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.
Commr. Hill recognized Sheriff Chris Daniels, who was present in the audience.
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.
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:
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.
1922-07 Orin G. Cooper, II d/b/a Mid-State Plumbing, Inc.
5748-05 Frank Oliver
5933-04 Done Right Electric, Inc.
5853-06 Changing bond description from Air Conditioning Bond to Electrical Contractor Bond
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:
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.
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.
Request for approval of an offer to settle Judd Spence's claim for property damage, subject to the County Attorney's review and approval.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
43.6 Million People Nationwide Without Prescription Coverage
26.3 Million Of These Uninsured are Under the Age of 65, as follows:
§ 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
Health Fairs/County Fairs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Public Educational Facilities Element
Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Capital Improvement Element (Schools CIP)
Future Land Use Element (School siting) FLU Categories where schools are allowed
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
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.
- 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.
· 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
· 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%
· 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.
Number of Students to be generated for a residential unit by type, such as:
· Single family units
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:
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
- Proximate to residential
- Compatibility with surrounding land uses
- No significant environmental impact
- No significant historical values
- Adequate to meet water management criteria
- Approximate 50 acres
- Two road access to site
- Collector/arterial roadway
- Approximate 25/30 acres
- Two access points
- Collector roadway
- 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
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
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.
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.
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
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK