JANUARY 17, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool.  Commissioners not present:  Debbie Stivender.  Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.


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

            AGENDA UPDATE

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, noted that, on Addendum No. 1, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, the Board has a request for approval of a Resolution to advertise for a public hearing on Vacation Petition Number 1074.  She also would like to request once again to postpone Tab 14, the Employee Awards and Recognition Program; staff is still tweaking that item; and under the County Manager’s reports, Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, would like some time to discuss school concurrency issues with the Board.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he has two items that he would like to add to the agenda that will take Board action.  The first is an approval of an agreement with Jerry Cox who is the consultant to the municipalities under school concurrency, and they can do that at the same time Mr. Welstead makes his presentation.  The second is a proposed change of the start time of the Board meeting on February 7, 2006, to move it from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., so they can have an hour and a half for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) meeting that morning.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to add the two items to the agenda, as requested by the County Attorney.


            Commr. Hanson noted that Commr. Stivender will not be joining the Board today.


            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:

            List of Checks or Warrants

            Request to acknowledge receipt of list of checks or warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.


            Contractor Bonds


            Request to approve the following Contractor Bonds – New, Cancellations, and Riders:




5291-06           Apopka Plumbing LLC

5766-06           Guy Clement d.b.a. Clement Electric Inc.

6450-06           Nezamudin Fazol/Amirian Electric Inc.




5340-05           Robert E. Knight




5093-06           Change the name of the principal:

                        From:  Edmon William Greaner Company, Inc.

                        To:  Edmon William Greaner


6449-06           Change the name of the principal:

                        From:  James Sheddan/Jimmy’s Electric Service

                        To:  Anthony J. Stoothoff/Jimmy’s Electric Service, Inc.




4944-06           Charles L. Henry Jr. d.b.a. Henry Electric Company

                        Changing Bond Number FL 140 to Bond Number FL 9499


            Ordinances/Town of Lady Lake


            Request to acknowledge receipt from the Town of Lady Lake, Ordinance 2005-50, amending Ordinance 94-08, Land Development Regulations, adding Chapter 20, Commercial Design Standards; and Ordinance 2005-52, amending Ordinance No. 94-08, Land Development Regulations, Chapter 10, Landscaping and Tree Protection. Each ordinance passed and ordained on the 15th day of December 2005.



            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 2 through 12, as follows:

            Revised Circulation and Registration Policy


            Request from Community Services for approval and signature of revised Circulation and Registration Policy, LLC-8, as recommended by the Lake County Advisory Board.


            Contract – Berryman & Henigar/Roads


            Request from Procurement Services for approval and execution of the Contract with Berryman & Henigar for the engineering design services for clay to pave roads, RSQ 05-071, in the amount of $819,046.00.


Hazard Mitigation Grant Contract/Department of Community Affairs/Fire Rescue Station Number 10 Astor Wind Retrofit Project/Budget Transfer


            Request from Public Safety for approval and execution of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Contract between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and Lake County, by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, for the Lake County Fire Rescue Station Number 10 Astor Wind Retrofit Project. The period of the contract begins upon execution by both parties and ends on September 30, 2007. Approval of Budget Transfer in the amount of $3,445.00 and approval of Resolution for Unanticipated Revenue in the amount of $10,335.00.


            Subordination of Utility Interest Agreements/Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.


            Request from Public Works for approval to accept and execute the following Subordination of Utility Interest Agreements between Lake County and Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. for the projects listed below:


Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc./Grassy Lake Road (Number 1846)/Sullivan Road (Number 2044) Site Plan


Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc./North Buckhill Road (Number 2739) – Middleton Groves


            Amendment to Agreement/Williams/Old Mt. Dora Road Project


            Request from Public Works for approval and execution of an Amendment to the existing Agreement with Billy R. and Jennifer L. Williams, to extend the closing date to February 28, 2006 to secure all necessary documents for closing relating to the Old Mt. Dora Road Project (Number 4865).


            Final Plat/Pillars Landing/Maintenance Bond/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution


            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Pillars Landing and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Pillars Landing plat; accept a Maintenance Bond in the amount of $35,000.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Pillar Development, LLC; and execute Resolution 2006-11 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Yonaomi Circle (County Road Number 0837D). Pillars Landing consists of 22 lots – Commission District 2.


