JANUARY 22, 2008

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Debbie Stivender; Elaine Renick; and Linda Stewart.  Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.


Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Commr. Renick stated that she would be discussing an item concerning the Groveland annexation under her business.


            Commr. Stewart stated that in the Minutes for December 11, 2007, page 17, line 6, the word  “even”  should be taken out.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of December 11, 2007 (Regular Meeting) as corrected and December 18, 2007 (Regular Meeting), as presented.


Commr. Renick wanted confirm, regarding Tab 4, that if the Board approved an item on the Clerk’s Agenda, they were just acknowledging receipt of the item and not giving tacit approval of it.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, and Mr. Neil Kelly, Clerk of the Circuit Court, assured Commr. Renick that that was correct.

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

List of Warrants

Request to acknowledge receipt of list of 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.

City of Leesburg Planning & Zoning Notice of Public Hearing

Request to acknowledge receipt of City of Leesburg Planning & Zoning Division Notice of Public Hearing for January 10, 2008 at 3:30 p.m., at Leesburg City Commission Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall, 501 West Meadow Street, Leesburg, to consider a request from Christian Worship Center for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Leesburg Growth Management Plan, changing the future land use designation from County Urban to City Low Density. The property’s general location is west of County Road 468 and North of Veech Road.

Tourism Development/Resort Tax Chart

Request to acknowledge receipt of Tourism Development/Resort Tax Chart and attached memo noting that Fiscal Year November 2008 revenue is up 5.7 percent compared to Fiscal Year November 2007 and up 2.3 percent compared to Fiscal Year November 2006 and that the next TDC regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 19 at 5:30 p.m. in Commission Chambers in Tavares.

Notification from City of Mascotte of Re-publication of Notice of Public Hearing

Request to acknowledge receipt of letter from the City of Mascotte serving as notification of the re-publication of Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Annexation Ordinances for applicant, Greg Beliveau, AICP, LPG, on behalf of Maury Carter & Associates, Tuscanooga Investment Company, Inc. and Florida State Missionary Baptist Foundation properties, along with the attached copies of these Notices of Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 2007-12-455, Ordinance No. 2007-12-456, and Ordinance No. 2007-12-457.

Monthly Distribution of Revenue

Request to acknowledge Monthly Distribution of Revenue

            Traffic/Criminal Cases, Month Ending December 31, 2007.

            Disbursements due to Board:  $149,999.57

Same period, last year:            $159,429.10     


Commr. Hill stated that she wanted to pull Tab 3 for discussion, explaining that there had been some questions in the community regarding that item, so she had asked the Department Heads of Procurement and Tourist Development if they could give them a short explanation as to the process and where the items would be going.

Mr. Barnett Schwartzman, Procurement Director, explained that this award recommendation to Tip Tops of America, PromoConcepts, Inc. and Promotional & Advertising Products to provide promotional items to the County was a result of competitive action, and they were recommending the award to the bidders who were the lowest on any specific item.  He also explained that this was basically a contractual vehicle to use at their option, and the contract itself did not require any specific quantity to be ordered.  He clarified that this was just to set it up for future orders as needed on an as required basis.

Commr. Stivender pointed out that this has been done yearly.

Commr. Cadwell asked where the funds to pay for it came from.

Mr. Schwartzman responded that it came from Tourist Development Funds.

Commr. Hill commented that she wanted to clarify where the money was coming from for citizens in the community.

Mr. Greg Mihalic, Tourism and Business Relations Director, added that all those expenditures from his department come from Tourist Development funds, but the reason they did it was to market the community and to bring people to their website.  He reported that they had been using promotional items for about three or four years, which has helped to greatly increase the number of people who visit the website.  He also stated that about 20 percent of the materials they used were distributed to other internal departments to use for their functions.

Commr. Renick brought up that the economic development consultants stated that they needed to better market their county to promote business, and this was one way they did that.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 8, as follows:


Request for approval to award to Tip Tops of America, PromoConcepts, Inc. and Promotional & Advertising Products to provide promotional items for Lake County.

FOR INFORMATION ONLY- NO ACTION REQUIRED. The Procurement Policy revisions enacted by the BCC on September 27, 2007 delegated authority to the County Manager to complete certain individual purchase actions in excess of $25,000 under "term and supply" contracts. At the BCC meeting on October 2007, there was discussion regarding a need to provide information to the BCC regarding such actions for a limited period of time. The "Term & Supply" contract discussed below falls within these informational parameters.

Public Works

Request for authorization to accept the final plat for Mt. Plymouth Club Estates and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Mt. Plymouth Club Estates plat. Mt. Plymouth Club Estates consists of 4 lots and is located in Section 32, Township 19 South, Range 28 East. Commission District 4.

Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2008-6 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1114, to vacate a portion of a right of way known as Appaloosa Trail, and two utility easements, in the Plat of Trails of Montverde, located in Section 10, Township 22 S, Range 26 E in the Montverde area.  Commission District 3.

Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2008-7 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1129, to vacate a portion of right of way known as Mink Road, according to the unrecorded plat of Astor Forest Campsites, located in the Section 19, Township 15 S, Range 28 E, in the Deland area.  Commission District 5.

Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2008-8 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1130, to vacate a portion of a drainage easement, in the Plat of Lake Dora Harbor, located in the Section 35, Township 19 S, Range 26 E, in the Mt. Dora area.  Commission District 3.



Commr. Renick had a concern about Tab 9 regarding the first page of the contract with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson which stated that time spent in travel would be billed at one half of the specified hourly rate.  Her concern was that the attorneys would be on their cell phones doing other business during that time, and she thought that the traveling cost was high.

Mr. Minkoff stated that typically some attorneys will charge more than one client at a time, but he thought that if the attorneys in this firm were traveling and working on the phone and billing other people, he would expect they would not be billing the County at all for that time.  He noted that because it was a Tampa and Tallahassee firm, there was some more travel that was involved.  He also explained that this particular case was an inverse condemnation case, and they were using them more for litigation, which was unusual because they were usually used for general governmental advice where the only travel was when they came to the Board meeting.  He stated that if the Board would like, he could certainly propose to them that they take out the travel payment and see how they react.

Commr. Stewart stated that she also wanted to know whether they could negotiate it.

Mr. Minkoff commented that the rates for that firm were very reasonable compared to what other outside counsel was charging, particularly for litigations.

Commr. Renick stated that she was not concerned about the basic rates, just the travel.

Commr. Cadwell requested that they pull this item and reschedule it so that Mr. Minkoff could go back and see if he could negotiate that.


Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that this was an introduction to a study that was started and funded through the Regional Planning Council on the Scenic Byway.  He mentioned that they had been working on their master plan for trails and would be incorporating a lot of that information into that trail master plan, and they all would be working together on that.

Ms. Patty Hurd, Senior Associate, Transportation Planner, Glatting Jackson, explained that this study was done through the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council with funds from the Florida Department of Transportation.  She related that they were going to present an overview of the project and a summary of the recommendations that came out of it.  She stated that the Green Mountain Scenic Byway was located in Orange and Lake County and ran through the Town of Oakland beginning at CR 438, extended along parts of Old State Road 50, and then hit CR 455 and traveled north until CR 561.  She explained that it was designated as a State Scenic Byway in 2004, and through that process a grass roots community group came up with a vision for the corridor which retained, enhanced, preserved, and expanded all the natural and intrinsic resources and viewscapes along it.  She pointed out that this byway had a natural ecosystem that was not seen anywhere else in the State.  She specified that it ran through the Town of Oakland, the Town of Montverde, and the community of Ferndale, and it was rich in history, culture, and recreational experiences.  She related that she met with many grass roots organizations, landowners, stakeholders, and the public throughout the planning and design process.  Ms. Hurd reported that the Master Plan consisted of seven elements, which were the recreational and open space plan; rural spaces preservation; the places of Oakland, Montverde, and Ferndale;  transportation; corridor enhancements; landscape standards; and wayfinding or signage, which was significant in knitting all the factors together.

Mr. Dan Manley of Glatting Jackson stated that one of the first things they did was to develop some principles that guided the master plan, and the first one they denoted was to preserve small town identity by preserving distinct places along the corridor as well as the decompression areas or spaces between those places.  They also wanted to provide opportunities to learn and experience natural resources such as lakes and hills, create a design authentic to the Byway, facilitate appropriate local businesses, and create safe facilities for all users.  He also mentioned that they had identified a trails network that included both bike trails as well as the development of multi-use trails, nature trails, and a blueway kayak or canoe trail.

Ms. Hurd named some elements that they thought needed to be addressed in the overlay zone as the County moved forward with the Land Development Regulations, such as landscape buffers along the roadway, tree preservation, zoning, cluster development, and viewshed protection ordinances.  She related that they used GIS to find out the areas that were the more visible locations along the corridor so that they could emphasize the preservation of more significant locations and viewscapes.  She mentioned that the Town of Montverde was currently also doing a study along CR 455 that they were helping them with, which included looking at the drainage along that road, safety improvements, dealing with traffic congestion, and redevelopment at an appropriate scale in their town center.  She noted that Ferndale had gotten a lot of attention in the County’s draft of the Land Development Regulations and that it was looking to introduce retail on a very small scale that would be appropriate for the Ferndale area.  She stated that one of their transportation issues was that they really wanted to see bike shoulders on CR 455, since it was one of the most used bicycle corridors in the State, and it would really improve safety along the corridor.

Mr. Manley presented a couple of ideas that they came up with through the public workshop process that could be introduced to help to enforce the character of the byway, such as landscape buffers, particularly through current and future development in those space areas, and shelters at transit stops using architecture whose character was consistent with the rural character of the area.

Commr. Stivender asked where the money was coming from to do this and whether there were grants to apply for towards this project.

Ms. Hurd pointed out that this was a 20-year plan, and they hoped that this would be done in cooperation with St. Johns River Water Management District as they developed restoration efforts and with the towns as private development occurred.

Commr. Renick recognized Mr. Glenn Burns and Ms. Mona Phipps, who were in the audience, for all of their hard work on this project.




Ms. Eve Reynolds with the Budget Office informed the Board that this item was a request to revise the Lake County Health Department fees relating to plans and project reviews under the categories of water, sewer, and environmental health.  She explained that currently they have six fees, and they had expanded these into the fees that were listed under Exhibit A.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Health Department fees as shown under Tab 11 and Resolution No. 2008-9.



Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Manager, stated that this item was their Public Transit Block Grant funds request for initial funding from the DOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and unanticipated revenue in the amount of $275,244.  He explained that their Block Grant funds were currently used to help provide fixed route transportation and ADA complementary services, primarily paying for fuel costs and the drivers’ raises that were approved when they did their last contract amendment.  He also noted that they originally had $446,000 budgeted in their budget for this year, but there was an additional $275,000 that DOT was making available to them for a total amount of $721,000.  He stated that this was a 50/50 match, but because the County had already allocated funds for matching their grant in their budget for this year, no additional money was required by the County.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Joint Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation for funding under the Public Transit Block Grant Program and approval of related Resolution No. 2008-10 for unanticipated revenue in the amount of $275,244.



Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its final reading, by title only, as follows:


Ms. Cathy McGwier from Environmental Services, the Adopt-a-Lake Coordinator, gave a power-point presentation about the program, and began by informing the Board that their mission statement was protecting, preserving, and restoring the County’s natural water resources through community education and volunteer participation.  She went through the conservation elements, which were objectives regarding surface water, springsheds, and habitat and wildlife preservation.  She related that the goals of the program were to increase the coverage of their current water quality monitoring, provide water quality and shoreline protection education, inform citizens about the differences between beneficial and nuisance aquatic vegetation, and remove trash from the shorelines.  She stated that this program would include any waterbody that was listed in the Lake County Water Atlas, which included lakes, springs, rivers, and creeks.  She mentioned that an individual or group could adopt an area and choose to do water quality monitoring, education outreach, and/or pollution prevention.  She showed an example of what an Adopt-a-Lake sign would look like, but assured the Board that signage would only be put up where appropriate, such as boat ramps, marinas, and public areas.  She requested $1,500 from the Environmental Recovery Fund for funding sources for FY 07/08 to be used for operating supplies and promotional activities.  Ms. McGwier anticipated that 30-40 sites would be adopted this year from the interest in the newspaper article that had run, as well as another 30-40 sites next year, and that it would continue to grow from there.

Commr. Renick asked if they needed a second sample using this program in addition to the Lakewatch data that was gathered from the University of Florida.

Ms. McGwier responded that the Lakewatch data was on the Water Atlas and was already being credited to Lakewatch, so they would not need additional information from the Adopt-a-Lake volunteers regarding those sites.  She clarified that they would only get data for the lakes that still needed coverage, since there were so many lakes in the county.

Commr. Hill commented that this was a great program, and she was glad to have help with Ibini Tera.

Ms. McGwier reported that the Ibini Tera clean-up event this year would take place March 1, and if they approved this program, they were planning a kickoff event for Monday, February 25, which was right before Ibini Tera.  She added that they were looking to publicize both of those events together.  She also commented that except for the litter component, the other two components of the Adopt-a-Lake were things that they were already doing to some extent as staff, and they were just trying to market it, promote it, and get even more participation in the program.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2008-1 for the creation of an Adopt-A-Lake Program and approved funding from the Environmental Recovery Fund reserve for operations in the amount of $1,500.00.



Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County Manager, stated that several months ago, there were some issues regarding a number of continuances for public hearings for zoning and that the Board had asked for some input regarding that.

Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management, mentioned that the Commissioners had asked on November 27 for staff to examine the procedure for continuances, and they had four recommendations based on this research for applicant-requested continuances.  One of the recommendations was that the number of continuances initiated by the applicant be limited to one and that additional continuances should only be granted by the Board upon showing of a good cause.  She related that their second recommendation was that a minimum notice for these continuances be ten calendar days prior to the hearing, and  their third recommendation was that a mailed notice of the continuance to the affected property owners be required, which would avoid any inconvenience and cost to the public.  Staff also recommended that the applicant pay any cost incurred by the County caused by these applicant-initiated continuances, which would include the cost to advertise, the postponement fee, and the cost for the postcards and mailing.  The final recommendation was that the applicant be required to either proceed with the scheduled hearing or withdraw their application if a continuance was not granted by the Board.  She stated that if the Board agreed with those recommendations, staff would prepare an ordinance for their review.

Commr. Hill asked whether these continuances only applied to the Board of County Commissioners meetings and not the Zoning Board.

Ms. King answered that it was for the Board of County Commissioners only.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, pointed out that the memo in the backup materials could have been about both the Board Meetings and the Zoning Board, and asked if they wanted the same process for all the public hearings.

Commr. Cadwell thought that they should try this for the Board meetings first and see how it worked.

Commr. Renick stated that if the public felt strongly about something, they would feel like they needed to be at both Zoning and Commission meetings.

Commr. Cadwell noted that some of the delays on the Zoning Board level have helped work things out before it even got to the Board Meetings.

Commr. Renick stated that the applicant found out what a lot of the concerns were at Zoning, and then it came to the Board.  She explained that she was talking about those that got their case put on the agenda and continued it before it was heard.

Mr. Minkoff explained that he understood that the first continuance was automatic, so if they were scheduled for the hearing, decided they wanted to change the hearing date, and did it ten days in advance, it would automatically be continued; they would not have to come to the hearing at all, and the notice would go out to the owners.  He added that if they did not do that and came to the hearing, they still could get the postponement if there was good cause, but they would not be entitled to it.  He also explained that this policy would be an advantage to people even on the Zoning Board level, because if the applicant realized they needed a continuance, they would get it automatically.  He noted that it would also be an advantage to the citizens who wanted to attend, because the applicant would be required to give ten days notice, and the citizens would not have to come.  He related that the current Zoning Board rules were that they were not ever entitled to any continuances, and they had to justify and request it.

Commr. Cadwell recommended that they direct those policies to everyone.

Ms. King clarified with the Board that they wanted these recommendations to apply to the Board of County Commissioners, the Zoning Board, and the Local Planning Agency.

Mr. Welstead asked if they wanted to limit it to one 30-day extension or whether someone could ask for a longer extension such as for 60 days if they knew it would take longer.

Commr. Renick stated that she did not think the time of the extension would matter, as long as the public knew what day the hearing would take place.


Mr. Welstead related that the item they brought up at the meeting on Friday, January 18, was the Florida Association of Counties’ advertisement related to Amendment 1, and he asked if the Board had had an opportunity to look at the DVD of the advertisement and whether they wanted to be part of that.

Commr. Cadwell stated that they gave them a couple of options, one of them was opposing the amendment and one was just supposed to be informational, but he thought that Lake County did not need to be a part of that and to let voters make up their own mind regarding this issue.



