JANUARY 24, 2003

            The Lake County Board of County Commissioners held a special joint meeting with the Clermont City Council on Friday, January 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., at Lake-Sumter Community College, South Lake Campus, Clermont, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Debbie Stivender, Vice Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool. Present from the City of Clermont were: Hal Turville, Mayor; City Council Members: Gail Ash, Frank Caputo, Keith Mullins and Elaine Renick; Wayne Saunders, City Manager; Barry Brown, Planning Director; Amye King, Principal Planner; Curt Henschel, Principal Planner; and Teresa Studdard, Deputy City Clerk. Others present were: William A. “Bill” Neron, County Manager; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioner’s Office; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.

            Mayor Hal Turville, City of Clermont, called the meeting to order and recognized audience members Mr. Bill Balanoff, Mayor, City of Minneola, and Mr. Jason Yarborough, City Manager, City of Groveland. He noted that Commr. Stivender would be arriving about 10:00 a.m. He pointed out that there is a great deal of interest in today’s meeting. He noted that the staffs of the City of Clermont and Lake County have prepared a document which is a starting point and which was prepared without legal staff input.

            Mr. Barry Brown, Planning Director, City of Clermont, presented a booklet prepared by City staff that included a copy of the proposed Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) as drafted by City staff with comments in italics by County staff. Also included in the booklet are maps of the proposed JPA area, the City/County Future Land Use Maps (FLUM) (State Road 50 corridor and the area south and east of Clermont), the City sewer system, the Minneola Utility Service Area, the Groveland Utility Service Area and a copy of Chapter 164, Florida Statutes, Governmental Disputes.

            Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, showed the proposed JPA on the map and stated that the JPA boundary line is consistent with the Chapter 180 (Florida Statutes) Utility Service Area as adopted by the City several years ago with one exception. The proposed JPA extends south along U.S. Highway 27, consistent with an ordinance that has been introduced to include an area that is designated “urban expansion” by the County’s FLUM. He stated that the City’s major expansion is the south, southeast area down U.S. Highway 27 and Hartwood Marsh Road and some expansion in the area along State Road 50. He mentioned a concept, as embraced by the City, that would include “phasing” lines which would provide some type of orderly progression of the City as opposed to classic “leapfrogging” and sprawl at the outermost boundaries. In response to a question by Comm. Cadwell, Mr. Saunders concurred that the areas within the proposed JPA would probably be eligible, at some point in time, for annexation into the City.

            Ms. Elaine Renick, Clermont City Council, pointed out that “phasing” will be important because the City does not want finger-like development going all the way out to the end of the JPA.

            Mr. Frank Caputo, Clermont City Council, added that the City is awaiting a proposal from a land and strategic planner. If the City accepts the planner’s proposal, the City may incorporate “phasing lines” in a strategic plan so that development plans, in stages, will be available for use by the County and for developers.


            Mayor Turville explained that if the County’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are more stringent than the City’s LDR, the County’s rule would be applicable. Likewise, if the City’s rule is more stringent, the City’s rule would be applicable unless an agreement by both staffs is negotiated specific to certain rules.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that both LDRs should be combined in one book for research purposes.

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Director of Growth Management, explained that the two staffs would work together to determine, as a subsection to the County’s LDR, which LDR is the most strict, rather than allowing an architect or developer to make that determination.

            Commr. Hanson stated that in working through this process there may be situations where stricter is not necessarily better, and that stricter keeps you from doing what you really want to do or what would make for good planning. She added that by working through this process we can get to the point of what would be best and the best planning.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, inquired whether the rules would apply within the adjacent City when the County’s rule is more strict. For example, if the City allowed a twenty-foot sign and the County allowed a ten-foot sign, the proposed Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) indicates that only a ten-foot sign would be allowed. Unless the City followed the more strict rule within the City, there could be a twenty-foot sign (within the City) across the street from a ten-foot sign (outside the City but within the JPA).

            Mr. Saunders remarked that the City staff’s intent would be to follow suit and propose that the City Council adopt such stricter requirements, as they have in the past.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that language be included that the City would address the stricter rules within a certain number of days of the coming together of the LDRs.

            Mr. Keith Mullins, Clermont City Council, stated that it will be a site specific type of thing and, around the periphery of growth, a blended ordinance would be logical. He added that an ordinance that is appropriate for Hartwood Marsh Road might not be appropriate downtown on Montrose Street.

            More discussion occurred regarding downtown revitalization, zero lot lines, the variance process, consistent rules for residential areas, consistent rules for commercial areas, and floodplain elevations and densities. Mr. Saunders pointed out that Page 1 addresses a process for amending the Joint Planning Agreement LDRs.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that 120 days is not a realistic time frame when changes to the LDR require changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

            Commr. Cadwell requested that the County Attorney and the City Attorney be involved in the JPA process.


            Mr. Brown read from Page 2 regarding new Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations that would apply specifically to the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) area.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the County staff and the City staff would work on another map, putting together the designations in the JPA, and present it to the County Commission and City Council. He commented that a lot of the area now is agricultural and rural and the two staffs will work on appropriate land uses as expansion takes place.

            In response to a question by Ms. Renick, Mr. Saunders explained that, within the JPA expansion area, some of the current rural designations will be changed on a new Future Land Use Map to other land uses. Changing the map is the first step, then perhaps those land use changes will be “phased” or tied into rezonings and annexations.

            Mr. Brown referred to the third map in the booklet where the City boundary is outlined in green, the proposed Joint Planning area is outlined in red, and the yellow filled properties are recent land use changes (Center Lake Properties and Doudney Properties).

            Mayor Turville clarified that the issue under discussion is whether or not land use changes are approved within the “phasing” or whether or not land use changes will continue outside the “phasing.”

            Mr. Saunders stated that it is important to develop a land use map in the JPA because the key point of the JPA is to develop the map of future land uses for that area.

            Ms. Renick stated that the assumption should be that rural properties within the JPA would be changed from rural, consequently, the proposed JPA may need to be modified if it is decided that some of the corners should remain rural. She expressed concern that there should be “phasing” to prevent immediate development in the outer areas.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the document should have wording that will address the concerns of time lines for providing utilities, and that the rules of the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR can prevent immediate development in the outer areas.

            Mayor Turville confirmed his understanding that rather than drawing a “phasing” line, language will be adopted that will basically ensure that the County is not approving urban densities while the City is trying to deal with issues that are much more efficient.

            Ms. Gail Ash, Clermont City Council, commented that people are currently living on properties in the rural areas and the map has to be developed all the way out so that those people know whether their properties will remain rural and can decide whether or not they choose to live there.

            Commr. Hanson stated that, obviously with the Joint Planning area, we are looking at this area in a built-out state so that everyone knows where they will be if the area were built-out completely and then back it up from there, so that there is an expectation from the County, the City and the public.

            Mayor Turville reiterated the City’s concern that development does not start from the outside and move inward.


            Mr. Saunders stated that annexation and utility service are very important and should be combined with rezoning in formulating a procedure that will accomplish development from the center outward, rather than “leapfrogging,” and instead of Comprehensive Plan “phases,” have “phasing” in the annexation and utility expansions and rezoning.

            Mr. Neron stated that joint services and the impacts of annexations on both City and County services and the revenues back and forth in those flows will be very important issues and can be addressed at the staff level. This is an important consideration as relates to budgeting and long-range planning for expensive essential services like law enforcement, fire, parks and recreation. That will be a sub-set of issues that will flow out of the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) process.

            Ms. Renick commented that the time of City development from the center outward is important, whether at breakneck speed or at a speed in which people can absorb changes. She stressed that time is important, not just how the City develops, but how quickly.

            Mr. Caputo pointed out that another consideration is the school system and expansion will be somewhat restricted by the ability to provide classrooms.

            Commr. Cadwell opined that, if the best rules are in place to let development happen in an orderly manner, at some point the market will determine the time lines for development. He added that this area will be an urbanized area, part of the City of Clermont.

            Mayor Turville asserted that there are two processes which may affect timeliness with which the City and the County have little or no control because they are in different political jurisdictions. Availability of schools is definitely an issue as it relates to timeliness and the other issue is water. He stated that the first phase of the City’s St. Johns River Water Management District water permit will come about in 2006 and, if a three-year JPA were to be adopted, there would be, at that time, a good idea where the State would be in the process as it relates to providing a new water supply.

            Commr. Hanson agreed that the verbiage will make the agreement work and, if the designs standards are incorporated, the new urbanism/smart growth, the cluster development, and the larger open space requirement, along with schools, then it will not matter so much that development occurs farther out, assuming utilities are there. She mentioned that Mr. Rich Dunkel, a Lake County resident and President of Trail Friends, Inc., has been working with the City of Clermont on a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant regarding recreation, walking trails, schools and healthy communities.

            Mayor Turville reiterated that one concern is that the City gets the most help out of growth to ensure that the City can maintain the level of services the citizens enjoy now, at efficiencies that ensure that the cost for those services does not rise dramatically because development is going out at arms length at speeds that are not sustainable. That lends itself to the timeliness issue as well.

            Commr. Hill stated that she believes all urban service provisions that would affect the County’s budget should be included in the “phasing,” not just treatment plants, water and utilities.

            Mayor Turville stated that the City has already assumed the recreation role, and the County’s participation in police and fire services would be appreciated. There have been past discussions regarding emergency services and the City’s coverage of those services. It is not efficient to have a fire station with emergency services two blocks from a situation and be unable to respond because of jurisdictional boundaries.

            Commr. Cadwell commented that staffs have had talks about emergency services for years and disagreements persist.

            Discussion was held regarding urban expansion areas and emergency services for those areas, including whether or not the County should build a fire station within the City’s Chapter 180 (F.S.) Utility District, whether or not the City’s current fire station would service the County’s rural residents in that vicinity, interim agreements regarding first responders and joint responders, budgeting for services by the County and the City in the expansion areas, asset language that would be included in the Agreement, and costs to City residents for services in the rural areas.


            Commr. Cadwell stated that he is not comfortable with the County giving up its ability to rezone property in the County and the County will not abandon its citizens in that area, although he would be agreeable if the City requests a super majority (four-fifths vote) approval by the County Commission in cases where the City objects to a particular rezoning within the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) area.

            Mr. Neron pointed out that rezoning is a tool, a confirmation of the rules, to implement the Future Land Use Map and the timing will be affected by the utilities and all the other services.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the concern is that a person who owns property at the very end of the JPA area, two to three miles away from any utilities or other development, could ask the County to rezone the property, for example, to allow three units to the acre.

            Commr. Pool stated that he is not willing to approve, nor would he consider, projects in the fringe of the City’s Chapter 180 area without central water and sewer utilities being provided, with either the City, or some other entity, agreeing to provide utilities. He stated that, as an example, what the County has approved is in an area that the City has said it wants to serve, and has the ability to serve, and he is not willing to carte blanche give approvals to densities that do not have those urban services ready. Those services would include the schools, transportation, recreation, water and sewer.

            Mr. Saunders responded by posing the possibility that a developer with property two to three miles away from any urban services might ask the County to rezone for 500-600 homes. While there are no urban services there, the developer may say he will extend the water and sewer lines to the property.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that it will be necessary to have a tough set of LDRs with regulations regarding schools, traffic, water and sewer, to address that possibility. The developer should make the County comfortable with the manner to which the County rezones.

            Commr. Pool mentioned that the City has historically tried to keep densities at a reasonable level, such as 2.2 units per acre, and that would be a picture of what would probably be there in three to five or ten years. He stated that he does not agree with the densities on the Orange County side of four or five units per acre. He mentioned that Magnolia Point, which agreed to provide lines and the County allowed the development to go through, was a win/win situation. He stated that if the County and City are consistent with densities, which would be there anyway, those projects should be looked at.

            Mr. Caputo stated that it is important that water and sewer be made available by the City, not by some other entity.

            Mayor Turville stated that one City concern is that the JPA area will allow the City to do a much better job of managing growth, having it occur efficiently, and in a timely manner. He is not interested in seeing how fast growth can occur in the Chapter 180 District, but is concerned that quality of life and the cost of services and the efficiencies of those services are not diminished to the City of Clermont. He stated that he is not trying to adopt language that encourages a more rapid growth at the extremities, but rather enjoy the efficiencies associated with a compact expanding scenario.

            Ms. Renick questioned why the County would want to service rural areas and incur the cost of servicing those areas when the City will eventually be servicing those areas.

            Commr. Cadwell explained that, while the County may not want to service those areas, the County does have the right to look at those issues, offer public hearings and make those decisions.

            Mayor Turville noted that over the years discussion has occurred regarding where a line is drawn and who is included within that line. He questioned what would happen if the owner of a five-acre ranchette did not want to be included. He remarked that if the scenario were compact to start with, the folks would be active participants in that line drawing, and if someone at the outer edge did not want to be included, the line might be drawn to exclude them. He questioned what would happen at the extremities of the JPA where a development standard is adopted for people who might not potentially develop for years. Or what happens when someone at the extremities does want to develop a project and indicates they can get utilities.

            Mr. Saunders stated that language will be included that, hopefully, would not allow other private utilities to come in. Those projects, if in the JPA, would be required to have municipal services. Getting those municipal services out there in a timely manner will control those areas on the end.


            At 10:30 a.m., Mayor Turville announced a ten minute recess.

            Mayor Turville stated that every detail cannot be agreed upon today and the goal today is to work through the booklet.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that everyone is to the point of agreement for a JPA and he hopes to be able to direct staff to bring back a real Joint Planning Agreement and associated LDRs at a later date, at which time the individual points of the document will be discussed.


            There was no further discussion on this issue.


            Commr. Cadwell inquired whether particular roads could be spelled out in the Joint Planning Agreement, knowing that some roads will become City roads and some roads will remain County roads.

            Mr. Saunders and Mr. Welstead concurred that the roads could be identified.

            WATER (PAGE 4 OF BOOKLET)

            Commr. Cadwell stated that an important issue for the City is the language that would say that a private utility district shall not provide water or wastewater in the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) area. He remarked that the attorneys should address that issue as relates to legality.

            Mr. Saunders stated that the Public Service Commission (PSC) grants franchise areas to private utilities. He remarked that he would hope the County would have the ability to specify who the utility provider would be on development requests, and secondly, if a private utility does make an application to PSC, that the County would back the City up in objecting to an application to the JPA area.

            Commr. Cadwell concurred that language of that type should be in the Joint Planning Agreement.


            Mr. Saunders commented that the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) may need additional language to deal with areas that are not contiguous and that utilities have to be within a certain distance or some such language.

            Commr. Cadwell remarked that the rules in this area will dictate the speed of growth, and the County will be limiting what residents in the unincorporated areas of the JPA can do by tying in some of these rules regarding utilities.

            Mr. Saunders stated that, with good LDR rules that specify central utilities from the municipality are required, with language in the JPA that specifies that utilities have to be within a certain distance, and by tying the two together, the City can accomplish its goal and prevent “leapfrogging.”

            Mayor Turville remarked that for years the League of Cities has worked at trying to put together some sort of a general process and that was a “drop dead” issue for many of the participants in that arrangement, a critical foundation block to have some understanding.

            Mr. Saunders reiterated that it is critical the City of Clermont has whatever County support can be there to try to keep the private utilities from coming into that JPA area.

            Commr. Hanson remarked that the area with the most threat would probably be the area on the far east and she would interpret the strictest rules as those of the County with densities of one unit per five acres, and if those folks decide to move forward and develop at one to five, there would be no talk about utilities to that area. She expressed concern with that area and suggested that the City should look at density bonuses such as clustering and open space to create villages. She commented that developing in five-acre tracts is the worst possible development plan for providing utilities and services, and the most expensive.

            Mr. Saunders agreed and added that it is critical that the City and County get together and prepare the Future Land Use Map for that area.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the City and the County need to look at the built-out County area, back up from there, and decide what will work for the City and the County.


            Commr. Cadwell stated that for the sake of moving forward the County would not agree to this section, but discussions can be held about what happens outside the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). He added that the language in this section would mean the County has a JPA with Clermont for the rest of the County.

            Mr. Neron pointed out that the JPA with Clermont must be married to the JPA for Montverde, Groveland, Mascotte and Minneola, and there may be some other issues that develop, especially relating to joint services such as water, sewer, fire protection, law enforcement and others. This particular JPA with Clermont cannot be looked at in isolation.

            Mr. Saunders stated that this section was included for discussion purposes. He explained that the City had no intent that other JPA areas would have to remain rural. JPAs really do not work unless you get outside all of the JPAs and something is done to keep those areas more in the rural setting than an urbanized setting. He stated that an important issue is how the County deals with outside areas once all the JPAs are in place, and to do urban development outside all the JPAs loses the idea behind JPAs.

            Commr. Pool stated that we need to be cognizant of what is taking place all over the west Orange County line, where every bit of their plan is five units per acre, as opposed to Lake County’s density of one unit per five acres. He stated that those plans must be blended, possibly on a regional approach. He commented that one location in Orange County actually has twenty plus units per acre, and that core of development has to be thought about and blended with.

            Ms. Renick inquired if Commr. Pool, by recommending blending, is suggesting that densities be increased along the Orange County line.

            Commr. Pool responded that he did not say that, but stated that we have to communicate larger than just where we are today.

            Commr. Cadwell pointed out that there is nothing wrong with understanding that densities are different when you get into Lake County.

            Mr. Saunders stated that he thinks that is addressed because the JPA line goes to the Orange County line and the City will be developing future land uses in that area. He remarked again that the City’s concern is the area outside the JPA which would be a couple of miles from anything.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he has a clear understanding of the problem and the County cannot agree to this section.

            Mayor Turville opined that, conceptually, everybody agrees that there is an issue with this section.



            Mayor Turville stated that one consideration not included in this section is whether any appeal or a variance request within the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) area would be handled with the County.

            Mr. Saunders confirmed that the County would handle those appeals or variances as mentioned on the top of Page 4 of the booklet, and this section addresses conflicts between the City and the County governments. He noted that a copy of Chapter 164, Florida Statutes, Governmental Disputes, is included in the booklet.

            Mayor Turville inquired what would happen if, within the JPA area, the County Commission actually heard requests for relief against the JPA area rule as opposed to going through the standard process. He pointed out that those requests are currently heard by political appointees, and commented that it might make more sense if appeals are heard by the elected County Commissioners.

            Commr. Hanson responded that her goal would be to try to make the JPA as seamless as possible so that there is not a great need for variances.

            Commr. Cadwell requested that this issue be given some thought, noting that the Clermont City Council hears variance requests within the City.

            Mr. Neron remarked that another approach might be to use some type of independent hearing examiner with a recommendation to the legislative body.

            Mayor Turville pointed out that those people cost a lot of money, typically.

            Ms. Renick stated that these issues ultimately would be decided by the Commissioners.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that the rules would allow variances for a certain area to come before the Board of County Commissioners but, as a practical matter, it is not a legislative act or political decision, it is a legal decision, so whatever board makes the decision, they should be using the same standards and rules. He emphasized that you cannot deny a variance that you do not think is politically right, you have to follow the law.

            Mayor Turville asked for consideration on this issue and opined that people who are included within a Joint Planning area would have a greater comfort level knowing that an appeal would not be to folks who are not included in the area.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that this request would be considered.


            Discussion was held regarding three-year and five-year terms of the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA). Generally, five years was agreed to be desirable because it might take three years for adoption and implementation. The three-year option was presented so that people would have an opportunity, if there is the perception that the Agreement is absolutely failing, that three years comes sooner than five years. While discouragement might come within three years, the Agreement might work if given a five-year term.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, if a five-year term is agreed upon with a termination clause, the termination clause should be tough to get out of.

            Mayor Turville stated that a five-year time period is a significant factor in that it would ensure that every single body who was associated with the adoption of the Agreement would have had to be reelected to be present for the renewal.

            Discussion was held regarding a super majority vote by the City and the County, whether or not that language is strong enough and whether or not that language is legal.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that many of the provisions as discussed will not be binding, such as, a city cannot contract away its right to change the Comprehensive Plan or to rezone or to annex. All of the legislative portions of this Agreement essentially could be changed any time it came back to a legislative act. The Agreement must be watered down in a lot of areas where the legislative actions are restricted. He added that, while those rights cannot legally be given away, the Agreement can be strongly worded to indicate intent.

            Commr. Hanson suggested that thought be given to developing a process for compensation for future issues and there may be financial implications to both the City and the County.

            Mayor Turville stated again that if, during the line drawing, anybody really does not want to be included in the area, they probably should not be included. Someone in an overlay district probably would have documentation, possibly by deed restriction or covenant, specifying the jurisdiction, and subsequent owners of that land would be buying the land with that understanding as well.

            Commr. Cadwell agreed that the Agreement should be written with input by the attorneys and include law that could be upheld in court.


            1) Mr. Saunders posed the question of whether or not specific language should be included dealing with Lake Louisa State Park, perhaps buffering or lower intensity uses.

            2) Commr. Cadwell stated that the County is working on an interlocal agreement with the schools and it should be completed before the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) is completed, however, he requested that language be added to the JPA that each party agrees to have an interlocal agreement with the school system.

            3) The County is working on a countywide plan regarding recreation facility planning that will include all of the cities.

            Commr. Pool stated that all the cities should continue to partner with the County and embrace the expansion of the trail corridors, both for grants and acquisition of land for trails.

            Mr. Saunders stated that a general, catch-all comment might be included that the City and the County will work together, perhaps on committees, to accomplish these goals.

            4) Mayor Turville stated that the St. Johns River Water Management District believes that in order to ensure a water supply, new water supply will have to be developed, and that future groundwater pumping for the District altogether will require alternative water supply. Those issues will have to be discussed, probably forever.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that many other counties and cities with utilities are currently forming water authorities, perhaps as a buffer to protect themselves. Osceola County, Kissimmee and St. Cloud are currently forming a water authority utility.


            Mr. Neron suggested that the Joint Planning Agreement document be presented in layers, perhaps starting with some of the Future Land Use Maps, focusing on the language, then the next phase would be implementation of the LDRs. He suggested that staff take a few days and come back with a timetable.

            Mr. Saunders stated that everyone should commit to moving ahead as quickly as possible.

            Commr. Cadwell suggested that the interlocal agreement and the LDRs be ready to discuss at the next meeting. He specified that the next meeting should be a working session such as today’s meeting, then, after agreement or non agreement on certain issues, hold some public, joint meetings.


            5) Mayor Turville remarked that the City of Clermont basically funds infrastructure costs utilizing impact fees and the County Commission should understand that if a development of significance is going on within the Joint Planning Agreement area, and it will not be annexed because it is not contiguous, those impact fees and the infrastructure role that they play associated with that development will not be forthcoming to the City. That will affect the efficiencies and the cost of providing services as growth occurs. He added that if the County’s impact fee structure is not keeping up with costs and the City’s does not apply, it will be a consideration, always.

            OTHER COMMENTS

            Mr. Saunders commented that, for the benefit of neighboring cities and the County Commission, in looking at the maps where the cities join there may be some areas of overlap because the maps have not been corrected. He stated that Montverde, Minneola and Groveland have all adopted Chapter 180 (F.S.) Utility Districts, and he knows of no conflicts with any of the neighboring cities over those lines.

            Mayor Turville stated that the last thing a city would want to do in developing a Joint Planning Agreement is have their neighboring cities be in opposition to that Agreement. He added that the City of Clermont has met with the City of Minneola, and the City of Groveland may be planning to attend the next collective meeting, and everyone is aware that there will be shared intersections.


            Commr. Cadwell presented a 2003 Joint Legislative Statement that was prepared this week by the leadership of the Florida Association of Counties, the Florida League of Cities and the Florida School Boards Association. As the budget process progresses in Tallahassee, the local governments will be impacted and the Florida School Boards Association has agreed to not let the rhetoric over class size be passed on to local governments.


            Ms. Nancy Fullerton, speaking as a resident of Clermont, asked the County to consider an attitude similar to the City’s at its last land use meeting that, if this is a three-year process, the County be very conservative in the number of land use changes that would be done in this proposed JPA area.  


            Mayor Turville thanked the public for attending the meeting, thanked the County Commissioners for coming to Clermont and thanked the City staff and the County staff for their support.

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.