            Final Plat/Blue Spring Lake/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement


            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Blue Spring Lake and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Blue Spring Lake final plat; accept a Letter of Credit in the amount of $846,059.50; and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements between Lake County and Blue Spring Lake, LLC. Blue Spring Lake consists of 34 lots – Commission District 3.


            Final Plat/Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II


            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II plat Heathrow Country Estate Homes Phase II consists of 88 lots – Commission District 4.


            Final Plat/Homestead Hills/Letter of Credit/Developer’s Agreement/Resolution


            Request from Public Works for approval and authorization to accept the final plat for Homestead Hills and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Homestead Hills plat; accept a Letter of Credit for Maintenance in the amount of $8,733.00; execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake County and Homes in Partnership, Inc.; and execute Resolution 2006-12 accepting the following road into the County Road Maintenance System: Hollywood Avenue (County Road Number 5765). Homestead Hills consists of 11 lots – Commission District 4.


Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation Petition Number 1067 – Allan Roe, Representative, Wicks Consulting – Silver Lake/Leesburg Area – Commission District 1 Replat – Destiny Estates


            Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2006-13 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1067 by Allan Roe, Representative Wicks Consulting, to vacate a few road rights of way, in the Revised and Corrected Plat of Re-Subdivision or Silver Lake Estates, located in Section 9, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, in the Silver Lake/Leesburg area – Commissioner District 1, in conjunction with the replat to be known as Destiny Estates. Since a portion of the roads right of way to be vacated and replatted provides access to adjoining parcels, the Vacation should be effective upon recording of the Destiny Estates Plat.


Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation Petition Number 1075 – Palmer Homes – Umatilla Area – Commission District 5


            Request from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution 2006-14 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1075 by Palmer Homes, Representative Bruce Duncan, to vacate a citrus loading easement, located in Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 26 East, in the Umatilla area – Commission District 5.





Resolution to Advertise Public Hearing – Vacation Petition Number 1074 – Dalhousie Meadows, LLC – Eustis Area – Commission District 5


            Request from Public Works for approval and signature of Resolution 2006-15 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition Number 1074, by Dalhousie Meadows, LLC, Representative Ben Champion, to vacate an ingress/egress easement, in the Plat of Lake Meadows, located in Section 29, Township 18 South, Range 27 East, in the Eustis area – Commission District 5.




            Commr. Hanson introduced Mr. Steven Yates, Case Coordinator for Lake County, who was here for the presentation of Resolution 2006-1 recognizing the Lake County Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers and their many efforts and contributions on behalf of children.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that Guardian Ad Litem is one of the National Association of Counties’ presidential initiatives, and they try to focus on local government and getting them more in tune with what is going on and really educating the public.

            Mr. Steven Yates addressed the Board and introduced Karla Grimsley, Program Director, Guardian Ad Litem, Ocala, Florida, who spearheaded the efforts here in Lake County.

            Ms. Grimsley addressed the Board and thanked them once again for all of their support over the past years, especially over the past couple of years, with their program and noting that, when they went through the Article V transition, the Board stood with them and continued to support them.  The Board has shown they do care about children and families in this County, and she commends them for that and wants them to know how grateful they are and that she says this on behalf of all of the staff of Lake County and the volunteers that serve children in this community.

            Commr. Hanson asked the volunteers who were present, approximately seven of them, to come forward for the presentation.

            Mr. Yates informed the Board that they have about 73 guardians in Lake County and, thanks to their support, they just finished training about 35 individuals, and those individuals are appearing in court today on behalf of children.  Mr. Yates noted that they have built this number also from the Lake County Chamber of Commerce who has supported them in the program.   Their goal in Lake County is to have 100% representation for the children, and they need about 150 more volunteers.  He asked that the public contact them by phone at 352-742-6398.

            Commr. Hanson read Resolution 2006-1, which was approved by the Board on January 10, 2006 and presented it to Mr. Yates and Ms. Grimsley.



            Commr. Hanson welcomed Ms. Nicki Mahoney, a resident member of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) Governing Board, who is required to join the other Board members as a voting member for action on this item.

            Mr. Cheryl Thomas, Housing and Community Development Director, addressed the Board to present the Public Housing Agency (PHA) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2005 and Five Year Plan, which have been taken to the resident advisory board for their input; they have been publicly posted for 45 days for additional citizen comment; and now they come to the Board for a public hearing, which is the final step before they are submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

            Commr. Hanson recognized Commr. Cadwell as the Board’s Affordable Housing liaison, and noted that he had no comment at this time.

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

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Lake County Public Housing Agency (PHA) Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2005 and Five Year Plan Covering Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 and authorized the Chairman to sign and certify appropriate documents for submission.



            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he had added an item to the agenda with regard to the Value Adjustment Board (VAB).  He explained that there have been some objections to the special magistrates’ reports presented to the VAB at their meeting today.              They have adjourned that meeting until February 7, 2006.  They anticipate the meeting taking one and a half hours, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and concluding by 10 a.m.  He asked that the Board change the actual start time of the February 7, 2006 Board meeting, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to change the beginning time of the Board meeting on February 7, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., to allow adequate time for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) to meet at 8:30 a.m. and consider objections to reports made by the special magistrates.


            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the Board and the School Board agreed that they would contribute to the payment of the municipalities’ consultant for school concurrency; the cities have chosen Jerry W. Cox who used to work for the School Board.  The Letter of Agreement states that he will be paid $2,000 a month for 20 hours of service and $50 an hour for any time over those 20 hours.  The Board would be responsible for half of that cost; the School Board has already agreed to pay the other half.  Staff is recommending approval.

            Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Pool, to approve the Letter of Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Jerry W. Cox, Consultant, to provide technical and administrative assistance to the cities in developing a school concurrency plan.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill wanted to know if there was a possibility that they might include a $15,000 cap on this so, if there is anything over and above that amount, it would be brought back to this Board for approval.

            Mr. Minkoff noted that it would be $30,000 assuming that the School Board would have a similar cap.

            Commr. Hanson stated that they could add this language to the agreement but, if they see that they are going to go beyond that amount, it would be back before the Board anyway.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the Letter of Agreement does not mention a cap in it, so they would be bound to the language being presented in the document, and he feels that this item will come to a conclusion before they can even generate that many hours.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that an alternative may be to put a termination clause in the agreement where they could terminate with a 30 day notice so that, as the billings came in, if they felt there was an issue, they could reopen the agreement.

            Commr. Cadwell amended his motion to include a 30 day notice of termination, and Commr. Pool amended his second to the motion; and Commr. Cadwell asked that the Board and the School Board be updated on the amount being spent.

            Commr. Hanson called for a vote on the motion, as amended, which was carried unanimously by a 4-0 vote.


            BOARD RETREAT

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, announced that staff has confirmed the location of the Board Retreat, to be held at the Bragg Center on January 27, 2006 (Friday) beginning at 9 a.m.

            BOARD MEETINGS

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that there has been a request from the Chairman who will be out of the country on March 21, 2006 to move that meeting to March 14, 2006, which would normally be a work session day.

            It was the consensus of the Board to reschedule the Board meeting, as requested.

            WORK SESSIONS

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that, in February, the Board will not be having a work session day, because of Lake County Days.  Staff has some work session items that are being scheduled at regular meetings in February and March, as necessary.


Public Meeting/Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce/Social Security Prescription Medicine Drugs


            Mr. Roy Hunter, Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board and provided them with a handout regarding a public meeting on Social Security Prescription Medicine Drugs.  The meeting will be held at Spring Creek Elementary School Cafeteria on January 26, 2006, Thursday, at 6:30 p.m., and everyone is invited.  Mr. Hunter suggested that everyone go to their doctors and get their prescriptions set up so that they will always have an extra 30 day supply in case of emergency.  Because there has been so much confusion over this issue, he felt that it was important that people attend as many of these sessions as possible.

            Commr. Hanson thanked Mr. Hunter for his outreach efforts and education.


            Mr. D. J. Mauro addressed the Board and stated that there is nothing more dear to his heart than the immigration policy they have in this country.  He has presented the Board members with copies of a video tape entitled “Immigration by the Numbers” and stated that, for about five years now, he has been quoting a figure of 35 million people who are here illegally in this country.  Mr. Mauro stated that he would like to discuss the video at the next Board meeting and talk about the immigration policy that is in this country today.

            Maintenance of Roads/Transportation Assistance

            Mr. Travis Whigham, representing Forest Hills Association, addressed the Board and stated that he would like to take the opportunity and thank the Board for a few things, one is the $1,500 that they are going to use in their community.  He also wanted to let them know that he will be applying for the new $25,000 Block Grant for future use.  Also the County should be starting work on some of the roads in the Lake Mack area. Mr. Whigham stated that they have not gotten all of the necessary approvals for the Jewel Drive road project and would like to ask the Board to try and expedite this item, because those roads will link the Pine Lakes Fire Department, and the Big Pine Lakes Park to the residents.  He would also like to thank Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement Coordinator, and others for helping a very ill young lady get transportation assistance.

            Commr. Hanson thanked Mr. Whigham for what he does for his community and Lake County.

            Superior Concrete/Permitting Process

            Mr. Bruce Duncan, Attorney, stated that he is here on behalf of Superior Concrete in Sorrento, which is a block plant/batch plant.  Mr. Duncan explained that his client is in a desperate position and has asked him to come here and see if they can get some direction from the Board.  He stated that this is in no way an indication that they have a problem with staff; staff has done everything that they can possibly do, so they need some direction from this Board to see if there is anything else they can to do help resolve the matter.  He explained that, in the summer of 2005, Superior built a block plant without getting a permit for it.  The structure is about 80,000 square feet; it is a pre-engineered metal structured building (a Butler building) that they put on site of an existing batch plant that they were operating.  Mr. Duncan explained that the manager was fired and Superior turned themselves into the County.  Then he got involved and has been working with staff and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), who also has some issues that they are working through as well.  They had a pre-approved site plan for the batch plant but, when they put the structure on site, they had to file an amended site plan showing the location of the additional plant, and they had to submit building plans to the Building Department.  He explained that those have been reviewed and necessary changes have been made to the amended site plan, and the building plans were reviewed for the first time last week.  During the process, staff determined that the building was unsafe because it had not been given a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).  Superior voluntarily closed down right before Christmas hoping that it would take two or three weeks to get everything approved.  Now the company has been out of operation for about three weeks, and his client is about to go bankrupt; the building is about to be sold; and he is not going to be able to continue to operate the business.  Even though they can say that he created his own problem, they agree that the prior manager created the problem by doing it without pulling a permit and he was dismissed; they turned themselves into the County; and they have been working as hard as they can with the County to try to get this matter resolved through staff.

            Mr. Duncan explained that two engineering reports were done; one was an independent engineer who had no involvement with this matter who certified the safety of the building defraying some of his decisions to the project engineer; the project engineer then reviewed the engineer’s report and certified those concerns that the independent engineer was not able to confirm.  Mr. Duncan stated that they feel that the structure is safe and structurally sound and they have confirmed the strength of the concrete pad.

            Mr. Duncan stated that it is not just Superior who is going through a bad economic impact.  He did not have time to get builders to come to the meeting today, but he had conversations with several builders in the area who are saying that it has had an economic impact on them because they are unable to get the block from a local place; they are having to go outside and get it which is costing them more for the block and their time on the road; and it is an inconvenience to build the houses.  Superior estimates that they are losing about $7,500 a day; about 12 employees have lost their jobs as a result of the block plant closing down.  He stated that they are here to see if there is any direction that this Board can give them, or Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, perhaps a temporary CO while they continue to work toward resolving the issues with staff, so they can reopen the block plant and continue the economic viability of the facility.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to know if staff was aware that Mr. Duncan was coming before the Board today with this issue, and Mr. Duncan explained that, as soon as he was made aware of it, he contacted Mr. Minkoff and Mr. Welstead to let them know that he was going to appear before them today.  Mr. Duncan wanted to clarify that this is not something that he generally does; he has continued to have a nice working relationship with County staff; he is just saying that their hands are tied without some direction from the Board, and his client asked him to make this last effort in his behalf.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that this is a code case and, if the Board wants to talk about it, he would be interested in asking staff where they are with this case.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there is no legal reason why the Board cannot talk about it, if the Board decides it wants to talk about it.  In regards to the code case, it has been resolved with an agreement that they would not occupy the building.

            Mr. Duncan clarified that there is no pending code matter against them at this point, even though there were some other issues regarding a fence and some watering measures, and they have tried to alleviate other concerns which, in turn, took care of some of the code matters.

