A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER
1, 2005
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
November 1, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting
Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners
present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson, Vice
Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Welton G. Cadwell; and Robert A. Pool. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy”
Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive
Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief
Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION
AND PLEDGE
Commr.
Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
RECOGNITION
Commr.
Hill recognized Sheriff Chris Daniels, who was present in the audience.
AGENDA
UPDATE
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that there was an Addendum No. 1
to the Agenda, containing three requests – the first request being for approval
to accept grant funding from Florida Communities Trust, as well as a pledge for
funding from the Lake County Water Authority, for the purchase of the Ferndale
Preserve on Lake Apopka; the second request being for approval to accept grant
funding from Florida Communities Trust for the purchase of PEAR Park – Gateway
Parcel; and the third request being for approval to award the contract for the
expansion and facilities in downtown Tavares to HLM Design Heery International,
Inc. She stated that she had one other
item that she would like to place on the Consent Agenda, being a memorandum
addressed to her from Kristian Swenson, Road Operations Division Director,
dated October 31, 2005, regarding HMGP Project 1561-28, which she distributed
to the Board, for their perusal. She
stated that it pertains to a State of Florida – Joint Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Application, which the Board approved,
where the County is purchasing a home in the City of Clermont that has been
damaged by water. She stated that the
County sent the application to the State under her signature, but the State
needed the Chairman’s signature. She
then noted a correction to Tab 26, under Other Business, being that the request
should have indicated approval of appointments to the Solid Waste Study
Committee representing Districts 3 and 4, rather than Districts 3 and 3.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would like to add to the Agenda
a request to discuss extending the real estate purchase and sales agreement
that the County has with Mr. Richard Langley and the Christopher C. Ford
Commerce Park, which he noted will require action.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda, under the
County Attorney’s Reports.
MINUTES
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved the Minutes of September 19, 2005 (Special Meeting), as presented.
Regarding the Minutes of October 4,
2005, a change in the Minutes was pointed out, prior to the start of the
meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson,
seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved the Minutes of October 4, 2005 (Regular Meeting), as amended.
On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded
by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved
the Minutes of October 10, 2005 (Special Meeting), as presented.
On a motion by Commr. Stivender,
seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of October 11, 2005
(Regular Meeting), as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved the following requests:
Bonds – Contractor
Request for approval of Contractor
Bonds – New, Cancellations, Rider, and Endorsement, as follows:
New
390-06 Ram Electric USA,
Inc.
1517-07 James A. Dolan (Electrical Contractor)
3096-06 Terry Ross d/b/a Ross Plumbing
5108-06 James Griffis d/b/a James Griffis Masonry LLC
5200-06 Keith Batterbee d/b/a Batterbee Roofing, Inc.
5253-06 Ron Troutman d/b/a Ron Troutman Electric LLC
5261-06 Crown & Company Custom Home Builders, Inc.
5637-06 Southerland Electrical Solutions, Inc.
5789-06 Roland Grigley’s Electric Company, Inc.
6129-06 Timothy Mercer d/b/a Mercer Electric
6178-06 Integrity Signs, Inc. (Electrical Signs)
6179-06 Bruce Mills d/b/a Gulfside Docks Corporation
6181-06 Gary Clark Williams d/b/a S.E Williams Electric, Inc.
6204-06 Dixie Landscape Company, Inc.
6347-06 Rickey J. Russell d/b/a Russell Homes, Inc.
6405-06 Kevin Paul Huntzinger d/b/a United Electrical Contractors,
Inc.
6420-06 Jesse Heckman d/b/a Aquatic Dimension’s, Inc.
6421-06 Edward E. Schatz, Jr., d/b/a Austin Outdoor, Inc.
6422-05 Michelle D. Bilbrey d/b/a Native Waters Marine
Construction LLC
6423-06 John A. Rogers d/b/a Zoe, Inc.
6424-06 Christopher Whittaker d/b/a Randy Suggs Landscaping, Inc.
Cancellations
1922-07 Orin G. Cooper, II d/b/a Mid-State Plumbing, Inc.
5748-05 Frank Oliver
5933-04 Done Right Electric, Inc.
Rider
5853-06 Changing bond description from Air
Conditioning Bond to Electrical Contractor Bond
Endorsement
4944-06 Changing bond from Henry Electrical
Company to Charles L. Henry, Jr., d/b/a Henry Electric, Inc.
List
of Warrants
Request
to acknowledge receipt of 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.
Monthly
Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal
Cases, for the month ending September 30, 2005, in the amount of
$159,121.78. Same period, last year: $81,515.27.
Village
Center Community Development District
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Village Center Community Development District Adopted
Budget for Fiscal Year 2005/2006, submitted in accordance with Chapter
190.008(2)(b)(c), Florida Statutes.
St.
Johns River Water Management District Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Budget
Request to
acknowledge receipt of St. Johns River Water Management District Fiscal Year
2005/2006 Budget, as required by Section 373.563(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Southwest
Florida Water Management District Budget In Brief – Fiscal Year 2006
Annual
Service Budget
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Southwest Florida Water Management District Budget In
Brief – Fiscal Year 2006 Annual Service Budget, which was adopted by the
Governing Board on September 27, 2005, pursuant to the provisions of Section
373.536(6)(a)(1), Florida Statutes.
Lake
County Water Authority’s Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2005/2006
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Lake County Water Authority’s Final Budget for FY
2005/2006.
Country
Club of Mt. Dora Community Development District’s Annual Financial Report
for
Units of Local Government for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004; and
District’s
Audited
Financial Statements for Same Period
Request to
acknowledge receipt of Country Club of Mount Dora Community Development
District’s Annual Financial Report for units of Local Government, for the
Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2004, along with a copy of the District’s
Audited Financial Statements for the same period, in accordance with Chapter
189.418, Florida Statutes.
Ordinances
from City of Mascotte
Request to
acknowledge receipt of Ordinances from the City of Mascotte, as follows:
Ordinance
No. 2005-07-397, annexing certain real property (159.5 +/- acres) into the City
of Mascotte, upon the voluntary petition of the owner of all of the property to
be annexed, filed with the City by Leininger – Law Partnership (Bobby and
Lorene Leininger and William and Julie Law), redefining the boundary lines of
the City, to include said real property.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Mascotte, Lake
County, Florida, at a Regular Council Meeting, the 10th day of
October, 2005.
Ordinance
No. 2005-09-403, amending Ordinance No. 2005-03-377 (to correct the legal
property description, by adding the omitted portion), annexing certain real
property (6.66 +/- acres) into the City of Mascotte, upon the voluntary
petition of the owner of all of the property to be annexed, filed with the City
by Flagship Development LLC (Richard and Janet Webber), redefining the boundary
lines of the City, to include said real property. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Mascotte, Lake County, Florida, at a Regular Council Meeting, the 10th
day of October, 2005.
Ordinance
No. 2005-09-402, amending Ordinance No. 2005-07-385 (to correct legal property
description), that, under the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Mascotte, pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida
Statutes, annexed certain real property into the City of Mascotte. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Mascotte, at a Regular Council Meeting, held the 26th day of
September, 2005.
Notice
of Public Hearing from City of Tavares
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Public Hearing from the City of Tavares – Notice
is hereby given that the City of Tavares will consider the enactment of
proposed Ordinances, as follows:
Ordinance
No. 2005-42, amending the boundaries of the City of Tavares, by annexing
approximately 4.74 acres located on the eastern side of SR 19, approximately
six-tenths of a mile south of the intersection of Dead River Road and SR 19;
rezoning the property from Lake County A (Agriculture) to City of Tavares C2
(Highway Commercial).
Ordinance
No. 2005-43, amending the Tavares Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 2010,
providing for a change of future land use designation from Lake County Urban
Expansion to City of Tavares commercial, for property located on the eastern
side of SR 19, approximately six-tenths of a mile south of the intersection of
Dead River Road and SR 19.
The
proposed Ordinances will be considered at the following public meetings, to be
conducted in the Tavares City Council Chambers, at City Hall, located at 201 E.
Main Street, Tavares, Florida: Tavares
Planning and Zoning Meeting on October 20, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.; Tavares City
Council Meeting on November 2, 2005, at 5:00 p.m.; and Tavares City Council
Meeting on November 16, 2005, at 5:00 p.m.
Fire
Management Program and Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program Annual
Report
of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, from Florida Department of
Agriculture
and Consumer Services
Request
to acknowledge receipt of Fire Management Program and Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Program Annual Report for July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005, from the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
A
motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve
the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, plus Addendum No. 1.
Under
discussion, Commr. Hanson commented about Tab 5, noting that she had mentioned
before the fact that she hoped the County would look at the grants that are
being provided by the Citizens’ Commission for Children - at the more basic
needs, and in the prevention and intervention areas; and that, with regard to
the budget requests, under Addendum No. 1, she feels that said parcels of
property probably would not have been purchased, had it not been for the
partner that the County has - the Trust for Public Lands, that made it happen,
with the grants that the County was able to receive – allowing the County to
leverage the dollars that it had. She
stated that she felt it was important that the County not forget the
significant role that they played in allowing it to happen.
Commr.
Stivender concurred, stating that she was going to pull said requests for
discussion, until the County Manager explained that the requests dealt with the
Ferndale Preserve on Lake Apopka and PEAR Park, noting that the County has been
working on both parks for quite some time and both of them happen to be in her
district. She thanked the Board for its
support in acquiring said property.
Regarding
Tab 5, Commr. Pool informed the Board that he had spoken with FAITH (Feed and
Instruct the Hungry) Neighborhood Center and they informed him that they felt
they had put forth a pretty good proposal.