Commr. Renick mentioned that Groveland was considering a unique annexation that she thought they had withdrawn and that may come forward again that would create an enclave, which created a problem for the County.  She pointed out that even though creating an enclave was illegal, Groveland could still approve it if no one objected, and she thought the County needed to take action to let Groveland know that creating an enclave was illegal.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Mr. Welstead prepared some maps for them which showed that the proposed annexation would create several enclaves.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place this item regarding the Groveland annexation on the Agenda.

Commr. Cadwell commented that Mr. Minkoff was very familiar with the annexation laws since he had helped write them, and if Groveland’s annexation would create an enclave, he thought they should send Mr. Minkoff to Groveland to object on behalf of the Board.

Mr. Minkoff related that the original proposal created an enclave, but he did not know if it had changed since then.

Commr. Cadwell noted that the Board as a general policy usually did not get involved in those kinds of matters, and it was on a case by case basis, but he thought they needed by motion to direct Mr. Minkoff to do that.

On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved that Mr. Minkoff attend Groveland’s meeting to convey the Board’s objection to the creation of an enclave.


            Mr. Roy Hunter, Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, stated that with the assistance from the Sheriff’s Office, they collected cell phones for people that needed them, such as domestic violence victims and the elderly, and he asked that if any one had any old cell phones, to please drop them off at Walgreen’s at CR 19 and CR 44A or at the Paisley Library.  He added if that was not convenient, the Sheriff’s Department might have some drop-off places they could use instead.  He also mentioned that they would be having their next Chamber meeting on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 6:30 p.m. at Spring Creek Elementary School, and the guest speaker would be Mr. Sean Parks from the Water Authority, who would address water issues and talk about the Niagra Bottling matter.  He also mentioned that they had received a request from Niagra Bottling’s Public Relations Department to also speak at that meeting.  He opined that this would be a very interesting discussion of the pros and cons of this situation.


Mr. Bert McDonald, a resident of SR 44 in Casia, expressed his frustration and opinion about County regulations involving open-air vendors, specifically regarding a man that had been selling produce for a number of years and had been told continuously by code-enforcement officers that he was in violation of County regulations and that he could not operate in the many locations he has tried to operate out of.  He explained that after the Casia Community Club had given the man use of their premises and the man had gotten the appropriate license, lease, keys to the bathrooms, and everything else that was required, the County told him he could not be there.  He commented that it appeared that the County was trying to run the vendor out of business because someone had made an anonymous complaint, and he felt that his tax money should not pay for investigating anonymous tips that were not regarding abuse of children, the elderly, or similar types of domestic problems that had a cause for anonymity.  He also complained that he could not get a delineation or definition of how a structure or a building was defined by the County.  Mr. McDonald pointed out that long ago Florida law allowed for the growth and sale of produce on agricultural land and thought that the County should find a way to let people sell the things that they grew.  He commented that he did not think it made sense to spend his tax money to run vendors that were bringing a substantial amount of revenue into the County out of business.  He asked the Commissioners to take his comments and concerns into consideration at the workshop for this issue that he believed was scheduled for January 29.

Commr. Cadwell commented that they were trying to fix this situation and understood that there was a problem and that it did not make common sense.  He added that they needed to find a way to still take safety and those types of things into consideration, but still make it so people such as that vendor could make a living.

Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director, Growth Management, informed the Board that this subject would definitely be coming up on January 29 and that staff agreed that the way the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR’s) were currently written, it has caused a question that has put Code Enforcement in an awkward situation.  She related that they would like to resolve that on January 29, with the Board’s direction.

Commr. Stewart commented that she also has been frustrated with this, but believed they were taking some positive steps to resolve the situation.  She stated that the vendor that was referred to was doing a service to the County and bringing money into the County, but was getting hit with road block after road block.

Mr. McDonald addressed the Board again to point out that the existing interpretation of the County ordinance would allow that when any place or person got an open air vending license, it would preclude anyone else from having one issued for that same location for over a year, which could also potentially create problems.  He also noted that the problem he alluded to earlier was affecting many other vendors in the County as well as the one he referred to.

Commr. Cadwell assured Mr. McDonald that they were going to work on writing a better law.


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



                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN