:


Mr. Minkoff stated that staff would like to thank Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, who worked with Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant County Attorney, to prepare the document.

Commr. Pool stated that he appreciates staff bringing this document forward. He stated that this will ensure that those who want to maintain some of their lands and get some reduction, for at least a five year period, may have that opportunity. He feels it is both environmentally safe and encourages those who want to hold their lands to do so.

Commr. Pool opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for public comment. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Commr. Pool stated that he appreciates the work of staff, and Mr. Royce and his department, because he feels it is something that will benefit the County, and he hopes that someone will take advantage of it and use it.

Commr. Stivender made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Hanson, to approve Ordinance 2002-56, as read by title only.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she agrees with Commr. Pool, and the same Ordinance has been approved in Orange County and, even though it has not been used, she feels there is a real opportunity here in Lake County, and she applauds the County for moving forward on it.

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


Mr. Fletcher Smith, Director of Community Services, addressed the Board to discuss the request from Community Services for consideration of the lease of 6,128 square feet of space for utilization by the Lake County Health Department (LCHD) in Clermont, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of the citizens of South Lake County (any Agreement will be subject to BCC approval).

Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, explained that he put this item on the agenda, because he wanted Board confirmation of the recommendation that he would make to them, that they have a valid request from the Health Department to rent additional office space in South Lake County, as noted. The estimated cost for the remainder of the fiscal year would be $18,384 and an annual cost next fiscal year would be $77,213 and renovation costs of $168,000. Mr. Neron explained that the request was included as an enhancement for next fiscal year, and they do not have money currently allocated and, therefore, his recommendation is that they not proceed with the lease at this time.

Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Rodger Amon, Director of the Health Department, is present today. He stated that a number of years ago, they had a workshop on health department facilities countywide, and the impetus for that workshop was the Health Department on DeSoto Street in Clermont, which could not be brought into compliance. When this came up a number of months ago, he and Mr. Amon, along with Ms. Liz Longacre with South Lake Hospital, discussed it and wanted to bring it to the Board for consideration. Mr. Smith stated that, even though they may not be able to do something now, they still need to look at what they are going to do in that area of the County.

Mr. Rodger Amon, Director of the Health Department, addressed the Board and explained that the Health Department is currently located on DeSoto Street in Clermont, in a facility that is approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet. The facility currently does not meet the American Disability Act (ADA) compliancy requirements. Mr. Amon stated that the roof leaks and there is no waiting room, and everyone can agree that the facility is inadequate at this time. He stated that they do not have a significant presence in South Lake County, because they lack a facility. He stated that they have been meeting, as part of the Comprehensive Health Care Committee, with other partners in the community, and they have basically gotten commitments, both health and human services, to look at developing a "one stop center" in the south part of the County and, if they can go into a larger facility, it would help bring in additional partners, which would help offset some of the operational costs. Mr. Amon stated that they have talked to South Lake Hospital and discussed integrating their free clinic that they are currently doing with the Health Department, and the Community Health Center, which is currently in Groveland. He stated that they would build a partnership, on the health care side, that would include South Lake Hospital, the Health Department, the Community Health Centers, and LifeStream. On the human service side, they looked at potential partners including the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for an eligibility team in South Lake County. Mr. Amon stated that he did have dollars in his budget to help renovate, but he no longer has money to contribute to the project, due to unforeseen circumstances. He stated that they are looking at a short term solution, and he has commitments to work on funding opportunities for grants, so there is potential for them to access some funds to help underwrite the operation of the facility.

Mr. Neron stated that there is no doubt that there is the need in this area but, as the Board saw yesterday during the Budget Workshop session, if the Board approves this request, it is making a funding commitment for next year plus they are going to have to reduce contingencies this year by about $200,000. The reserve for operating the remainder of the fiscal year is $199,000. If the Board should wish to approve this request, by recommendation, it will be so that it will come from the reserve for the contingency account, which will then be that much less carried forward that they will have next fiscal year.

Commr. Hanson stated that she was confident that Commr. Cadwell will be successful in working with the Sheriff and the Clerk's Office. She feels that the need is great enough, and they have talked about it for several years, and this is one of those things like the libraries that will cost them less in the future, if they do it now. She believes they really have a commitment to provide for the citizens in the south part of the County, and the Board needs to do just as the County Manager has recommended, with the funding coming from contingency.

Mr. Neron stated that the Board will also need to do the renovation costs this fiscal year.

Commr. Stivender questioned why the Board would be doing the renovation, if they are leasing the space. She stated that she was concerned about the same thing yesterday when they were discussing the library in Clermont.

Commr. Pool stated that he recognizes the County Manager's efforts, but the facility is inadequate and, at one point in time, it actually closed, and there was nothing to accommodate those individuals in South Lake County. He stated that the area has grown, the needs are there, and he applauds the opportunity to bring forward partnerships, because he believes they need to share in some of that responsibility.

Mr. Amon stated that, from an operational perspective, some of the resources will be available from their partners for the ongoing operations of the facility including help to underwrite the costs of the rent. The issue on the infrastructure and fronting the money will be a little more difficult, in terms of capital. He stated that there may be some funding opportunities through the State for expansion of primary health care services in this fiscal year, even though he did not know what the criteria would be for the grant opportunities. He has a commitment from both of the federally funded community health centers in the Groveland area and Leesburg, to be partners with them, which strengthens their opportunity to access grant funds. In terms of the lease, Mr. Amon explained that sometimes the owner of the property will participate in it, and there is the possibility they can talk to that individual again, but the overall operation costs go up. Mr. Amon stated that they identified an area of about 2,000 to 3,000 square feet within a 6,000 square foot facility, which was currently designed to be a physical therapy facility. He stated that they can go back and see if they can do less, in terms of the costs of renovation.

Commr. Pool stated that, when he toured the Seminole County facility, they showed how to use systems of creating rooms cost effectively, and it was a lot cheaper than actual renovation, and he thought perhaps they could look at this as they go forward.

Mr. Amon stated that they could go back and meet with the architect and try to relook at the space utilization. He stated that one of the major expenses on the $168,000 was an additional restroom in the back of the facility.

Mr. Smith explained that one of the reasons they were coming forward today with a request was because the conditional use permit (CUP) on the property is running out for the modular park, and the County was not able to relocate the health department in 1996/97.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the County did make a commitment to the City to get out of the facility and get rid of the modular.

Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Bob Wade is the owner of the shopping center, and South Lake Hospital holds the lease for this space until August 31, 2004, so the County would be sub-leasing the space.

Discussion occurred regarding the hospital underwriting the cost of the rent for the balance of the noted time, until August 31, 2004.

Mr. Neron stated that he was of the understanding that the Board wants them to go back and do some further negotiation and then bring this back to the Board. He clarified that, in his recommendation, he is recognizing there is a need, but he is also recognizing the budget crunch, and he can assure them that 85% to 90% of the enhancements that he did not recommend for funding next fiscal year all have a similar need and similar story and can make a valid case for funding. He stated that he will be consistent in his recommendation to the Board, because of the budget crunch they are facing, and it is not because he does not recognize the very valid needs of a lot of these programs.

Mr. Rodger Amon, Director of the Health Department, stated that they will bring back another proposal, and Commr. Pool stated that he would like an opportunity to meet with the owner of the property.



On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request to remove Robin Neeld and Benita Martin from membership of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.


On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the reappointment of Mr. Tom Wetherington as the citizen at-large representative, and Ms. Patricia Price as the small business representative, to the Comprehensive Health Care Committee to serve three year terms beginning August 15, 2002.



Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that staff is recommending approval of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity relating to Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he had asked Mr. Jim Judge, Executive Director, Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, to be present today in case the Board had any questions. He wanted to take the opportunity to say that he hopes that the other Board members are as pleased with the job that Mr. Judge has done with the ambulance service and where they have gone in a short period of time. He stated that the Board of Directors had a great meeting yesterday and received good financial news.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity relating to Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Inc.


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board added to the agenda the agreement between Lake County and the Department of State, Division of Elections, for Board action.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the agreement between Lake County and the Department of State, Division of Elections, for the second year funding of the voter assistance money.


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, with respect to the purchase of Florida Water Services by the Florida Government Utility Association (FGUA), there really are not as many legal issues involved as there are business type issues. He felt that the only recommendation he could make at this time is for the Board to have Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, and/or him, get a little more involved in what the FGUA is doing and bring back reports to the Board. Mr. Minkoff stated that, for the Board to take action today, there could be a lot of ramifications if the Board opted out the people who did not become part of the purchase, and he did not know if it would be prudent to do that without really having the information before them to make those types of decisions.

Commr. Pool stated that he appreciated Senator Anna Cowin bringing the issue forward for the Board's review, and obviously she feels strongly about what affects it may or may not have on those who may be involved in the purchase, and it is difficult for the Board to make decisions that may potentially help one and not the other.

Mr. Minkoff stated that it is a very complex situation, and even the utilities that they have are very small, and it would be very difficult to try and determine the impacts on each of those utilities.

Mr. Bill Neron, County Manager, stated that the Board may do more harm by taking action than if they did nothing, so it would probably be best not to do anything, until they can get better information.

Mr. Minkoff explained that the FGUA is very similar to the County's ambulance agreement, or the medical examiner agreement they have with five counties, so having representation on the board would not be a bad thing to do, but he was not sure that anyone would want to be thrust in at the eleventh hour, to try and look at the proposed agreement but, as they go forward, if they do proceed with the purchase, he felt it may be a good thing to have representation.

Mr. Neron stated that this deal has been ongoing for years, and it is highly technical and structured and, to be thrust in at the final moment, he was not sure if he would want their name as a member of the board, if it is not a good deal. He stated that he monitors the issue on almost a daily basis through reports, and those are shared with Mr. Minkoff, so staff will continue to report to the Board and work with the cities involved.



Commr. Hill stated that she had placed on the agenda the appointment of Mr. Billy Spikes to the Impact Fee Committee, as recommended by the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). The appointment is due to the resignation of Mr. Carl Lunderstadt.

On a motion by commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Billy Spikes to the Impact Fee Evaluation Commission, as the Industrial Development Authority's (IDA) representative.



On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the request for approval and execution of Proclamation 2002-103 declaring September 17 through 23, 2002 as Constitution Week.


Commr. Pool stated that he wanted to discuss both the format and any funding opportunities for the 2002 State of the County event, to be held Thursday, October 17, 2002. Discussion occurred regarding the procedure historically used by the Board, with the Board members feeling that, by having the Chairman serve in this capacity, it gives consistency. There was further discussion about funding and the procedure used in the past, with it being noted that historically, the Board asked for sponsors.

It was the consensus of the Board that the 2002 State of the County event would be scheduled for Thursday, October 17, 2002 and that Commr. Pool, Chairman, will make the presentation. It was also noted that the Chairman would write a letter, for his signature, asking businesses to help in the funding of the event. It was noted that the event would be held in the rotunda of the Administration Building and would be in conjunction with the induction into the Women's Hall of Fame.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.