He stated that he would not disagree with the dollars that have been
distributed throughout the County, because they are very important, but, when
he thinks about the Neighborhood Center, which is a much needed, remarkable
organization, and what they do in providing the needs of the residents of the
south Lake County community and Lake County, it disappoints him that they were
left out of the mix – that they were not funded in any way, shape, or form.
It
was noted that staff would look into the matter.
The
Chairman called for a vote on the motion to approve the County Manager’s
Consent Agenda, as follows, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote:
Budget
Request for approval of Budget
Transfer – County Fire Control Fund, Department of Public Safety, Fire Rescue
Division. Transfer $142,416.00 from Reserve for Operations to Personal
Services. The Department of Public Safety, Fire Rescue Division, has determined
a need to hire six firefighter positions for the Sorrento/Lake Norris area as
soon as possible, due to the renovations to that station being completed sooner
than expected. These six firefighters were approved in the Fiscal Year 2006
budget as being funded for six months and due to begin service in or around
April, 2006. This budget transfer will provide for 12-month funding for these
employees. Funds available in Reserve for Operations.
Request for approval of very
low-income and low-income impact fee waivers, as refunds to lenders on behalf
of qualified individuals.
Community Services
Request for approval of annual grant funding for the
children's service providers who have submitted applications for FY 2005/2006
county funds through the Citizen's Commission for Children's (CCC) Request for
Proposal (RFP) process; authorization for signatures on subsequent agreements,
contingent upon County Attorney approval; and authorization to encumber and
expend funds.
Request
for approval of the Addendum Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities
Medicaid Family and Support Living Waiver Agreement, from July 19, 2005 through
July 18, 2006.
Request
for approval of the Addendum Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities
Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement, from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.
Economic
Development and Tourism
Request
for approval of a Purchase Order, in the amount of $80,000.00, for WRDQ-TV,
from December 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, for advertising Lake County's
assets and special event promotional pieces.
Request
for approval of the issuance of the Purchase Order, in the amount of
$125,000.00, with Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., for advertising services
throughout their network of stations, for the promotion of Lake County and
events and the possible use of billboards along the Florida Turnpike, from
December 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
Employee
Services
Request
for approval of an offer to settle Judd Spence's claim for property damage,
subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
Procurement
Services
Request
for approval to award the contract for Livestock Handling Equipment to Circle
"R" Ranch & Livestock Equipment, as a Sole Source, for
$33,592.00.
Public
Safety
Request
for approval and execution of the Fiscal Year 2005/2006 Emergency Management
Preparedness and Assistance (EMPA) Trust Fund Base Grant Agreement with the
State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management.
Public
Works
Request
for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance,
in the amount of $15,380.00, posted for Shores of Lake Clair. Shores of Lake
Clair consists of 21 lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to return funds, in the amount of $8,500.00,
posted for Magnolia Farms. Magnolia Farms consists of eight lots – Commission
District 4.
Request
for approval and authorization to release a Performance Bond, in the amount of
$2,568,363.34, posted for Hartwood Reserve, Phase I. Hartwood Reserve, Phase I, consists of 183
lots – Commission District 2.
Request
for approval and authorization to release a Letter of Credit for Maintenance,
in the amount of $8,792.50, posted for Lake Harris Ridge. Lake Harris Ridge consists of 11 lots –
Commission District 1.
Request
for approval to accept the final plat for Fairways at Mt. Plymouth, Phase IV,
and all areas dedicated to the public, as shown on the Fairways at Mt.
Plymouth, Phase IV, plat; accept a Maintenance Bond, in the amount of
$88,345.52; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements
between Lake County and Masterpiece Homes, Inc.; and execute Resolution No.
2005-183 accepting the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System:
Sand Bunker Lane (CR No.3887B) and Chip Shot Court (CR No.3887C). Fairways at
Mt. Plymouth, Phase IV, consists of 53 lots – Commission District 4.
Request
for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Anibal Saez, Jr. and
Cheri A. Saez, for right of way; and authorization for the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to sign any and all documents necessary for
closing, in conjunction with the South Dewey Robbins Road (No. 2625) Project
and Dewey Robbins Road (No.2824) Project, located in Section 5, Township 21,
Range 25.
Request
for approval and execution of a Purchase Agreement with Richard Kearns, for
right of way; and authorization for the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to sign any and all documents necessary for closing, in
conjunction with the CR 466A Project, located in Fruitland Park.
ADDENDUM
NO. 1
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (CONT’D.)
Budget
Request
for approval of Resolution No. 2005-184, to amend the General Fund, in order to
receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2004/2005, in the amount of
$3,281,148.00, deposited into Florida Forever Grant; and provide appropriations
for the disbursement for land, for the purchase of the parcel known as Ferndale
Preserve on Lake Apopka. Lake County was
awarded a grant from Florida Communities Trust, in the amount of $3,093,648.00,
and a pledge from the Lake County Water Authority, in the amount of
$187,500.00, to purchase the Ferndale Preserve.
Request
for approval of Resolution No. 2005-185, to amend the General Fund, in order to
receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2004/2005, in the amount of
$2,362,500.00, deposited into Florida Forever Grant; and provide appropriations
for the disbursement for land, for the purchase of the parcel known as PEAR
Park – Gateway Parcel. Lake County was
awarded a grant from Florida Communities Trust, in the amount of $2,362,500.00,
to purchase the PEAR Park – Gateway Parcel.
Procurement
Services
Request
for approval to award the contract for the Judicial Center Expansion, Detention
Center, Energy Plant, and a new Multi-Level Parking Garage to HLM Design/Heery
International, Inc., in accordance with RSQ No. 05-031, for $508,215.00.
PRESENTATION
FLORIDA
4-H PROCLAMATION
Ms.
Sarah Hensley, representing the Lake County Chapter of the Florida 4-H Program,
addressed the Board and introduced two students who are members of the Florida
4-H, as well as members of the County Council, being Ms. Amber Grayford,
President, and her sister, Ivy, Parliamentarian, at which time she noted that
the County Council is very active in providing leadership to the rest of the
County’s 4-H Program.
Commr.
Stivender presented them with Proclamation No. 2005-162, proclaiming October 2
through 8, 2005, as Florida 4-H Week in Lake County.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the County should not underestimate the value that 4-H plays
in creating leadership skills in the young people in Lake County. She stated that the County has an excellent
4-H Program, at which time she noted that she was a member of 4-H for about ten
years, which, at the time, was more agricultural, although it has become more
urbanized, in providing programs for the County’s urban youth.
PRESENTATION
EXCESS
FUNDS PRESENTED TO BOARD FROM SHERIFF DANIELS
Sheriff
Chris Daniels addressed the Board and presented them with a check, in the
amount of $910,301.00, which was excess funds derived from his office moving
their employee pay raises from October 1st, an across the board pay
raise, to anniversary date pay raises, due to the savings generated by doing so
for new employees and new positions, and it allows his office to attach merit
increases to pay raises, by way of doing an evaluation, which his office could
not do before, in that it is impossible to do 700 evaluations in one month and have
them ready by October 1st of each year. He stated that the Board’s
desire was to wait and see what kind of excess fees his office would have to
return at the end of the year, before they made a decision to do that, so his
office sharpened their pencils, tightened their belts, and conducted an agency
wide effort to try to save money in the fiscal budget, so that they could
return enough funds to the Board to cover the expense of moving their office to
the anniversary date pay raises. He
stated that said funds are about three times what the Board estimated the
revenue would be. He stated that he
hoped the Board would make the decision to move the pay raises to anniversary
dates soon, noting that the sooner they do it, the less retroactive work his
office will have to do.
PERSONAL
APPEARANCES
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
Presentation
of Award to Employees with Five Years of Service
Scott
A. Grippin, Aquatic Biologist/Supervisor, Public Works/Special
Services/Mosquito/Aquatic Plant Management (Not Present)
Tracey
R. Isbill, Training/Permitting Specialist, Growth Management/Building Services
Presentation
of Award to Employees with Ten Years of Service
Ronald
J. Searcy, Striping Crew Leader, Public Works/Road Operations/Signs/Signals & Striping
Ricky
“Sam” J. Magnus, Sign Technician, Public Works/Road Operations/Signs/Signals
& Striping
Terry
Rodgers, Systems Administrator, Circuit Judges
Presentation
of Award to Employee with Fifteen Years of Service
John
K. Starcher, Survey Party Chief, Public Works/Engineering/Survey/Design
(Not
Present)
Presentation
of Award to Employee with Twenty-Five Years of Service
Nicie
A. Parks, Community Development Manager, Community Services/Housing and
Community Development
Presentation
of Award to Retiring Employee with Eighteen Years, Eleven Months of
Service
Peggy
Norman, Administrative Office Associate 1, Community Services/Children's
Services
Presentation
of Supervisor of the Quarter
Brenda
Quattlebaum, Executive Management Associate, County Manager's Office
Presentation
of Employee of the Quarter
Donnie
Prevatt, Energy Maintenance Technician, Facilities Development and
Management/Facilities Management/Energy Management
Presentation
of Bright Idea Award
Loren
Blackwell, Firefighter/EMT, Public Safety/Fire and Rescue
(Not
Present)
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
9:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for a Closed
Session, at which time Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, announced the fact
that, as allowed by Florida Statute 286.011, he made a request to the Board
that they hold a Closed Session, to discuss pending litigation. He stated that the only issues that would be
discussed would be settlement negotiations and strategy sessions related to
litigation and expenditures. He stated
that a Court Reporter was present and would record the entire session,
including the time of the beginning and termination of the session, all
discussions and proceedings, and the names of everyone that would be present
for the Closed Session. He stated that
no portion of the session would be off the record and that the Court Reporter’s
notes would be transcribed, filed, and made public at the time that the case is
settled. He stated that the County was
required to give reasonable public notice of the Closed Session, which they
did, through an advertisement. He stated
that the only people that would be present, in addition to the Board, would be
himself; Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager; and Ms. Melanie Marsh, Assistant
County Attorney. He stated that the
Board was to announce, at the beginning of the session, the amount of time that
was expected for the Closed Session, which he anticipated would take 30 to 45
minutes. He stated that, at the
conclusion of the Closed Session, the Chairman would reopen the meeting.