            Ms. Carol Stricklin, Director of Growth Management, addressed the Board and explained that there is a pending code matter.  The property was first cited on September 21, 2005 for failure to have building permit and that citation is still open so it is a pending code case.  Ms. Stricklin explained that the greatest responsibility of the Growth Management Department is to ensure life safety, and they do that through the administration of the Florida Building Code.  To respond to the questions regarding the status of this matter, Ms. Stricklin explained that the site plan is very close; there were two major problems; the building was built four feet below the minimum flood elevation; and there is no central water service available so there are no fire hydrants; the applicant needs to show on his plans and then construct a 33,000 gallon tank.  With regard to the building plans, staff has done the initial review and met with the contractor and project engineer, and Ms. Stricklin stated that she would ask Mr. Dale Greiner to report to the Board the status of those plans.

            Mr. Dale Greiner, Director of Building Services, addressed the Board and explained that their plan review staff met with the engineer and general contractor for Superior last Thursday.  After reviewing a set of plans that were inadequate to allow them to do a review in the first place, staff requested that they meet with them immediately.  In that meeting, it was understood by the people presenting the plans that they knew they were inadequate in the first place, but they just wanted to get them in with hopes of getting staff to move something forward.  Staff explained that they did not give them structural information that was necessary, and there was not any electrical that met what was actually installed in the building because he had the plan examiners go out and try to put it together with the plans that they had and all of this was explained to them.  Staff said that they could not do anything unless they gave them that information, so they could complete their review and compare some of the forensic tests that they had already done on the structure with the actual requirements of the structural engineers.  In terms of how long this is going to take, Mr. Greiner stated that he cannot answer that question adequately because he does not know when they are going to give him that information and how adequate that information is going to be.

            Commr. Pool wanted to make sure that staff understands that this, in no way, insinuates that staff is in a bad position, because the Board applauds them for making sure that everything is safe and is done correctly, and he also applauds Superior for coming forward recognizing that the gentleman that is no longer there worked without a permit.  Since there had been some inspections done, he wanted to know if there was a way to have the Butler building people tour the facility recognizing that it was installed according to their engineered plans.

            Mr. Greiner explained that, in regards to the engineered set of plans for the pre-engineered building, a structural engineer has to design a foundation for that building, and they have to meet those plans, and those two plans did not come together; the Butler building did not match the foundation plans.  Staff needs to make sure that the foundation plan is adequate and compare that with the forensics that they have already done, and then they need to determine if they need more forensics.  Mr. Greiner explained some of the forensic work that had been done and the results of some of those noting that, even though the forensics may indicate that what they have is adequate with respect to the code, it does not tell them that it meets the engineering requirements for that foundation; he does not know what the engineer of record is requiring for the foundation for that building.  Mr. Greiner pointed out that, even if he gets something that tells him that the two plans match, he cannot give them a CO for a building that does not have a permit.  His main worry is the reinforcement and whether that reinforcement shows up and matches the forensics.

            After some discussion, Commr. Pool stated that the Board appreciates what Mr. Duncan is trying to do, but he needs to provide staff with the information.

            Mr. Greiner stated that, if Mr. Duncan provides that information, this will allow him to issue a permit and send his inspectors out to determine if the forensics match, or if it gives them enough information, or if they need more forensics and, once the electrical is done, he can give him a CO.

            Commr. Pool stated that obviously they need to provide some information.  He discussed what they call special inspections where someone would pay a fee to have an inspection done after hours and, even though he was not implying that the County gives them any special priority, this is an option, which was confirmed by Mr. Greiner who indicated that this would be done for a fee, if it becomes necessary.

            Mr. Greiner explained that, if they determine that this has to be in the flood zone, then the building has to have the ability to handle flood, which is usually with break away walls, and he is sure that this building was not designed for that.

            Commr. Hanson stated that it appears that the issues being discussed by staff on this particular matter are safety issues, the electrical and the concrete.  In terms of flood elevation, she has been told that everybody agrees that the flood elevations are not correct and is something that is going to be difficult to correct and will take a long time, and they are also dealing with FEMA.  In regards to the issue of fire protection, she understands that they are very seriously looking at Mount Dora providing the utilities in that particular area.  She knows that in areas where they have buried tanks, when they need the protection, there is no water because the tanks have rusted out.

            Mr. Duncan stated that his client is in the process of installing the fire tanks and setting up inspections, so they are not contesting that issue.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she feels staff has done everything they can to try and resolve this issue, but it is important know that it is an industry, they employ a lot of people in the County, and they need to provide for their safety.  She asked Mr. Duncan to get the information to staff as soon as possible.

            Criminal/Traffic Funds

            Ms. Christine Harris, Mount Dora, addressed the Board and stated that she had a question about an item on last week’s consent agenda regarding the transfer of criminal/traffic funds.

            It was noted that Cindy Hall, County Manager, will provide her with information after the meeting.



            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, stated that he would first like to discuss the proposed Interlocal Agreement relating to the school concurrency issue, which is a result of their discussions in December. Today they are concerned about the areas of School Site Selection, Paragraph 3; and Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities, Paragraph 7.  Apparently there was some disagreement as to what should be said in these paragraphs, and he would like to hear any objections to this language, which he will present to the working group next week.

            Mr. Welstead addressed Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, and stated that it talks in general terms about what they would like to see; there are some State requirements, about 15 or 20, for educational facilities that he has discussed with the Board previously.   Staff is suggesting that those items be contained in any requirements that are put together.  In sub-paragraph (6), it talks about infrastructure requirements including minor collector roads for elementary and middle schools; and major collectors for high schools.

            In Paragraph 7, Collection and Shared Use of Facilities, Mr. Welstead stated that, as a point of reference, everyone seemed to be in favor of doing collocation and shared use of facilities, with the exception of the final decision being made by the principals.  The cities had a meeting about two weeks ago in which the managers and the staff were present, and they had some hesitancy about offering up municipal facilities for use other than municipal purposes.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, clarified that there was one or two staff members from cities who raised some issues, but he is not sure that is the city position; the elected officials all seemed to be positive on that issue.

            Discussion occurred regarding schools and parks, with it being noted that the only kids that would be using the parks would be those that were out of school.

            Mr. Welstead stated that he needs to put together a Commission position on this issue for next Monday’s meeting.

            3.  School Site Selection

            In regards to Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, Commr. Cadwell wanted some discussion on the last paragraph in sub-paragraph (7), from the Board’s standpoint, and to find out whether this is something the Board can live with because it basically says that you can put schools everywhere, but they have to be approved by this advisory board which would include a School Board member, a County Commissioner, and a representative of the municipalities; he would assume it would be a municipal representative in the area of where that school is going to be.  He sated that he would be less concerned with this issue, if it said they would allow elementary and middle schools in any zoning districts as along as they were approved by that advisory board but he still has not come to a comfort level yet about giving up that ability to do that for high schools, because he thinks that is a big issue for the School Board.

            Commr. Hill stated that the paragraph being referred to by Commr. Cadwell is not settling to her; first there is no public input at all in that process which is very valuable and this Board has always retained that they wanted public input whenever they are making decisions.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that they could put some language in there that would require that advisory committee to hold a public hearing on the site, to have that as part of the process.

            As her second point, Commr. Hill stated that, as an elected official, she felt that it was her duty to look at land use and land decisions, and she thinks most city officials feel that way.  She stated that property rights is a very big issue in the State of Florida and in the nation, and she thinks that is one of their duties as elected officials, and she is not willing to break that down and take public input out of it.  She would rather see something along the lines of a special master where staff is represented from all of the counties, the cities, and the School Board, and they find the sites based on specific criteria, and then they treat it as if it were a zoning board, and they have a public hearing process where they can speak at that zoning when they consider those sites.  Then it would come to this Board as a judicial board, not a quasi-judicial board, where they have the final say.  It would be something like the process now being used for the Value Adjustment Board (VAB); they could include School Board and city representatives but she thinks the five of them should sit on that board and make the final decision.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board would not hear additional evidence at that second hearing.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that they are trying to show the School Board that they are trying to work with them; making it even harder for them to go through a process is not something that is going to be beneficial to either one of them in this negotiating process, which is his only concern.

            Mr. Welstead explained that a staff group, given the criteria that are established, would look over a number of sites, determine what sites might be appropriate, recommend it to a special master who would hear evidence, the special master would make a ruling, and then the Board would affirm or deny that special master decision.

            Commr. Pool stated that this keeps the politics in it.  They know that schools can be in any zone and, if they meet all of the land acquisition issues, all the criteria they set forth, and then present it to a special master, he cannot see where they can get to a bad site, if they meet all of the criteria.

            Commr. Hill stated that they can get a bad site, because you still have public input, which will need to be considered.

            Comm. Hanson explained that the Board really has not had a problem other than one zoning case, and they have put the schools exactly where the School Board wanted them but, in general, they would get their zoning approvals before they bought the property and that is where the problem comes in.

            Commr. Pool pointed out that the language says that the School Board, the elected officials, and the municipalities would agree to the site, as part of the process, but Commr. Hill stated that she likes the process as it is today, with them coming in as an applicant and the Board applying all the Comprehensive Plan elements just as they would in any other case.

            Commr. Pool explained that the School Board’s argument is that schools will be allowed in all zoning districts; Commr. Hanson pointed out that, even though things are allowed and permitted in a zoning district, they still have to come before this Board.  It was clarified that, if it is straight zoning, they cannot condition it, and then there is also the possibility of charter schools and Commr. Hill wanted to know if that would apply to them.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that it may be a local issue, because of that one zoning case, but statewide this issue is important to schools boards.  Because there are going to be other tougher issues and this is a negotiation process that they are going through, he would be willing to let that advisory board pick middle and elementary schools; and high schools, which are a lot more intense in a neighborhood, would still come to this Board through the zoning process; and he would be willing to present this as their position.

            Commr. Hanson wanted to know if Commr. Cadwell would be willing to tighten it up one more step and that would be to have the School Board member, and the district County Commissioner, on that advisory board that looks at the middle and elementary schools, and a representative from the closest city, because they are the ones that are going to get the political heat.  Then the advisory board will hold a public hearing, and these cases would not come to this Board.

            Commr. Cadwell agreed with this suggestion and asked Mr. Minkoff if this would be allowed under the Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

            Ms. Minkoff explained that they took out the public hearing language because they did not want it to be a quasi-judicial process so, if they write something where they will take public comment or allow public input, they will need to try and write around that.

            Commr. Pool wanted to know what they would do if it becomes multi-jurisdictional where there may be two communities that would share responsibilities and if they would add members to the advisory committee.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, once they agree that they will do that, then on a staff level, they would draw up some type of map, or maybe the School Board has an attendance map, and then they will ask the League of Cities, at the beginning of the year, to appoint a person for each one of those regions.

            It was pointed out that utilities may be an issue, and Mr. Welstead reminded the Board that anything they decide on today will not be presented next week as the final agreement.

             Commr. Hill stated that this is a major issue for the County and cities, because it deals with the availability of infrastructure and who puts that in, whether it is roads, or sewer, or other infrastructure and, in certain situations, they will not have to come back to this Board.

            Mr. Welstead pointed out that there are two distinct areas; one is site selection; the other is the approval process.  In the site selection process, there should be specific rules; if they do not meet those, then they will not come before this Board.

            Commr. Cadwell clarified that anybody can come before County staff and staff can recommend denial but there is nothing that prohibits them from bringing it to the Board.  Under this agreement, if it does not meet specific criteria, they cannot even bring it to them.

            Commr. Hill was concerned about waivers and variances; Mr. Welstead explained that this could be handled by putting in mandatory requirements.

            Commr. Pool felt that the language, as follows, would address their concerns:

“The County and each municipality agree to modify their comprehensive plans and land development regulations to make public schools an allowable use in all zoning districts, so long as a School Site Advisory Board comprised of elected officials of the School Board, County Commission, and representatives of Lake County municipalities has approved such site.”


            Commr. Cadwell stated that instead of “public schools”, he would suggest “middle schools and elementary schools” and then the high schools would still come before this Board.

            Commr. Pool explained that, if they cannot get to this level, if the city, County, or School Board do not agree with this process, then they are not going to have this argument.

            Discussion occurred regarding the fact that some of the sites are going to meet the majority of the criteria, with the understanding that the other criteria will be done in the future, which would then put the County in a position where it would be outvoted and knowing that roads are a major issue for the County.

            After further discussion, the Board felt that offering the noted language with “middle and elementary schools” would be a least a step forward in the negotiating process but that they need to develop site selection criteria.

            Commr. Hill pointed out that, in the County’s site selection ordinance, it says that these sites should be in urbanized areas but they never seem to be.

            Commr. Pool explained that, because there are not rooftops today, if you do have approved projects, i.e. Sugarloaf, those would be forthcoming.  They should not build the school before they start developing those projects; they should acquire the land and have permission to develop but Commr. Hill felt that it was a catalyst to put those in before they meet timeliness.

            In regards to Paragraph 7, Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities, it was noted that everybody seemed to agree with the County’s position and the way it was written except for principals having the final say and the language reflects this change.

            Mr. Welstead referred back to Paragraph 3, School Site Selection, and stated that he would suggest that the high schools would still have to go through that advisory board; they would not have the ultimate approval authority but they would still need to go through there and get their recommendation but, after some discussion, Mr. Minkoff clarified that the Board was okay with the language that says only elementary and middle schools; and where it says “there may be more than one Board within the County” the Board wants to change that to “there shall be more than one Board within the County based on geographic regions” and require that this group have a meeting to take public input before they make a decision.

            It was noted that the School Board members’ seats do not mirror the County Commissioners’ seats geographically. Mr. Welstead will provide the Board with a map this afternoon that has their districts and the School Board districts, with it being pointed out that the boundaries are different.

            It was noted that the Board was in general agreement to what was being proposed in Paragraph 7, Collocation and Shared Use of Facilities.

            Commr. Cadwell wanted to point out that he keeps reading newspaper articles about how this all got started by community interest and the School Board interest; this only got started because this Board stepped forward and said they wanted to do this.  He wanted to say this publicly because it did not start anywhere other than right here when this Board said they need to do this; this is a way to try to be responsible to do it; and they brought everybody into the process.

            Commr. Hill pointed out that, when Commr. Cadwell was Chairman, he brought something similar to this Board, and they tried doing something similar at that time, and this gave them a real procedure and good direction even from the State level to accomplish this now.

            Issue 7:  Creation of an Oversight Committee

            Mr. Welstead stated that staff has two more issues to discuss that will be on the table at Monday’s meeting, which he distributed to the Board for consideration.  The first issue is the creation and/or composition of an Oversight Committee; the second issue is a dispute resolution process.   He pointed out the Harry Fix, Director of Growth Planning, Lake County Schools, prepared a Draft dated 12/15/2005, VI. Monitoring, and he took Palm Beach County’s interlocal and tweaked it for local circumstances.  Mr. Welstead noted that Commr. Hanson had asked for copies of the Palm Beach Concurrency Agreement, and he will provide them to the Board members and make it available to everyone. The Draft from Mr. Fix includes the establishment of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which he felt would be similar to his advisory committee although it may not be the same group.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that this group would be paying attention to the data, updating it and making sure it was right; and they would be watching all the governments to make sure they were complying with concurrency.  They would monitor dispute issues so that they all follow the same rules.  He felt that there were two separate functions of this group.

            In comparing the documents, Mr. Welstead explained that Mr. Fix has a much formalized process; his item is just ideas for implementation; they are not significantly different.

            Commr. Cadwell felt that staff needs to give the Board some ideas as to whether this is really going to provide a work product that is going to help; if the design is such that everything that comes out of the committee is going to be something they will need for a decision process or let them know in a report card form how they will do it, then that would be okay but he wants them to look at it and make sure it does not become so cumbersome that they cannot do their job.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that the information provided by Mr. Fix says citizens; the information provided by Mr. Welstead says commissioners, school board members, or city representatives.  So the question is should it be elected people or not elected people; should it be citizens that have no connection or not; so the composition will be an issue that they will have to discuss.

            Commr. Pool stated that sometimes he worries about including the Commissioners in all of these committees when citizens can probably give them a different insight and a vision that they do not see as an elected official.

            It was clarified that the Board will make the final decision, but they need to establish a framework for those citizens and this seemed to be the general agreement among the Board members.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that each government will have a part of the Comprehensive Plan that says they will not issue building permits if there is no school capacity, so they will be looking at building permits that they issue and, if they are violating that agreement, then they are going to say that the government is issuing permits, or you are rezoning when you should not be because there was no capacity, so they will be overseeing what they are actually doing as well.



            Commr. Hanson reported that it was a good meeting last week (January 12, 2006) with Michael J. Lauer, AICP, Planning Works, and the Board, on school concurrency.



            Commr. Cadwell informed the Board members that he will be attending the State Impact Fee Task Force meeting in Tallahassee tomorrow morning.  He noted that right now there is some legislation pending that would make some changes and put some State controls over their ability to impose impact fees, and of course they are going to oppose that.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, noted that he will also be attending that meeting.


            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.