CLOSED
SESSION
The
Board discussed litigation that the County has pending at the present time, as
well as settlement negotiations and what strategy will be used for said
litigation and expenditures.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
10:15 a.m., the Chairman reconvened the Board Meeting, but announced a 15
minute recess.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY
SERVICES
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACo) PRESCRIPTION DRUG
DISCOUNT
CARD PROGRAM
Mr.
Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, addressed the Board and discussed
a program that the National Association of Counties (NACo) has, in conjunction
with Caremark, a large distributor of prescription medication cards for the
public. He gave a power point
presentation regarding said program, noting that the Discount Card Program is a
public/private partnership between NACo, Caremark, and member counties of
NACo. He stated that Caremark is a
consumer card business that has been operating since 1993 and has over 18
million consumer card participants, noting that one in every four Americans are
served by Caremark. He stated that NACo
provides the prescription cards to member counties, of which Lake County is
one, and, in turn, the member counties offer said cards to the uninsured and
underinsured residents of their counties.
He addressed the following topics:
Member
County Benefits
No
Enrollment Fees
No
Eligibility Transmission Required
Marketing
Kit Provided
Customer
Care Support
Web
Site Support
Program
Participant ID Cards
Program
Participant Benefits
Average
Savings of 20%
Delivery
via Mail – Participants Choice
§
Additional
Savings
Savings
on Specialty Medications
No
Enrollment Fees
No
Age Requirements
No
Income Requirements
Family
Coverage with One Card
Over
57,000 Participating Pharmacies
Unlimited
Use
No
Paperwork
All
Commonly Prescribed Medicine is Covered
Toll-Free
Customer Service and Clinical Support Staff
Program
Participant Communication Materials
Pharmacy
Help Desk
Access
to Health Topics via Web
§
Naco.advancerx.com
Program
Participant Savings
Lowest
Pricing Available of Pharmacy Pricing Sources
Average
Savings of 20%, Compared to Regular Retail Prices
Average
Savings of 14% off Brand Name Medicine
Average
Savings of 34% off Generic Medicine, Compared to Regular Retail Prices
Savings
of Up to 50% on Select Generics through Mail Service
Participating
Retail Pharmacies
Over
57,000 Participating Retail Pharmacies Nationwide
Nine Out
of Ten Retail Pharmacies in the Program
Mr.
Smith stated that he conducted a web search on participating pharmacies and
discovered that 89 pharmacies located within a 20 mile radius of the City of
Tavares participate in the program, being CVS Pharmacy, Walgreen Drug Stores,
Publix Pharmacy, Winn-Dixie Pharmacy, Target Pharmacy, and Albertson
Pharmacy. He stated that some local
pharmacies participate in the program, as well, such as Bay Pharmacy, Burry’s
Pharmacy, The Medicine Chest in Lady Lake, the Kash-N-Karry Pharmacy in
Clermont, and the South Lake Family Health Center in Groveland. He noted that Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club do not
participate in the program. He continued
his slide presentation, as follows:
The
Uninsured
43.6
Million People Nationwide Without Prescription Coverage
26.3
Million Of These Uninsured are Under the Age of 65, as follows:
§
Unemployed
§
Part-time
Employees
§
Low
Wage Earner
§
Small
Business Owner or Employee
§
Self
Employed
§
Retired
– Senior Citizen
§
Medicare
– Medicaid Beneficiary
Mr.
Smith stated that said figures are based on the 2002 U.S. Census and the
2002/2003 USA Families Report. He stated
that between 13% and 15% of Lake County’s total population is uninsured, which
amounts to nearly 33,000 people, and, of these, 18,202 people earn below 200%
of the Federal poverty level, which he noted, for a family of two, is
approximately $25,600.00 annually. He
stated that the plan is provided by the County free of charge; one card covers
everyone in the family; the card can be used right away; the card cannot
usually be used for over-the-counter medications, but discounts are available
for many diabetic supplies, as well as medications for pets (if pharmacy
carries said medications); the card cannot be used in conjunction with other
insurance benefits, but you can use the card to purchase prescriptions that are
not covered by the County’s health care plan; savings vary, with an average of
20% off retail - additional savings can be had by choosing from Caremark’s list
of select medications; and an individual will always receive the lowest price
available (estimated prices can be obtained on the web, or by calling toll-free
877-321-2652). He noted that the exact
percentage saved may vary, depending on the drug and the pharmacy’s price. He stated that an individual can use a specialty
pharmacy, which offers delivery of injectable and select oral medications and
supplies, and its services include delivery notification, refill reminder
calls, counseling, follow-up care calls, information materials, and access to
health experts 24 hours per day. He
stated that a specialty pharmacy offers medications for the following: Chronic conditions, multiple sclerosis,
rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis, Hepatitis C, psychotropic, and pain
medications. He stated that an
individual can save significantly, by using Caremark’s mail service, which
allows an individual to purchase up to a 90 day supply of select medications.
Mr.
Smith stated that the next step involved in the process was to get Board
approval to execute the contract with NACo. He stated that Caremark will provide the
County with standard marketing brochures at no cost and the County can have the
cards imprinted with the County’s logo, or name, whichever the County prefers. He stated that NACo usually recommends that
the County obtain 25% of its total population in cards. He stated that distribution sites will be as
follows:
County
Offices, including Libraries
Pharmacies
Senior
Centers
Hospitals/Clinics
Churches/Synagogues,
etc.
Health
Fairs/County Fairs
Major
Events
Employment
Fairs
Speakers
Bureau
Homeowners
Associations
Mr.
Smith stated that Caremark will provide the County with a monthly report
containing the number of people that have enrolled in the plan and will give
the County an update on formulary services.
Commr.
Cadwell informed the Board that, when he spoke with Mr. Smith originally about
the program, he was skeptical about it.
He stated that, after running it as a pilot program for one year in some
of the other states, where it was very successful, NACo moved the
implementation date for the rest of the Country up by approximately six to
eight months. He stated that it has been
a great program, especially for those people who are without insurance. He stated that it should help stretch money
that is used for medication, as well.
Mr.
Smith stated that a question came up as to whether an individual can use the
card in conjunction with the public assistance programs that counties may have
in place and the answer is that they can.
He stated that the County had the contract and the entire program
reviewed by the Comprehensive Health Care Committee and they indicated that it
appears to be a good program. He stated
that it is not a solution to the overall health care problems nationwide and in
the County, such as an individual who has no income, but it goes a long way in
filling some of the gaps.
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether the County would need to hire additional personnel
to handle the program and was informed by Mr. Smith that no additional personnel
would be needed.
Mr.
Smith stated that he hopes the start up date will be sometime in late December,
or the first part of 2006.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Community Services for approval
for Lake County to participate in the National Association of Counties (NACo)
Prescription Drug Discount Card Program, as presented.
PROCUREMENT
SERVICES
UNDERWRITING
SERVICES FOR COUNTY’S LIMITED GENERAL
OBLIGATION
AND SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that this request was for approval to select
a team of underwriters, whose job it will be to help the County market upcoming
bond issues. She stated that the
Selection Committee recommended four firms, being Banc of America Securities,
Citigroup, Stifel, Nicholaus & Company, Incorporated, and First Southwest
Company. She stated that staff
anticipates at least two bond issues coming up in the near future – one for the
County’s environmentally sensitive lands and the other one for the one-half
cent sales tax for the County’s facilities.
She stated that it is entirely possible that both of those bond issues
will be broken down into a series of two or more, over the next few years,
depending on the timing of when the County actually needs the cash flow for the
projects. She stated that the sales will
be negotiated sales, which means that the County will be negotiating the
selling price and the fees with the underwriters at the actual time of the bond
sales and, for that reason, there is no contract for the Board to approve at
this time. She stated that the Board
will need to select one or more underwriters for a bond issue at the time that
the County is actually ready to go forward with said bond and the selection of
the team for that bond issue can be unique to that bond issue.
Mr.
Mitch Owens, RBC Dain Raucher, the County’s financial advisor, addressed the
Board to discuss why the Selection Committee recommended more than one firm and
how that selection process will work. He
stated that one of the things they were trying to put together, when they sent
out the RFP (Request for Proposal), was to come up with a team approach to the
financing. He stated that they wanted to
be able to take advantage of particular characteristics and capabilities of
certain firms, to give the Board what they are ultimately looking for, which is
the lowest interest on any debt that is borrowed. He stated that they were looking for firms
that had a strong knowledge of Lake County and the demographics of the area, so
that they could promote the County well, but, were obviously looking for firms
that had Florida bond marketing talents and capabilities, because Florida bonds
are unique unto other bonds in the United States. He stated that they were also looking for
firms that dealt with these particular types of transactions – special limited
general obligation transactions for environmentally sensitive lands, as well as
the sales tax, and they were looking for firms that had national retail and
institutional type sales capabilities, because they do not know which
particular market is going to be the strongest, when they get ready to go into
the market. He stated that the Selection
Committee received ten (10) responses, which they went through thoroughly, and
recommended the four firms before the Board this date, because they felt they
best fit those categories. He stated
that all four of the firms that were recommended are strong firms and quite
capable of handling the bonds, it is just that he felt putting a team together
would give the County flexibility and a much broader base from which to work
and achieve the County’s ultimate goal of lower interest.
Commr.
Hill questioned how the process will actually work and was informed by Mr.
Owens that the ratings are based on the individual transactions, as well as the
County’s overall strength. He stated
that, once they work with staff and make a decision about when to move forward
on a particular transaction, they will go back to the rating agencies, at which
time they will do an update and the County will have to provide them with
additional information. He stated that
they can then take the information they gathered initially, put it together
with what the County has, and give the County the rating that it feels it
deserves.
Commr. Cadwell stated
that the Board has been pushing staff for the last couple of years to get the
County in this position, so that, as things happen, it would be ready to go
and, with the penny being reinstated and the land acquisition program, the
County wants to send a clear message that it is ready to move as soon as it
gets the money. He stated that he talked
to some of the other counties that put together these teams and it has worked
very well for them, because they have the people in place to move just as
quickly as they need to. He stated that
the recommendation is for four firms, but, in talking to some of the other
counties, he feels that three would be plenty and would suggest that First
Southwest Company, Citigroup, and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. be those
three firms. He stated that the only
other thing he would do, which is a little different than what the County
Manager stated, is name a senior manager and two co-managers that will take
each project as it comes. He stated that
the senior manager will be the County’s front person, who will work with the
other firms, and he feels First Southwest Company should be that senior
manager.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Procurement Services for approval
to award RSQ 05-141, Underwriting Services for the County's limited general
obligation and sales tax revenue bonds, to First Southwest Company (Senior
Manager) and Citigroup and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
(Co-Managers) for three years, with the option to renew for two additional
years. Individual contracts will be
negotiated at the time of each bond purchase.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that it has been a long time coming and thanked Ms. Hall for
taking the lead and getting it moving forward for the County.
Commr.
Pool stated that it lets the citizens know how serious the County is about its
obligations and desire to acquire environmental lands and build the proposed
facilities.
PUBLIC
HEARING
PUBLIC
WORKS
DEVELOPERS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND THE
VILLAGES
OF LAKE-SUMTER, INC.
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that
this request involves an agreement between Lake County and the Villages of
Lake-Sumter, Inc., regarding some improvements and specific issues associated
with CR 466, which he elaborated on, indicating what portion of the project the
County is responsible for and what portion The Villages is responsible
for. He stated that the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) is looking at this project as one of their
match projects, because of the connection to I-75 that The Villages is required
to have in Sumter County, and is contributing to the project, which will help
with the six-laning of U.S. 27/Hwy. 441, because the section located at CR 466
will already be in place.
Commr.
Cadwell clarified the fact that FDOT stated that this is the only project that
they will probably consider and that the dollars the County is going to spend
now will count towards the County’s match.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that this request was
advertised as a public hearing and would need to be opened to the public.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No
one was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for
approval and signature on the Developers Agreement between Lake County and The
Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc., for improvements to that portion of CR 466 that
is located in Lake County, as presented.
PUBLIC
WORKS
COST
SHARE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MT. DORA TO FUND LAKE
GERTRUDE
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
Mr.
Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that,
around 1997, a severe storm came through the County, which caused Lake Gertrude
to rise, creating some problems for the County.
He stated that a lot of discussion occurred at that time regarding the
matter, because the County did not have a funding source directly committed to
stormwater management the way that it does today. He stated that the Board deferred
contributing to the Lake Gertrude Basin and did a ranking of every basin in the
County, at which time they discovered that the water quality in the Lake
Gertrude Basin was not nearly as bad as the Lake Griffin Basin and some of the
other basins that the County had already been working on and continues to work
on. He discussed some problems involving
Lake Gertrude and the houses that exist along the lake, noting that the
contributing outfall from the City of Mt. Dora, the County, and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) was substantial.
Mr.
Stivender stated that he spoke with Commr. Hanson and the City of Mt. Dora
about the matter and it was brought to their attention that the study that was
done by Mt. Dora around 1997, which the County did not participate in, should
be upgraded. He stated that Mt. Dora has
shown some interest in participating jointly with the County in doing so; therefore,
staff would like to continue the discussions and possibly enter into an
interlocal agreement with them, which they will bring back to the Board at a
later date, to work out a funding structure for upgrading the study and
identify projects within the basin that the County would participate in. He stated that staff had not yet brought the
matter before the Board and felt that it was important to bring it to their
attention this date.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned whether the County’s money would come strictly from the
stormwater fund and was informed that it would.
It
was noted that the study will take approximately six months, possibly less.
Mr.
Gary Hamlin, Public Services Department, City of Mt. Dora, addressed the Board
stating that Mt. Dora was directed by counsel to do a preliminary upgrade study
with DRMP Dyer, Riddle, Mills, & Precourt, Inc., an engineering firm that
they had used before. He stated that
they have one more meeting scheduled with the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, to discuss Lake Gertrude and
should be able to get together with Mr. Stivender next week, to discuss the
matter further.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned whether the SJRWMD or FDOT had any money that they could
contribute towards it and was informed by Mr. Stivender that FDOT has
contributed substantially, by advanced funding, and by acquiring the needed
right of way for the six-laning of the road and for the retention ponds, in
1998. He stated that they were in the
design phase and advance funded the purchase, but the County could not get the
design work settled before they were actually bidding the job out, so they have
already committed to the project. He
stated that the question is going to be, as the County works through this study
and identifies all the projects, who is going to fund what and why. He stated that the County will bring as many
players into the project as it can, noting that this is just a preliminary
discussion to get the conversation going with the City of Mt. Dora and to
notify the Board that they are doing so.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the needs are certainly there and she feels very strongly
that the County should move forward, update the study, and make sure that the
Board is behind the improvements that are necessary.
Mr.
Stivender stated that staff will work with the City of Mt. Dora and bring
something back to the Board at a later date.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of a
cost share agreement with the City of Mt. Dora, to fund a Lake Gertrude
Stormwater Improvements Study.
PUBLIC
HEARING
ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 14.18.03, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS,
ENTITLED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor, for
its first and final reading, by title only, as follows:
AN
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA;
AMENDING SECTION 14.18.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, ENTITLED PUBLIC HEARINGS; REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO BE
HEARD BY THE LOCAL PLANNING
AGENCY RATHER THAN THE ZONING BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The
Chairman opened the public hearing.
No
one was present in opposition to the request.
There
being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2005-92, Amending Section
14.18.03, Land Development Regulations, entitled Public Hearings, as presented.
OTHER
BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT
TO PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Wayne S. Longo, Chief of
Law Enforcement Operations, to represent the Lake County Sheriff on the Public
Safety Coordinating Council.
APPOINTMENTS
TO SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
On
a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously,
by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Martin Wolfe to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, representing District 3.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by
a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Barbara Newman to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, representing District 4.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
ADVERTISING
OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENTS
FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL VIOLATORS
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request was for approval to
advertise an ordinance that his office was asked to prepare, at which time he
noted that they have added a new feature to the advertising request that they
are hopeful to use on future ordinances, being a summary at the top of the
ordinance explaining what it does. He
stated that this particular ordinance will increase the distance from 1,000
feet to 2,500 feet, where certain persons who have been convicted of sex
offenses against minors could live. He
stated that the first action would be whether or not the Board wants to
advertise the ordinance, noting that, if they do, they need to discuss how the
County will prosecute the persons who are arrested in violation of the
ordinance.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that there are several municipalities and counties that are
putting off doing anything at the present time, because it looks like the
Legislature is going to take the issue back up.
He stated that he feels it would be prudent on the County’s part to wait
until after the legislative session, to see where the Legislature goes with it,
before going through the process, only to find out that the State is doing
something that is not consistent with the County and the County has to go back
and redo the ordinance. He suggested
that the request be taken off the agenda, until the Board directs staff to
bring it back before them.
Commr.
Pool questioned, in the event the County creates an ordinance and the State
supersedes it and comes up with a better or new one, whether the County could
automatically adopt that ordinance.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the County would not have to adopt an ordinance, because
the State would be in charge of enforcing and prosecuting any offenders.
Commr.
Pool stated that he hopes the Legislature does that, but, in the event they do
not, or the County does not agree with how stringent or strict the State’s
ordinance may or may not be, he does not feel it is good for the County to not
have an ordinance in place, or work with the cities in a partnership, which
they have asked the County to do.
Commr.
Hill stated that she feels the County should wait and see what the Legislature
does.
Commr.
Pool stated that he struggles with the County not creating something that
identifies the need to protect and was informed that there is law currently on
the books that does that and that a county ordinance would only widen the range
of said law. He stated that he feels
strongly that the County needs distances set that are agreeable with the cities
and he does not want to delay it.
Commr.
Hill stated that, if the cities were on board with each other, there would be
one cohesive ordinance, but that is not the case. She stated that she is looking at the State
to come up with that cohesive ordinance and, if the County wants to have a
stricter rule it can, or it can stay with what the State creates and have the
ordinance be uniform. She stated that
she would prefer to have a State rule and have the counties fall under that umbrella,
but, if a county wants their ordinance to be stricter than the State’s
ordinance, it can always do that.
Commr.
Pool stated that he felt the cities were hoping that the County would come up
with an ordinance that would be enacted countywide, at which time Mr. Minkoff,
County Attorney, stated that some cities have elected not to adopt such an
ordinance and are going to wait for the State to do so and other cities have
adopted one. He stated that the
discussion that was had with the cities was that, if there was going to be a
county ordinance, they wanted it to be the same as the one that the cities
adopted.
Commr.
Pool stated that his concern is that, if the County does not act and waits for
the State to act, the perception might be that the County is not concerned
about the matter and has set back and allowed it to continue – that it has not
put its position in writing, in the way of an ordinance. He stated that, in his opinion, no distance
from sexual predators is too far, so he feels the current distance does need to
be lengthened.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried, by a 4-1
vote, the Board withdrew a request from the County Attorney for approval to
advertise; and authorization to negotiate agreements with the State Attorney
and Public Defender, for prosecution and representation of the ordinance
establishing residency requirements for certain criminal violators, until the
Board directs the County Attorney to bring the matter back before them, which
he will do once the Legislature has met regarding it, so that the County will
be consistent with what the State enacts.
Commr.
Pool voted “No”.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out the fact that Mr. Brad King, State
Attorney; Mr. Skip Babb, Public Defender; and Sheriff Chris Daniels were very
helpful and more than willing to accommodate anything that the Board wanted to
do in this area.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF UNITY OF TITLE
BETWEEN
CROSLAND BRITT ROAD, LLC AND LAKE COUNTY
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request pertains to a nursery
that is located on Britt Road, which recently transferred hands, and, not in
connection with development approval, recorded a Declaration of Unity of Title. He stated that, in connection with the
transfer of the property, they discovered that it was recorded and asked that
it be amended, so that, if they annex the property into the city, or do a plat
in the County, it will go away. He
stated that staff was recommending approval of the request.
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County
Attorney for approval of a proposed Amendment to the Declaration of Unity of
Title between Crosland Britt Road, LLC and Lake County, as presented.
REPORTS
– COUNTY ATTORNEY
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY AND RICHARD LANGLEY
REGARDING
SALE OF PROPERTY IN CHRISTOPHER C. FORD COMMERCE PARK
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the County had received
a recommendation to extend a contract that the County has with Mr. Richard
Langley, regarding the sale of a parcel of property located in the Christopher
C. Ford Commerce Park, until litigation regarding said property ends, and would
recommend approval to do so.
On
a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved said request.
PRESENTATION
REGARDING SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Mr.
Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager/Growth Management Director, and Ms.
Jeanne Mills, AICP, one of the consultants hired by the County to address the
issue of school concurrency, addressed the Board stating that the purpose of
their presentation this date was to talk about the issues, get the Board’s feel
on where the County should go, and come to a consensus on the issues that need
to be brought forward in the Issues Paper that is to be submitted at the Joint Meeting that is
scheduled for November 18, 2005.
Ms.
Mills stated that she assembled the issues, as they were discussed by staff
with her and her partners, noting that they elaborated somewhat and hope to
gain more insight as to what the Board considers essential to be put into the
Public School Facilities Element – the whole concurrency program that is now
required by state law. She stated that
she and Mr. Welstead would be presenting the Board with a quick overview of the
following issues and would answer any questions they might have regarding same:
Required
Documents
Interlocal
Agreement
Public
Educational Facilities Element
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
Capital
Improvement Element (Schools CIP)
Future
Land Use Element (School siting) FLU Categories where schools are allowed
Implementing
Ordinance
Ms.
Mills stated that the Interlocal Agreement needs to be updated with as many of
the components as to cause a uniform consensus among the local governments, the
County, and the School Board. She stated
that the County will need a Public Educational Facilities Element that will
capture all the issues that are relevant to the enactment of concurrency and it
will need to have in it levels of service (LOS) and it will all be based on
significant data and analysis, which will be generated through county input, so
it is going to have to be a coordinated effort.
She stated that it is critical that there be an Intergovernmental
Coordination Element among the School Board, the County, and the local
governments, so that there will be full participation, complete disclosure, and
a uniform and consistent program. She
stated that the Capital Improvement Element (CIP) is where they are going to
have the School District’s Capital Improvement Plan, a five year plan that is
updated annually, which will be adopted as a table, similar to the tables that
are currently contained in the County’s Capital Improvement Element. She stated that that table will capture the
projected, financially feasible growth of schools for the first five years and,
generally, for the out-years – ten to twenty years. She stated that they may or may not use the
Future Land Use Element, however, noted that, if the County has specific land
use categories for the siting of schools, they may want to update the County’s
Land Use Element. She stated that the
Florida Statutes cover many of the issues that they have seen in land use
elements in the Public School Facilities Element, noting that there are several
ways that they can capture some of the details that are needed for that
element. She stated that they can
capture them in the Future Land Use Element, particularly the FLU categories,
and, eventually, the implementing ordinance, which is the ordinance that
addresses the County’s Land Development Regulations. She stated that it is put in place, in conjunction
with the local governments, who will choose to adopt the County’s ordinance, or
write one very similar, but it will have to be one that is consistent. She stated that the service areas are a
significant component, because it is how the level of service is addressed -
either countywide, or on a less than countywide basis.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he thought the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) said
the County did not have a choice regarding level of service – that it had to be
done countywide.
Ms.
Mill stated that, initially, DCA encouraged the statutory language.
Commr.
Cadwell interjected that he asked about that and was told that the County had
to do it.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there is one issue on how to measure
concurrency and another one on how to do levels of service, which he feels DCA
got mixed up, when answering Commr. Cadwell’s question. He stated that, under the Statutes, the
County is able to do concurrency on a less than countywide basis.
Ms.
Mills stated that, in five years, the level of service will need to be less
than countywide, however, noted that the Statutes point out the fact that it is
encouraged to be countywide initially, so that it allows for consistency of
service.
Concurrency
Service Area Countywide or by Service Areas
Ms.
Mills stated that Concurrency Service Areas, which are often referred to as
CSAs, could be divided by the following, but would be at the consensus of all
the parties involved:
·
Geographic
Areas
·
School
Boundaries
·
Impact
Fee Districts
·
Commissioners
Districts
·
Etc.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned what the rational would be behind Impact Fee Districts being
created and whether the County would copy the Transportation Impact Fee
District, or whether it would create new Impact Fee Districts.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that, in the past, the County had School Impact Fees that were
less than countywide, noting that one of the issues of the Impact Fee Districts
is that there cannot be a different level of service, so the amount would be
different. He reminded the Board that
the discussion this date is only to identify those issues that the Board wants
to try to negotiate and then, what staff hopes to do, after the Board has
agreed on the issues, is spend a lot more time with the consultants. He questioned whether the Board wanted to put
on the table for discussion doing concurrency on less than a countywide basis,
or on a countywide basis.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he would be in favor of doing it on a less than countywide
basis.
Commr.
Stivender concurred, stating that going back to the districts is important,
because the School Districts are not the same as the County’s, or the County’s
Transportation Impact Fee Districts.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that he understood what Commr. Stivender was saying, however,
noted that the only thing that is going to be discussed at the next joint
meeting is what issues are going to be negotiated - not the substance of those
issues. He stated that that will be
covered from the second meeting on.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the School Board needs to give some input to the Board on
how those districts should look, so that they will have an understanding of why
it would be here or there.
Commr.
Stivender stated that, when the census came in and the County redid the
boundary lines, the Board tried to get the School Board to do it then, so that
their lines would match up with the County’s districts, noting that it is very
confusing, because they are not in the same geographic area that the County is,
yet they have the same number.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that all that is being discussed is Concurrency Districts,
noting that the Board determines the Impact Fee Districts through the
ordinance. He stated that the only issue
this date is whether they want to try to negotiate concurrency on less than a
countywide basis, so that, if an application comes in for a Development Order
in Umatilla, whether the Board would look only to the Umatilla schools and
adjacent schools, or whether they would look at it countywide.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, if they were to do it countywide, it would give an
imperfect picture on either end.
Ms.
Mills stated that that is why the State has mandated it within five years.
Capacity
Measures
-
FISH
Capacity
-
Program
Capacity
-
Modular/Portable
Capacity
-
Class
Size Reduction Capacity
Ms.
Mills stated that Capacity Measures becomes a little tricky, so they wanted to
take a little time to explain them to the Board. She stated that there are several factors
involved in Capacity Measures – capacity being the amount of students that can
be put in a school. She stated that FISH
(Florida Inventory of School Houses) Capacity is based on a state formula,
which is a standard number that is usually adopted by the State.
Commr.
Cadwell clarified the fact that the Board is going to make assumptions on what
they know and that he hopes the School Board realizes that it is a starting
point for the County. He stated that it
does not mean that the Board is right on all the issues, but it narrows down what
they are going to talk about and the things that they need to know, as they
sift through all of this.
Program
Capacity
·
The
District offers programs for the emotionally handicapped, autistic, and varying
exceptionalities
·
ESOL: Numerous languages are spoken in the Schools
·
ESE
Students, gifted students
·
Exceptional
education classes throughout the School District
CLASSROOMS
ARE NOT USED TO FULL DESIGN CAPACITY:
·
False
indication of FISH capacity available for student impacts from new residential
development
Ms.
Mills stated that, with regard to Program Capacity, programs in a school could
range from special programs for exceptional students to gifted students. She stated that there is a different state
requirement for the size of a classroom, too, in relation to the number of
students, so there could be a false reading on the FISH capacity, noting that,
if these programs are in a school, they take up space, with fewer students in
them.
Modulars
or Portables as Permanent
Modulars/Portables
as Permanent Capacity
·
Walkways
·
Technology
connection
Ms.
Mills stated that modulars and portables can be used as permanent, if they are
adapted with the proper technology and walkway connections that are necessary
to make them permanent.
Class
Size Reduction Capacity
·
The
new capacities for Class Size Reduction (CSR) reduces existing FISH capacity to
approximately 80%
FISH CSR
970 754
·
District
level and school level averages are currently being used to determine
compliance
·
In
2008/2009 compliance will be determined at the individual classroom level
·
Difficult
to effectively utilize existing capacity that may be available due to CSR
Ms.
Mills stated that the Constitutional Amendment is limiting the amount of
capacity in a school to 80% of what it had originally been designed for, so, if
a FISH had a 970, it will be a class reduction size of 754, which just adds to
the burden of additional capacity needed.
Regulatory/Level
of Service
Measuring
level of service (LOS):
·
Level
of utilization of a school
-
Capacity
must be defined: FISH, Program Capacity
and/or Modulars/Portable
-
Utilization
is (enrollment/capacity)
-
Applied
countywide or less than district wide (service areas)
Ms.
Mills stated that Level of Service is how the County wants to look at and
measure the utilization of the schools, which is a relationship between the
number of children in the school over the capacity of the school. She stated that the County will want to look
at how to apply it – district wide or less than district wide. She stated that the levels of service are
critical, because that is the expected efficiency of a school operating at the
end of the day, when the level of service has been completed. She stated that the County is allowed to have
a tiered level of service over a period of time, showing that there is going to
be a plan that meets the deficiencies, which will be laid out in the Public
School Facilities Element, but this plan for meeting the deficiencies over a
period of time allows for a tiered level of service, which allows for a gradual
reduction of the enrollment in a school and lowering the level of service,
which is measured as a percentage of the utilization of the school.
Mr.
Minkoff questioned whether he could assume that the Board agrees that how to
determine capacity is one of the issues that they would like to have on the
list, as well as the level of service and whether or not it is tiered, and was
informed that that was correct.
Review
of Schools by Local Governments
·
Schools
allowed in numerous land use categories
·
If
allowed in land use/zoning change not necessarily required
·
Expedited
site plan review of schools by the local governments
·
Local
governments participate in the site acquisition process to ensure adequate
public facilities will be in place to serve the school and rank the various
school sites
·
Development
standards per the State Requirements of Educational Facilities/Building Code
and compliance with the local codes as much as possible
Ms.
Mills stated that part of the interlocal agreement and part of the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element will be the coordination among the
School Board, the County, and the local governments, to review the land use
categories and the sites, noting that it may be as it says - that there may be
no need for a zoning change, if it is allowed in a land use or expedited site
plan approval. She stated that these are
the kinds of things that the County may want to look at and consider as
important issues to address, when talking about the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element, local governments, and how much and to what depth the
County will want to participate in site acquisition. She stated that there is the requirement by
law, but the County can do it to the extent that they feel comfortable that
they are involved in it.
Standards
for a Tiered Level of Service and Adopted Level of Service
CSA Facility Type 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2009-10
8 Elementary 140 135 130
Middle 120 120 110
110
High 150 130 110
Ms.
Mills reviewed the Standards for a Tiered Level of Service and Adopted Level of
Service table with the Board, noting that it was an example of a tiered level
of service over a period of time. She
stated that, if the County were to have a concurrency service area, they could
have varying levels of service initially for elementary, middle, and high
school, and, over the years, gradually work down to their ultimate adopted
level of service.
Commr.
Pool stated that the only way, realistically, the County can get to that is by
building new schools, noting that there is no other way to do it. He stated that the County cannot say that it
wants to attain this, without new schools.
Ms.
Mills stated that Commr. Pool was correct and that is why it refers back to the
plan that has to be in place, in order to have it. She stated that it must be adopted first, in
order to have it as the County’s goal.
Commr.
Pool stated that, in reality, even with the school concurrency, or class size
amendment, the County is going to have a difficult time with it, without any
new people coming to Lake County. He
stated that the County has to have a Capital Improvement Plan, the dollars, and
a desire to build these things. He
stated that he feels it is important that the County do it.
Mr.
Welstead stated that it is directly tied to that Capital Improvement Element.
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether the Board had to give Ms. Mills some type of
direction, with regard to the Review of Schools by Local Governments issue.
Mr.
Minkoff questioned whether the issue of how schools are located would be
something that the Board would like to negotiate and was informed by Commr.
Stivender that it needs to be, because the Board needs to know that the
infrastructure and those types of things are in place. He stated that the School Board could put a
school anywhere, if the County signed off on it, without rezoning.
Commr.
Pool stated that he feels communication about school sitings and an agreement
about that site is important.
Student
Multipliers
Number
of Students to be generated for a residential unit by type, such as:
·
Single
family units
·
Multi-family
·
Townhouses
·
Etc.
Must
be broken down at Elementary, Middle, and High School Levels
Suggestions
for Student Generation Study
·
Property
Appraiser data utilized
·
Random
sample by unit type
·
Student
data matched to home address
Ms.
Mills reviewed the Student Multipliers informational slide, stating that, in
order for the County to make future forecasts in their projections, they will
need to look at student generation studies and different types of developments
generate different types of students.
She stated that the slide indicates how that is broken down and gives
some suggestions for the student generation study:
Mitigation
Measures - Proportionate Share
·
Donation
of land/buildings
·
Renovation
of existing school facilities
·
Construction
of permanent student stations
·
Construction
of schools in advance of the time set forth in School District’s 5 year plan
·
Charter
school
·
Private
school
Ms.
Mills stated that Mitigation Measures are addressed by the development project,
noting that, as development comes in, there are ways that there can be
mitigation for development, when it exceeds the actual demand that has been
identified in the Five Year Capital Plan.
She stated that ways that mitigation can be affected are lump sum
payments, in an amount that can be worked out, per student, for the
construction or land acquisition, however, noted that what it leads to is that
the County will need to have binding agreements among the County, the School
Board, and the development.
Commr.
Pool stated that, with regard to gap funding, the County’s ordinance stated
that $7,084.00 was the new school impact fee, but the School Board felt it
should be $10,000.00, and questioned whether, if a developer is willing to pay
that gap difference, it would be a mitigation measure, as the County moves
forward – not land, or buildings, but increasing the impact fee to the School
Board.
Ms.
Mills questioned whether Commr. Pool was telling her that the County’s gap
funding was above its adopted impact fee and was informed that that is what he
was saying.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that it is somewhat complicated, however, noted that the law
requires that, by December 1, 2006, the County adopt a Proportionate Share
Ordinance. He stated that FDOT is in the
final stages of preparing a draft that they are required to prepare by the
Legislature that can be used as a model for cities and counties. He stated that the issue here, as to whether
or not the County wants to negotiate a proportionate share, would be to iron
out issues of when the School Board could say “No”, or when they would have to
say “Yes”, if a developer offered something.
Commr.
Pool stated that his question was, if there is an impact fee in place and the
County is trying to find mitigation measures, or a way for a developer to do or
provide more, if he is willing to pay more, whether it would be considered a
mitigation measure.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that it would not be a proportionate share, noting that a
proportionate share, under the ordinance, would be if a developer gives the
County some money and goes forward, even though the developer cannot meet
concurrency. He stated that
proportionate share is a term in the Statutes.
He questioned whether it was an issue that the Board would like to
negotiate with the School Board to have in the interlocal agreement.
Commrs.
Pool and Stivender stated that they felt it should be added to the list.
Ms.
Mills gave an example of what occurs in Broward County, with regard to a
development coming in that will generate students in excess of what is in their
Five Year Plan. She stated that a fee is
paid by the developer, per student generated, in addition to the impact
fee. She noted that, at the present
time, it is voluntary, but will now be mandated under the law.
Commr.
Pool stated that Orange County says, if a developer is willing to pay an
additional fee, it does not matter what they want to do.
Commr.
Hill stated that she feels that is a bad precedent to set, noting that, if
someone wants to build a school a library, as a gift to the school, it is up to
the School Board to decide whether or not to accept that gift, but she does not
feel it should set the precedent for them to be able to build rooftops.
Commr.
Pool stated that he did not see educational benefit districts on the list
before them - where a developer is willing to pay the impact fees, charge an
additional ad valorem tax, and bill or bond the school and he wanted to know if
that was something that could be negotiated.
Commr.
Cadwell questioned where that fits in with the countywide service for schools,
noting that it almost goes back to the “nice” schools and the “not so nice”
schools.
Ms.
Mills stated that the County can look into it.
Mr.
Minkoff questioned whether proportionate share was another issue that the Board
would like to discuss with the School Board, as well as educational facilities
districts.
It
was the consensus of the Board to add said issues to the list.
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether funding for charter schools and private schools is
addressed differently by the Department of Education.
Ms.
Mills stated that the funding is addressed differently, noting that it is from
the State for the education itself, not for the capital, however, noted that,
if capital is provided for a school it is counted, because, theoretically, it
is relieving the public schools. She
stated that they can also use charter schools and private schools to measure
student growth, or decline it. She
stated that it is not counted in school concurrency - in the number of students
there are overall, but it can be used as a mitigating factor. She stated that the Statutes require that
there is a monitoring group (Oversight Committee) that, upon the implementation
of concurrency, is put in place and the following topics can be discussed by
said group:
Oversight
Committee
Provides
recommendations on:
·
The
School District’s 5 Year Capital Plan
·
10
& 20 year work programs
·
Concurrency
operation and effectiveness
·
School
capacity studies
·
Concurrency
Service Area (CSA) boundaries
·
Management
reports
Commr.
Pool stated that the School Board has the ability to zone in and out students,
noting that they can create zones that he may not agree with, or that even the
parents may not agree with, and questioned whether the Oversight Committee
would be able to identify what would be an effective or reasonable zone, versus
the School Board taking in a larger area, creating the overcapacity. He stated that he was not trying to say that
they would, but that things could happen artificially by said zonings. He stated that anybody could create an
overcrowded situation and the Board needs to make sure that, when these zones
are created, they do not artificially create an overcrowding situation in any
area.
Ms.
Mills clarified the fact that Commr. Pool was talking about attendance
zones. She stated that that would be one
of the things that the Board could insert, by their choice, into the Oversight
Committee’s role.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that there are some parameters that the School Board has to work
under, with regard to the rezoning question and what they have to do
internally. He stated that the Board
might need to educate themselves on that a little bit. He stated that he would guarantee that it is
not something that the Board would want to be involved with.
Ms.
Mills stated that the Oversight Committee may want to just review boundaries, noting
that the school boundaries are considered part of the map series of the Public
School Facilities Element, so it is not out of the purview for them to be
looking at.
Mr.
Minkoff questioned whether the Board wanted to add to the list the fact that they
want to discuss the Oversight Committee - as to who is on it and what it does
and was informed that they did.
Ms.
Mills stated that school siting issues are important and the Board may want to
get into the details of it, noting that it is another function of the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element that the County will be updating. She reviewed the following with the Board:
School
Siting – Coordination with Planned Infrastructure and Public Facilities
General
Issues
-
Proximate
to residential
-
Compatibility
with surrounding land uses
-
No
significant environmental impact
-
No
significant historical values
-
Adequate
to meet water management criteria
High
Schools
-
Approximate
50 acres
-
Two
road access to site
-
Collector/arterial
roadway
Middle
Schools
-
Approximate
25/30 acres
-
Two
access points
-
Collector
roadway
Elementary
Schools
-
Approximate
12/15 acres
-
Two
access points
-
Local
or collector roadway
Commr.
Stivender questioned whether the numbers for acreage for the facilities were the
State’s numbers and was informed that they were. She stated that, if she was correct, the Lake
County School Board has a policy for a larger number of acreage for their
schools.
Ms.
Mills stated that that would be something the County would definitely want to
talk to the School Board about.
Mr.
Minkoff interjected that he felt it would fit into the earlier topic that was
discussed of how schools will be located.
Mr.
Welstead concurred.
Joint
Use of Facilities
High
Schools are ideal for shared facilities
-
Major
recreational facilities requirement
-
Local
governments provide some funding for recreational amenities such as lighting of
the fields, share of maintenance cost
-
Public
utilizes facilities when not in use by the school
-
Local
government can count recreational facilities as part of its inventory to
meeting the comprehensive plan requirement for recreational facilities
-
Mutual
Use Agreement
Ms.
Mills stated that the issue of Joint Use of Facilities is folded into that,
noting that high schools make for ideal sharing of facilities and there are
mutual benefits, the idea being that it is a win/win situation, when there is
some co-location of facilities, or there is mutual use. She stated that some of the benefits of doing
so are as follows:
Co-Location of Facilities
·
Co-location
of schools with local governments
·
Park
sites can accommodate recreational fields such as baseball/softball
·
School
site can take the hard surfaces such as tennis and basketball courts
·
Decreased
land size requirements
·
Decreases
capital and maintenance cost
·
Interlocal
Agreement necessary
Commr.
Stivender stated that, over the years, she and other Commissioners who have
served as Liaison Commissioners on the Parks and Recreation Board have tried to
do that and were told that it was a liability issue. She stated that she just wanted them to know
that it is going to be an issue.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that that is something the County is going to have to work
through with the School Board.
It
was noted that Joint Use of Facilities, Co-Location of Facilities, and
Construction of Facilities were issues that needed to be added to the list.
Commr.
Pool suggested that, with regard to the utilization of facilities, anyone that
might be interested should see the Lake Nona/YMCA combination school, noting
that it is a unique situation. He stated
that it is impressive what they have done, in trying to utilize a facility to
its highest and best use – from a recreational standpoint, after hours
programs, and the school, noting that it works very well. He stated that it is a public school that is
shared with the YMCA. He stated that
they have before hours programs and after hours programs and it is open seven
days per week, 365 days per year, as a YMCA and a school. He stated that it is remarkable.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that, as the Board and staff goes through this process,
especially with regard to the cities, who rely a lot on their attorneys, the
County needs to make sure that those attorneys are inside the loop, because the
City Commissions are going to rely on what their attorneys tell them. He informed Ms. Mills that the Board does not
have the best relationship with the Lake County School Board and are bending
over backwards to make this process work, which he would like for her to
remember, in her discussions with the School Board. He stated that everybody’s feet are tender,
so the County needs to make sure that they do not alienate anybody.
Commr.
Hanson stated that the schools in the County are under-utilized, when one looks
at the hours in a day, which is what is being discussed this date – facilities
and the maximum utilization of same. She
stated that, in most schools, students go home at approximately 2:30 p.m. and
schools are not utilized on Saturdays.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that it would be a way to determine capacity, noting that, if a
classroom could be used for 12 periods per day, instead of 6 periods per day,
it would increase the capacity of having students in the school, so it would probably
fit into that category.
Commr.
Pool asked Commr. Hanson to try to find out what areas are doing it and let the
Board know.
Commr.
Stivender informed Ms. Mills that she had a couple of comments that were made
by some of the elected officials from the cities after the workshop that was
held at Lake-Sumter Community College on Friday, October 28, 2005, regarding
concurrency. She stated that Mr. Minkoff
has meetings with the City Attorneys and Ms. Amye King has them with the
planners, but the elected officials do not always know what is going on. She stated that, to make sure the Board has
covered all its bases, if there is a way for Ms. Mills to communicate with the
elected officials, she would appreciate it.
Commr.
Hanson concurred, noting that the County needs to be sensitive to that.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that staff set the meetings up so that every two weeks the
elected officials will be meeting, at which time he reminded the Board that Ms.
Mills, Mr. Welstead, and the County Attorney’s staff works for the County, not
for the cities.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he did not feel Ms. Mills should be relaying anything to
the elected officials, noting that she works for the County and needs to tell
staff about anything she hears that they need to know.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that one of the things she might do is get
the City Managers and staff together and make sure they communicate it through
them to their elected officials and, perhaps, set a dialogue in that way.
Commr.
Hill stated that, in the end, it is the County’s dialogue with them, every two
weeks, noting that this is the County’s process, so they have to open up.
Mr.
Welstead interjected that Thursday, November 3, 2005, there is a City/County
Managers Meeting, which Ms. King and Ms. Carol Stricklin, the new Growth
Management Director, will attend, and one of the items he intends to discuss is
for the cities to make sure that they have all the information they need. He stated that he spoke with Mr. Jim Myers,
City Manager, City of Eustis, this date about communication with the League of
Cities, which he noted is open and that he believes Mr. Myers is going to make
some internal additions to the League of Cities’ communication network, to
ensure that they get the information they need.
Commr.
Stivender stated that she just wanted to make sure that they are covered.
Commr.
Hill reviewed the list of items to be addressed with the School Board, at which
time she stated that she feels the County needs to put Impact Fee Districts on
the list, to make sure that it is addressed, noting that she feels, if the
County does not address it, the State is going to come down and do it for them
and she would prefer that it be kept at the local level.
Ms.
Mills questioned whether the Board wanted to talk about Educational Benefit
Districts.
Commr.
Pool stated that he thought it was already on the list, at which time Mr.
Welstead stated that he would make sure that it is.
Mr.
Harry Fix, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board and congratulated them
on doing a very good job of ferreting out the issues. He stated that he feels they got a good start
this date, that it was a good dialogue, and that they had a good understanding
of the issues, at which time he thanked them for taking the time to educate
themselves on the issues, so that everybody can move forward together.
Commr.
Pool questioned whether Mr. Fix felt the Board had missed any issues that he
would recommend they address.
Mr.
Fix stated that one thing he heard them bring up that he feels they should try
to avoid is the attendance boundary issue.
Commr.
Pool stated that he did not mind avoiding it, but wants to make sure that it is
done prudently and with everyone in mind.
Mr.
Fix stated that he felt bringing it up this date as an issue was a good point,
however; he feels it will be solved by working through the levels of service
and whatever is mandated, because then attendance boundaries will have to be
drawn appropriately.
Commr.
Cadwell stated that he feels it is absolutely the single worse job that the
School Board has to deal with.
Commr.
Pool stated that he just wants to be sure, at the end of the day, when the
boundaries are drawn, that the Board can agree on those boundaries and
recognize that the School Board is trying to accomplish a better distribution
of students, not increase and decrease them at whim.
Ms.
Mills stated that the Florida Statutes requires a maximum utilization of
schools – that there is not within a concurrency service area a 50% utilization
and a 120% utilization on the other side of town.
Commr.
Pool clarified the fact that the School Board has the ability to draw the line
to accomplish that and that is what he was trying to say.
Mr.
Fix stated that Mr. Welstead asked him when the School Board plans to have a
similar discussion, at which time he noted that they have a workshop scheduled
for November 7, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., at the District office.
Commr.
Pool questioned whether someone from the County would be attending said workshop
and was informed that staff would be attending the meeting.
Mr.
Minkoff stated that, under the work plan that the Board approved, the County is
required, before the next meeting, to send its list of issues to the School
Board and the municipalities indicating that they are the issues that they
would like to discuss and the School Board and the municipalities are supposed
to be sending the County their lists, as well.
He stated that the Board’s actions this date authorized the Chairman to
sign that list, so that it can be distributed.
Ms.
Mills was asked whether, from her perspective, the Board covered all the bases
and informed them that she thought they had – that they were very thorough.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
“GET
TO KNOW YOUR GOVERNMENT DAY” AT THE VILLAGES
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, announced that “Get to Know Your Government Day”
was scheduled for Saturday, November 5, 2005, at the Laurel Manor Recreation
Center, at The Villages, and that county staff would be present from 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
CHANGE
IN LOCATION FOR BOARD RETREAT
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that the Board Retreat,
scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2005, was changed from the Leesburg Center for
the Arts to Room 233 (Training Room), in the Administration Building.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
FLAGS
FLOWN AT HALF-MAST IN HONOR OF ROSA PARKS
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that President Bush requested that flags be
flown at half-mast on Wednesday, November 2, 2005, in honor of Ms. Rosa Parks,
a founding symbol of the Civil Rights movement, who recently passed away.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
REIMBURSEMENT
CHECK FROM STATE FOR MEETING ACCESSIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS
ON TOUCH SCREEN VOTING MACHINES
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that she received word, prior to
the start of the meeting, that the County had received a check from the State
of Florida, in the amount of $451,538.00, which is a reimbursement for meeting
the accessibility requirements on the touch screen voting machines, in
compliance with the Help America Vote Act, which she noted will be going back
into the County’s Renewal Sales Tax Fund.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5
FLORIDA
IMPACT FEE REVIEW TASK FORCE MEETING AND CENTURY
COMMITTEE
MEETING
Commr.
Cadwell stated that the Florida Impact Fee Review Task Force met on Monday,
October 31, 2005, in Tallahassee, however, noted that they did not come to a
consensus for offering any legislative language, but are looking at a model
ordinance that would be voluntary for local governments to use, should they
choose to do so. He stated that the gut
of an impact fee ordinance has got to be specific to the County, so he does not
feel that a model ordinance will be that beneficial, but feels that it may help
with some of the issues. He stated that
their next meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, in
Jacksonville, and, although it is a regularly scheduled Board Meeting day, he
feels it is imperative that he be present at that meeting, so he plans to be in
Jacksonville for said meeting on that date.
He noted that, on Monday, November 14, 2005, the Century Committee that
the Legislature and Governor Bush put together will be meeting in St. Petersburg
and he plans to be present at that meeting, as well.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER POOL – DISTRICT 2
WEST
ORANGE/SOUTH LAKE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE MEETING
Commr.
Pool informed the Board that on Monday, October 31, 2005, the West Orange/South
Lake Transportation Task Force held their annual meeting at Ocoee City Hall,
which was very well attended. He thanked
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, for giving an update on the
County’s transportation plan, as did Orange County, and noted that Mr. T. J.
Fish, Executive Director, Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
gave a presentation about the County’s MPO and what is taking place with
it. He stated that Representative Randy
Johnson and Florida Department of Transportation’s District 5 Secretary, Mr.
George Gilhooley, announced an additional $28 million of funding for the SR 50
corridor that stretches between Orange County and Lake County. He stated that they hope there will be
additional dollars available, as the project moves forward, and that he
appreciates and is very proud of what they have done for the Lake County area.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
EPILEPSY
AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
On
a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried
unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2005-164,
declaring November, 2005, as Epilepsy Awareness Month.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
MT.
PLYMOUTH/SORRENTO ADVISORY COMMITTEE OBTAINS SERVICES
OF
CANIN ASSOCIATES FOR TOWN CENTER PROJECT
Commr.
Hanson informed the Board that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Advisory Committee has
been able to obtain the services of Canin Associates, an award winning Orlando
design firm that specializes in providing solution–oriented community planning,
urban and environmental planning, landscape architecture, and GIS consulting
services for large-scale public and private assignments, noting that they have
volunteered to help with some of the planning in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento
area, particularly, as the Committee attempts to create the standards for a
Town Center. She stated that she was
very happy about that, noting that she hopes they will be able to get the
Committee off dead center and enable them to move forward with some sort of a
plan that will be viable.
REPORTS
– COMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
POSSIBLE
LOCATION OF HEALTH CLINIC AND LIFESTREAM
BEHAVIORAL
CENTER NEAR SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL
Commr.
Hanson stated that she had spoken with Ms. Leslie Longacre, Sub-Committee
Chairman of the Lake County Comprehensive Health Care Committee (CHCC) and CEO
of South Lake Hospital, about the possibility of acquiring a small parcel of
land near South Lake Hospital for the health clinic and also the possibility of
co-locating the LifeStream Behavioral Center, noting that it makes a lot of
sense to have it near the hospital. She
stated that Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, indicated that she would meet with
Ms. Longacre about the matter.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER HANSON – DISTRICT 4
FUNDRAISER
FOR ST. JOHNS RIVER ALLIANCE
Commr.
Hanson stated that she had some tickets for a fundraiser for the St. Johns
River Alliance, with regard to a film titled “The River Runs North”, which the County participated in the
production of. She distributed two
tickets to each of the Commissioners and asked that they sell them and
participate in the event, which will be held on Saturday, November 5, 2005, at
the Central Florida Zoo, in Sanford, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
REPORTS
– COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3
RENAISSANCE
FAIR
Commr.
Stivender reminded the Board about the Renaissance Fair, scheduled to be held
Friday, November 4th, through Sunday, November 6th, at
Hickory Point. She stated that it is a great event and invited everyone to attend.
CITIZEN
QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Ms.
Barbara Lightner, a resident of The Plantation at Leesburg, addressed the Board
and asked their help with a matter that she is involved in with The Plantation
at Leesburg Homeowners Association, noting that she has dedicated her life to
helping Lake County citizens and operates a non-profit, tax exempt charitable
organization (Joining Hands, Inc. of Florida) out of her home, which the
Homeowners Association objects to, in that they feel she is operating a commercial
business, which is in violation of the covenants and restrictions of the
subdivision.
It
was noted that the County would not be able to get involved in the matter –
that it is a problem between Ms. Lightner and her Homeowners Association and
that Ms. Lightner should hire a private attorney to represent her.
COMMISSIONERS
At
this time, Commr. Hanson left the meeting, due to another commitment.
CITIZEN
QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD (CONT’D.)
Mr.
Jim Shultz, representing Resource Recovery, Inc., in Tavares, addressed the
Board stating that his company designs and manufactures automated equipment for
the collection and distribution of rainwater.
He stated that it is the only such business in Central Florida and probably
the State, in its entirety. He stated
that the company was started in 1988, when his well began to fail and
irrigation restrictions were implemented.
He stated that, in 2002, it became evident that such equipment could
become necessary in the near future, so, with that in mind, he and his partner,
Mr. Barry Rogers, set out to design a system that would not only collect
rainwater efficiently, but also distribute it in an automated manner. He stated that they went before the Lake
County Water Authority Board to acquire funding for pilot projects, but, while
the concept of using rainwater to augment water supplies was interesting to the
Water Authority Board, they indicated that they needed more information to
proceed with funding of any nature. He stated
that county staff visited their site and were satisfied that their concept
deserved more attention; therefore, they voted unanimously to fund higher
profile projects, as they materialized, and consider them on an individual
basis. He stated that, in the Spring of 2004, he and his partner approached the
County’s Environmental Services Department with the concept, as they had been
given information that there might be some interest within that
department. He stated that the Director
of Environmental Services, as well as Commr. Stivender, reviewed a prototype
and were given a demonstration, at which time a plan was initiated to put one
of their systems on the Administration Building. He stated that a series of officials and
employees of the County came to view their equipment and they were told that
the County wanted it in the ground within 30 days, but, for whatever reason,
the project was given up and, in January of 2005, they were told that it would
have to go through an open bid process, which has not yet happened. He stated that, due to the project not moving
forward, there has been a great deal of disappointment, not only on the part of
him and his partner, but also on the part of the Lake County Water Authority,
residents, businesses, officials, and organizations both in and out of Lake
County.
Mr.
Schultz stated that the importance of this type of conservation has been
relayed to the public, through a press release by one of the employees of the
County, but nothing tangible has been realized.
He stated that they know of at least one project that has been
compromised by the failure of their project to proceed in a timely manner,
however, noted that they are still highly motivated to work cooperatively with
Lake County and the Lake County Water Authority, to see the project through to
completion. He stated that, at the
present time, there are two other projects pending – one for the newly proposed
office of the Lake County Water Authority at Hickory Point and one for the
newly proposed educational facility at the University of Florida’s Lake County
Extension Office. He stated that there
is a tremendous opportunity for Lake County to be the frontrunners in the State
of Florida to utilize this concept at the level that Resource Recovery offers. He stated that they have obtained funding that
more than offsets the cost of the equipment that they would provide and there
remains more funding out there for those diligent enough to acquire it. He stated that they have also completed most
of the equipment required to do the aforementioned project. He stated that he and his partner were before
the Board this date to find out how they feel about the matter and to thank
them for their past, present, and future consideration of it.
Commr.
Hill stated that Mr. Shultz met with her earlier this year and that she
understood the County was in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process at that
time. She questioned the County Manager,
Ms. Cindy Hall, about the matter.
Ms.
Hall stated that she would get together with the County’s Environmental
Services Department and its Procurement Services Department and bring a report
back to the Board at a later date.
Commr.
Cadwell asked that the Board be given a report, if possible, at the Board
Retreat that is scheduled for November 8, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER
HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS,
CLERK