A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 17, 2008

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 17, 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; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION

Reverend William Tyson, from the Union Congregational Church in Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

AGENDA UPDATE

Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that the presentation scheduled to be made by Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, related to fire services, was being postponed until the July 1st Board Meeting.  She then requested that Tab 24, under the County Manager’s Departmental Business, a request for approval of a Cooperation Agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, adding the Town to the Urban County Partnership, be combined with Tab 4, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, a request for the same thing, but involving the City of Minneola, due to the fact that they both pertain to the same issue.  A final item that she brought to the Board’s attention was the fact that the $24,600.00 figure mentioned in Tab 5, under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, needed to be corrected, to read $32,800.00.  She noted that the related Resolution was changed to reflect said correction.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, requested approval to add an item to the Agenda, under his Reports, pertaining to a request from Judge Briggs, with regard to the Lake County Judicial Center.  He noted that there was also an Addendum No. 1 to the Agenda, containing a request from him that would need Board approval.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

The Chairman commented that he had an item that would need to be added to the Agenda, which would need Board approval, as well, pertaining to an Ordinance amending the Lake County Code, requiring that an Economic Impact Statement be prepared and submitted to the Board with any future Ordinances being presented for approval.

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

MINUTES

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 21, 2007 (Regular Meeting), as presented; May 9, 2008 (Special Meeting – Departments Workshop), as presented; and May 13, 2008 (Special Meeting – Budget Workshop), as presented.

CLERK OF COURT’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Court’s Consent Agenda, 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.

            Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008/2009

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008/2009, for Cascades at Groveland Community Development District.

            Deer Island Community Development District Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, for the Deer Island Community Development District, in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes.

            Country Greens Community Development District Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 and Notice of District’s Public Hearing

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, from Country Greens Community Development District, in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes; and notice of District’s public hearing, scheduled to be held on July 23, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., at the Hampton Inn, 19700 US Highway 441, Mount Dora, Florida.

            Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District Proposed Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Budget

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Proposed Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Budget for Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District.

            Annexation Ordinance from City of Mt. Dora

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance No. 2008-985, from the City of Mt. Dora, annexing and transferring jurisdiction of Niles Road, from Wolf Branch Road, south of Mt. Dora City limits (north of Hwy. 46).

            Annexation Ordinance from City of Mascotte

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance No. 2008-04-461, from the City of Mascotte, annexing property generally located on CR 33 and Baptist Island Road, comprising 433 acres     more or less.  Said property being contiguous to the City of Mascotte and being annexed, in accordance with the voluntary annexation provisions of Section 171.044 of the Florida Statutes (2006).

            Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission, In re: Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Alachua, Brevard, DeSoto, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Washington Counties, by Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. Docket No. 080121-WS; Filed: May 22, 2008.

            APPLICATION OF AQUA UTILITIES FLORIDA, INC. FOR INCREASED WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES, INCREASED OR

            REVISED SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGES, AND FOR APPROVAL OF ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY INVESTED

            CHARGES

            Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice Before the Florida Public Service Commission, In re: Petition for approval of revised underground residential distribution tariffs, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Docket No. 080186-EI; Order No. PSC-08-0333-PCO-EI; Issued:  May 27, 2008.

            ORDER SUSPENDING REVISED TARIFFS

            Any party adversely affected by this order, which is preliminary, procedural or   intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days, pursuant to Rule 25-22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in the case of an electric, gas, or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case of a water or wastewater utility.  A motion for   reconsideration shall be filed with the Office of Commission Clerk, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, Florida Administrative Code.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

            Commr. Hill requested that Tab 5, a request from Economic Growth and Redevelopment for approval of a Resolution pertaining to “Project Foam”, be pulled, for discussion.

            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, as follows:

            Community Services

            Request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to sign the Second Amendment to the Community Enhancement Area Partnership Agreement between the County and the Friends of Ferndale, allocating Community Development Block Grant funds, to construct two ADA compliant restrooms at the Ferndale Community Center; and approval of related Budget Transfer, in the amount of $20,000 - Commission District 3.

            Request for approval of Resolution No. 2008-85 and Cooperation Agreement with the City of Minneola, adding the City to the Urban County Partnership - Commission District 2.

            Request for approval of Resolution No. 2008-86 and Cooperation Agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, adding the Town to the Urban County Partnership – Commission District 3.

            Growth Management

            Request from Growth Management for approval of Corrected Ordinance No. 2008-19, correcting scrivener’s errors - Commission District 5.

            Request from Growth Management for approval to execute contract with E-Sciences, Inc., consistent with submitted Scope of Services, to perform analysis of request for Conditional Use approval for Residuals Management Facility.

            Procurement

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to "piggyback" Blue Water Area Transit, Port Huron, Michigan contract for three (3) El Dorado EZ Rider II Buses, in the amount of $798,558.00; and related Budget Transfer, in the amount of $268,558.00.

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to (1) declare items on submitted list surplus to County needs; (2) authorize the removal of all items on said list from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records; and (3) authorize Procurement Services Director or designee to sign vehicle titles.

            Request from Procurement Services for approval to award three contracts for On Call Cost Estimating Services to PMA Consultants LLC; Cost Management, Inc.; and Construction Cost Systems, Inc. - Commission District 3.

            Public Safety

            Request from Public Safety, Communications Systems Division, for approval of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry; approval of Resolution No. 2008-87, for unanticipated revenue; and approval for staff to execute release of original lease and receive/adjust funds, as necessary, under the agreement - Commission District 3.

            Public Works

            Request from Public Works for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2008-88, authorizing the removal of "STOP" sign with “All Way” plaque on Vista Del Lago Boulevard (0850) and “All Way” plaques on Lago Louisa Court (0850A) and Castillo Court (0850C) in the Vista Del Lago subdivision, in the Clermont area, to return intersection to a two-way stop – Commission District 2.

            Request from Public Works for authorization to award Dewey Robbins Road Intersection with US 27 Project No. 2008-05, Bid No. 08-0018, to J. Malever Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $145,200.00; and to encumber and expend said funds from Road Impact Fee Fund, Benefit District 4 - Commission District 3.

            Request from Public Works for authorization to accept letter of credit for maintenance, in the amount of $16,761.32; and execute Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements Between Lake County and Jayhil Holdings, LLC - Commission District 2.

            Request from Public Works for approval to accept submitted list of public right of way deeds that have been secured, in conjunction with roadway and/or stormwater projects - Commission Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

            Request from Public Works for approval and execution of purchase agreement with Spring Arbor Village Property Owners Association, Inc., for right of way needed for CR 466 Road Widening Project - Commission District 5.

            Request from Public Works for approval of Resolution No. 2008-89, to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1126, John Simpson, to vacate portion of right of way for Towerwood Drive, located in Section 26, Township 18S, Range 27E, in the Eustis area - Commission District 5.

            COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA

            The County Attorney asked that Tab 18, a request for approval of a Purchase Agreement with Ms. Ellen Meisse, regarding three parcels involving right-of-way needed for CR 466 Road Widening Project - Commission District 5, be pulled until a later date.

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

            Request for approval of Interlocal Agreement between City of Mount Dora and Lake County, for Shared Public Service Radio Communications Facilities for SR 46 Site.

            PRESENTATIONS

            COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT AREA WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION

            FOR COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT AREA PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

            FUNDING

            Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement Coordinator, Community Services, addressed the Board and gave a brief power point presentation about the Community Enhancement Area (CEA) Program applications that were received by the County for next year and the CEA Working Group’s recommendation for the funding of projects and obtaining the Board’s approval of the plan.  He noted that staff has received two applications for next year, one from Yalaha and the other from Ferndale, at which time he pointed out the fact that next year they expect to have $245,000 available for any CEA type projects that the County might want to do.  He stated that work continues on the Yalaha Community Center, since the old community center was finally demolished, in March of this year; the Yalaha Community Club is asking for continued funding for the new community center for next year; and staff is currently working on obtaining an appraisal, to determine the feasibility of purchasing a small parcel of land located in front of the community center, fronting Yalaha Street.  He informed the Board that the CEA Working Group’s recommendation is that the County continue funding construction for the Yalaha Community Center, putting $170,000 towards it, and to put the other $75,000 towards the acquisition of property and the building of a pavilion for Ferndale, however, noted that it would be pending the outcome of environmental site assessments that are going to have to be done, since a gas station was previously located on that site.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Community Enhancement Area Working Group’s recommendation for funding, for Community Enhancement Area Partnership Program projects for 2008/09, for Yalaha and Ferndale, as presented.

            LAKE COUNTY JAIL AND JUSTICE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

            Mr. Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, addressed the Board and introduced those members of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) and a subcommittee that is working on a project with the Council that were present in the audience, as well as representatives from the Sheriff’s Office, the State Attorney’s Office, the Department of Corrections - Probation and Parole Services, the County Probation Office, the Haven, and a representative from the Subcommittee for the Mental Health Investment Grant.

            Mr. Mike Stone, Chairman of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, addressed the Board regarding a report that was submitted by the consultants, Gary Waller and Kevin Warwick, regarding a Jail and Justice System Assessment that was conducted by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), as recommended by the PSCC.  He stated that it was a comprehensive assessment that took place on April 9th, 10th, and 11th of this year, which gave everybody the opportunity to look at the County’s current Jail and Justice System.  Consultants, who were contracted by the NIC, conducted a site visit and met with numerous officials within the County’s Jail and Criminal Justice System and discussed its positive aspects, as well as those areas where there are opportunities for improvement.  He noted that their recommendations and a synopsis of their findings were contained in a report in the Board’s backup material, at which time he presented a power point presentation regarding same.  He informed the Board that there are seven key decisions that determine the workload, size, and cost of any justice system, being:  (1) The decision to arrest or issue a citation; (2) The decision to detain, pre-trial; (3) The decision to release from pre-trial detention; (4) The decision to prosecute; (5) The decision regarding adjudication and outcome; (6) The decision to sentence; and (7) The decision to modify a sentence.  He noted that the Jail’s maximum capacity is 960 inmates, but it is considered full at 760, which involves a lot of variables.

            Mr. Stone referred to a copy of a magazine that he had distributed to the Board, American Jails, reading into the record various excerpts from said magazine, having to do with jail population and recommendations regarding it, one being a community based Day Reporting Center, which he noted is one of the PSCC’s recommendations, and mental health programs, which he noted they currently have a subcommittee working on.  He stated that, if they do not identify those inmates that can be expected to return to jail and take care of the situation before it occurs, then all they will be doing is turning their wheels, which he elaborated on.  He reviewed their observations and themes, as follows:

  • There is an increase in both serious adult and juvenile crime in the County.
  • There is a need for improved data management in the County, to determine who may be a good candidate for intermediate sanction programs.
  • The County has developed a PSCC Committee and is looking at both intermediate sanction options, as well as expansion of the Jail.
  • There are limited community Corrections options in the County.
  • The County has several options, if they decide to add beds.

      Mr. Stone then reviewed specific recommendations for Lake County, being:

  • The County should look at the following intermediate sanction options:

      Citation Release

      Pre-trial Release

      Diversion

      Day Reporting Center(s)

      Electronic Monitoring

  • The County’s PSCC should consider making recommendations as a group, to develop an intermediate sanctions program.
  • The County should develop both a master plan and a public information plan and communicate their plan to the public.
  • Key issues to look at are eligibility criteria, target population, and a full staffing analysis of the programs.
  • The County needs to develop an improved data collection process, to gather key information regarding offender populations.
  • The County should consider a feasibility study, to determine the number of jail beds needed both now and in the future.

            Mr. Stone stated that, as the County continues to evaluate its needs for a new facility, or an expansion of the present site, it should consider the following recommendations:

            (1)        Organize a Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee – A Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee should be established as soon as possible, to

                        begin the planning process, to evaluate the need for a new combined jail facility in Lake County.

            (2)        Develop a Data Base/Management Information System – It is imperative that each agency maintains caseloads and other pertinent information and

                        that someone be charged with monitoring paper flow.

            (3)        Public Relations – The consultants strongly urge that a formal campaign be designed to inform the public of the planning process to deal with

                        overcrowding in Lake County.

            (4)        Criminal Justice System Master Plan – A coordinated long-range master plan should be developed that would support a commitment to leadership,

                        by providing carefully defined goals and objectives, to help the criminal justice system successfully face the challenges of the next ten years.

            (5)        Long-Range Crime Prevention Plan – In support of the Criminal Justice System Master Plan, the County should also develop a long-term strategy

                        for crime prevention, which is not limited to just the agencies in the Criminal Justice System, but should be a community-wide effort, have

                        representation from all components, and include both adult and juvenile offenders.

            (6)        Development of Intermediate Sanction Options – The County should consider design and development of a Pre-trial Release and other

                        intermediate sanctions, such as a Day Reporting Center for selected offenders, and it should consider consolidation of many or all intermediate

                        sanctions that are on site.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned what types of crime would involve a citation and release and whether anyone had an idea as to what it would do to the daily population.

            Mr. Tony Deaton, Lake County Probation Director, addressed the Board and responded to said question, noting that the consultants found that nearly 50% of the Jail population was incarcerated on a misdemeanor charge only.  He stated that local law enforcement is screening individuals for minor non-violent offenses and, if they have no prior criminal history, they are issued a citation and released.  He stated that they could screen even more people and release a larger number, without an increased risk in public safety, who could be supervised in the community through intermediate sanction programs while awaiting trial, noting that 72.5% of the Jail’s population is pre-trial – people that are awaiting trial that have not been convicted of the offense they have been incarcerated for.  He noted that the Jail’s population is increasing at a greater rate than the County’s general population.

Sheriff Gary Borders addressed the Board and discussed what his department is doing, in dealing with this issue, at which time he indicated that he was comfortable with expanding the Citation and Release Program, if the guidelines governing it are in place.

Commr. Renick discussed a concern she had about the dollars that were spent in doing this assessment, even though they were federal dollars, noting that she feels a lot of times the County obtains consultants’ reports about things that the Board is already aware of.  She stated that, with regard to the Jail and the handling of it, she feels staff is doing a very good job.

Commr. Hill clarified the fact that this report is a little different than the average consultant’s report that the Board receives.

Mr. Smith readdressed the Board stating that the report card for the Jail was good, however, noted that staff was informed that they will have to start looking at the future growth of the County and the Jail’s population, to see how it is going to handle it.

Commr. Hill interjected that the purpose of this report was to evaluate what the County has in place and how it can best compliment what is in place, before a new jail is built.  She felt it was nice to have someone come in and re-evaluate how the Jail and Justice System is working and discuss what types of programs might work best for this area and its population, acknowledging the fact that not all areas are the same.

            PHASE II PROJECT SCOPE CHANGES FOR DOWNTOWN TAVARES PROJECT

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that approximately six weeks ago, she asked Mr. Jim Bannon, Capital Construction Director, Facilities Development and Management, along with the architects and the construction manager, to re-evaluate the financial status of the Downtown Tavares Project, in light of the fact that there have been some significant changes in the County’s revenue stream – primarily ad valorem taxes, and she is concerned about how it has affected the budget going forward.  She stated that a couple of years ago, when this project came before the Board, the cost for the entire project, which included some elements that the County is not doing, was over a couple hundred million dollars, but the County envisioned at that time that that would never really be the price, because those numbers were on the very high side.  She stated that it was always intended to be somewhere under a couple hundred million dollars.  The project received approval of the Board and, with the advice of the County’s financial advisors, the County planned to finance the majority of the project through two bond issues at $90 million each, for a total of $180 million of bonds that were paid by sales tax.  The County went forward, received very good bond ratings, did presentations approximately a year ago, and issued the first set of those $90 million bonds, of which said money is currently funding the portion of the project that is moving forward at the present time.  Staff envisioned doing the second $90 million bond issue in 2009, which would bring it to $180 million.  The initial concept was that, should the project be over $180 million, the County would have quite a bit of flexibility with supplemental revenue that could be applied to it – perhaps from the General Fund, in bumping up the $180 million in bonds, but there were other sources that could be put into the project, should there be a need to do so; however, since the legislative changes and the fact that the County is looking at a reduced General Fund, that flexibility has been taken away.

            Mr. Bannon addressed the Board and discussed some recommendations for bringing the project in at the $180 million level, noting that a number of large ticket items were looked at for possible deletion, relating to finishes and materials in the buildings, which he reviewed with the Board.

            Ms. Hall stated that said changes added up to approximately $13 million, which would bring the project in right at $186 million, and she felt the County could probably come up with the additional $6 million in cash, so the Agenda item was written that way; however, since then, a couple of things took place that made the Agenda item obsolete, one being a continuing impact on the County’s revenue stream and next year’s budget, having to do with tax sales that were not as successful as it was originally thought they would be, and the other major component being that the financial advisors have informed staff that they do not believe the County has $180 million worth of bonding capacity any longer, because it is based on sales tax, which is down.  She stated that it does not mean that it will not go back up again, but she is not comfortable with planning for it to, noting that she feels the County has to look at the cost of the program with revenue that it currently has available, which brings the $180 million down further.  She stated that the other item they talked about was the refurbishment of the Judicial Center.

            Mr. Bannon interjected that approximately $20 million was set aside for refurbishment of the existing Courts space, however, noted that it is an area that is being focused in on, as it is felt that refurbishment for that space can be reduced, to save money.  Another possible option would be to leave the Public Defender in the old Public Works Building, but that will require a large piece of the new addition to the Judicial Center to be cut, which would involve major re-planning and re-designing.  He stated that staff was requesting approval of the following:

            (1)        Project scope changes, as defined this date.

            (2)        To move forward with parallel document development, which would offer two options, being: (a) full refurbishment of the existing Judicial Center;

                        and (b) minimal refurbishment of it.

            (3)        To use cash currently earmarked for a number of projects, totaling $6.1 million, as cash supplement for Judicial Center.

            (4)        To retain proposed square footage of Judicial Center – not alter it at all and bring Public Defender back into the building.

            A motion was made by Commr. Hill to approve the request.

            Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion, for discussion.

            Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated that she felt the prudent thing to do would be not to reduce the footprint of the building, noting that a needs assessment was conducted for each function that will be in the building and the size of the building has been adjusted to meet those projections.  She stated that she spoke with the judges about the matter and their input was that future judicial appointments by the Legislature are on schedule and will probably be made, because of the number of court cases that are coming through, and, as the project progresses, depending upon what is voted on in November, those options may come into play, and she would like to lock in the cost, if possible.

            Mr. Bannon interjected that he would have to discuss that matter with the construction manager.

            Commr. Hill indicated that, when the LEED report was done for the County, the project was at 30 points, which is a silver certification, so she feels the County has the benefits of the LEED ideas for the building - there just will not be a plaque on the wall.  She commented that she feels the County needs to put back into the plan the needs of the Sheriff’s Office for the south Lake County area, because they have not gone away.

            The County Manager stated that the complex in south Tavares was looked at for the Sheriff’s Office, but that project was so extensive that the County has not moved forward with it.  She stated that part of the proposal that staff was bringing forward was to move dollars from some currently funded projects into the Judicial Center project and those projects that currently have cash identified for them include some money for the Sheriff’s facility in the Clermont area.  She noted that there is money earmarked for the sound system in the Board Chambers, which could be moved into the project, and there is some money left over from funds that were earmarked for permit fees for the tornado victims of approximately one and half years ago.  She stated that, if the money that was earmarked for the Sheriff’s facility in the Clermont area was moved into the Judicial Center project and the Board wanted staff to continue looking at how to fund that, they could look at some other options for funding that facility.  She stated that she has talked with the owner of the facility and that individual wants to continue to work with the County and is amenable to coming up with some additional funding ideas or programs, to be able to work through it.  She indicated that the County could continue with that concept, but would probably need to extend the agreement that it has with the owner for additional time, while working through the funding issues.

            Commr. Stewart commented that she feels the Sheriff’s Office needs to have a strong presence in the south Lake County area, so she feels better about this proposal, since the County Manager agrees that the County can continue to look at purchasing the facility for the Sheriff’s Office.

            Commr. Renick stated that she did not want the money that was earmarked for that project to suddenly go away – that she felt the County would be getting its priorities out of whack, if it was planning to go ahead with all the other projects and do away with the one involving a facility for the Sheriff’s Office in the Clermont area.

            Discussion continued regarding the project and the cost of same, at which time it was noted by the County Manager that the worst case scenario involves approximately $155 million that the County can count on; however, there are some other pockets of money that staff is working on, through the budget process, to see exactly how much they can come up with.  She stated that part of that is going to be a budget exercise, as staff goes through the summer and designs the budget for next year, and what kind of capabilities there are for supplementing the project.  She stated that she feels the County can get there, with a reduced project, and that staff was asking the Board to give them direction to see if they can make it fit.  She reassured the Board that the County is in a very good position, because the project has not yet been started, so making changes to it now is very timely.  She stated that, fortunately, the change in the County’s funding capability happened at a time when it has the luxury of being able to make changes.  She stated that they need to look at the worst case scenario and plan for it and that is what they are doing, but it is also fortunate that the County is in a position where it can do that.  She noted that construction on the building will not occur for another year, so there is ample time to work through what the project actually is and the funding sources that will be used for it.  She clarified the fact that staff was asking for approval to move approximately $6.1 million that is earmarked for some existing projects into the funding for the Downtown Tavares Project and then fund the Sheriff’s substation in Clermont from other sources.

            Commrs. Stivender and Hill informed the County Manager that they were not comfortable with moving the $6.1 million she alluded to into the funding for the Downtown Tavares project, until they know what projects said funds are going to be coming from.

            The County Manager stated that one of the reasons staff is recommending that the size of the footprint of the Judicial Center not be reduced is so that the Public Defender can move back into it, freeing up the old Public Works building where they are currently located, noting that it is constructed in such a way that it can be converted for use as the County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC).

            Commr. Cadwell questioned how much of the $6.1 million was set aside for the purchase of the Dodge dealership property in Clermont and was informed that it was $5.2 million, at which time he suggested, in order to get things moving, holding $3.5 million back for the purchase of that property and then have staff try to negotiate some other funding sources or payment options for it.

            Commr. Hill amended her motion, to include said suggestion.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the amended motion, which was carried, by a 4-1 vote.

            Commr. Stivender voted “No”.

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, at their direction, the County gave the owner of the property a $100,000 deposit, which is fully refundable, while staff looked at the property, but that, by June 27th, the County is going to have to make a commitment as to whether or not to purchase the property.  He stated that he heard the County Manager suggest that the Board request extending the timeframe, but that, in order to do so, he would need Board approval to go back to the property owner and request additional time, or terminate the contract, if the owner does not want to extend the timeframe, or the County will be at risk of losing that $100,000 deposit.

            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney to ask the owner of the Dodge dealership property in Clermont for a 30 day continuance of the current contract, beyond the June 27th deadline date, alleviating any risk of the County losing the $100,000 deposit on said property.

            The County Attorney informed the Board that, if the owner of the property does not agree to an extension, he will bring the matter back to the Board at the June 24th Board Meeting, which is still before the June 27th deadline, and the Board can look at it again and decide further action.

            PUBLIC HEARING

            CR 19A PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENGINEERING (PD&E) STUDY

            RECOMMENDATION

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Engineering Division Director, Public Works Department, addressed the Board stating that the CR 19A Preliminary Design and Engineering (PD&E) Study project area begins at US 441/SR 500, at the south end of SR 19, in Eustis, and runs south to the Old US 441/Eudora Road intersection, in Mt. Dora.  He stated that it involves traffic volumes, safety issues, impacts to residences and businesses, and proposed roadway improvements that could help with traffic flow, as well as safety on the roadway.  The project began in August of 2006 and presentations have been given to the City Councils of Eustis and Mt. Dora and there have been meetings with individual residents and business owners, at their request, as well.  The design year for this project is 2030 and the traffic volumes expected at that time are 20,000 vehicles per day, on average.  He noted that 11,000 vehicles per day currently travel that segment of roadway.

            Mr. Luis Diaz, PE, with HNTB Corporation, the County’s consultant on this project, addressed the Board and gave a power point presentation on the findings and the process that was used, in coming up with the recommended alternative for the CR 19A Improvement Project.  He reviewed the five steps involved to project completion, being: Planning, the PD&E Study, Design, Right of Way Activities, and Construction, noting that they are currently in the study phase of the project, which involves data collection, identifying a purpose and need, having a very stringent and complete public involvement process, developing alternatives, analyzing the alternatives that are developed, identifying a preferred alternative, giving a presentation to the Board in a public hearing, and then documenting the results, so that they will know why certain decisions were made.  He stated that the purpose of the study is to maximize use of the project corridor, to meet future traffic demands, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding community; identify safety improvements that meet current standards; develop realistic alternatives that can be funded and constructed; develop short term improvements to address critical needs; and maintain coordination with other area projects.  He noted that a kick-off meeting was held on February 20, 2007, and an alternatives public hearing was held on August 30, 2007, at which time he reviewed key public comments that they received at said meetings and noted that at the second meeting that was held on August 30th, three final alternatives were discussed and the majority of the people present preferred the three lane alternative, which provides turn lanes.  He stated that they liked the fact that there were paved shoulders planned for bike lanes; that some of the intersection that was hard to maneuver was being addressed, as part of the study; that they liked having one trail, rather than bike lanes and sidewalks; and the fact that the issue of safety was being provided along the corridor.

            Mr. Diaz reviewed proposed short term improvements that are planned for the US 441 ramps and Lake Center Drive; Bay Road; and Triangle Drive and Lake Center Drive.  He discussed alternative alignments, noting that they looked at the needs and desires of the community, traffic and safety requirements, available right of way, and avoidance of sensitive lands, and evaluated environmental, social, and engineering impacts and came up with three alternatives, as follows:

Alternative A

·        No-Build Alternative

·        No construction or improvements to the corridor

·        40-45 mph

Alternative B

·        Three Lane Alternative (11’ or 12’ lanes)

·        Bike Lanes, Sidewalk

·        Access Management Control

·        40 mph

Alternative C

·        Four Lane Alternative

·        Sidewalk, No Bike Lanes

·        Access Management Control

·        40 mph

            Mr. Diaz stated that, in preparing said alternatives, they looked at realigning Bay Road with Triangle Drive, which was reviewed with the residents and the businesses in the area and the preferred alternative was Alternative 1, which is the one that ties it in a little further west, on Triangle Drive.  He stated that they came up with a couple of options for the intersection of CR 19A and Eudora Road, as well – the first option being to have a regular signalized intersection at said location and the second option being a traffic circle at said location.  Based on the review of public comments and concerns, meetings with individual business owners along the corridor, and accommodating revisions for the business operations, Alternative B was the recommended alternative, however, noted that some of the business owners along the corridor had some concerns on the impacts that they were having.  He stated that they met with said business owners, looked at what their concerns were, and discovered that they could shift the road, still within the existing right of way, to minimize the impact and address all the concerns that the business owners had on CR 19A.

            Mr. Diaz informed the Board that the next steps involved in the process would be to provide the final documentation, once the Board makes its decision on the recommended or preferred alternative presented today; incorporate it into the final document, along with any public comments received today; and then present the final document to the Board.  He stated that they can then get involved with the design, right of way acquisition, and construction, when the funds are available to go into the next steps involved with the roadway improvement.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. and Mrs. Gary Johnson, the owners of Grand Rental Station, on CR 19A, addressed the Board stating that they wanted it on record that a water retention pond that is being planned for one of their properties located on CR 19A for the proposed project is not acceptable – that it is not an option.  She noted that they have a site plan in the works for said property, to expand their business, and wanted to make sure that the County is aware that they do not want a water retention pond on their property.  She noted that the property involved consists of four acres and, by expanding and relocating their business to that site, they are going to be able to provide more jobs for the County, which is what the County needs, with the present economy being what it is.

            Mr. Schneider readdressed the Board stating that there are other sites in the area that could be considered for a water retention pond, however, noted that he could not give the Johnsons any assurances, engineering wise, that their property would not be considered for one.  He stated that a decision regarding it is two to three years out, with construction being approximately five years out, so it is not something that is eminent.  He commented that staff will have time to look at water retention pond locations and designs.

            It was noted that, although Mr. Schneider could not give the Johnsons any assurances that their property would not be considered for a retention pond, the Board could do so, by way of a motion.

            There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that staff was requesting a decision regarding the proposed round-about planned for the intersection of CR 19A and Eudora Road.

            Officer Robert Newsome, with the Mt. Dora Police Department, addressed the Board stating that the City of Mt. Dora is waiting for more information regarding the round-about, before making a decision about it.

            Mr. Stivender interjected that this portion of the proposed project can be deferred until that time.

            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Public Works for approval of the presentation and recommendation of Alternative B for the CR 19A PD&E study project, with a round-about option at Eudora Road, but with an understanding that the Johnson property is not to be considered for a stormwater pond in any future designs and that no decision is to be made about the round-about, until the City of Mt. Dora receives additional information it needs regarding it - Commission District 4.

            RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

            At 10:35 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board was taking a 15 minute recess.

            COPS 2008 UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM

            Lake County Sheriff Gary Borders addressed the Board and asked to place an item on the Agenda, for discussion and approval, regarding the COPS 2008 Universal Hiring Program.

            On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to place said item on the Agenda.

            Sheriff Borders informed the Board that his office was invited by the United States Department of Justice to apply for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 2008 Universal Hiring Program (UHP) Grant, which will pay up to 75% of the approved entry level salary and benefits of each newly hired full-time Deputy Sheriff and that his office is eligible to apply for 10 new Deputy Sheriff positions, since it serves a population greater than 150,000.  A minimum 25% local cash match is required.  He stated that he was just looking for approval to proceed with the grant, because they are facing a deadline.  He indicated that it is a competitive process and, if they are granted any positions, they would have an option to come back before the Board at that time, to discuss funding sources.  He noted that it could be started in Fiscal Year 2009/10, which is probably what they will do, since his office has already turned in their budget.  He stated that they will probably be looking at hiring at least 10 Deputy Sheriffs over the next three years and that the grant will pay approximately 40% of each one of those positions.

            On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the Sheriff for approval to apply for the COPS 2008 Universal Hiring Program Grant, through the United States Department of Justice, where they will pay up to 75% of approved entry salary and benefits for newly hired Deputy Sheriffs and the Sheriff is eligible to apply for up to 10 new Deputy Sheriff positions, since it serves a population greater than 150,000.

            The matter will be brought back before the Board at a later date, with regard to funding sources for said positions.

            COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

            CONSERVATION AND COMPLIANCE

            AMENDMENT TO FY 2007/2008 FEE SCHEDULES

            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Conservation and Compliance Director, addressed the Board stating that there were two requests before them for approval, the first being a Tree Permit Fee, which was originally on the County’s Fee Schedules, but dropped in the last year, when it transferred from Growth Management to Environmental Services – the one department dropped it, but the other department did not pick it up, and, with his department now handling tree permitting, he would like to have it reinstated.  He noted that the fee is for one tree or 100 trees, so the Board might want to look at that issue, to see if some changes might need to be made.  He informed the Board that the second request was for approval of a Landscape Inspection Fee, noting that, currently, when the DRS (Development Review Staff) looks at plans, they charge a $200 Landscape Review Fee for commercial developments and subdivision final plats, to ensure that they have proper landscaping on the site, and the Landscape Inspection Fee is to ensure that said landscaping is in compliance with the plans.  He noted that staff is required to re-inspect the site after 11 months, to ensure that the required plants are still viable and continue to be on the site.

            A motion was made by Commr. Stewart and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to approve a request from Conservation and Compliance for approval of an amendment to the FY 2007/2008 Fee Schedules, as presented.

            Under discussion, Commr. Renick stated that, with regard to the Tree Permit Fee, she felt $75 was a little high.

            Commr. Stivender interjected that that was the reason it was taken out of the Fee Schedules before – the Board decided that the fee was too high.

            Commr. Cadwell withdrew his second to the motion and asked that Mr. Welstead do a little more research on the matter and bring it back before the Board at a later date.

            The motion died, for lack of a second.

            Mr. Welstead stated that, as the County moves forward with this issue, he would like to put in some sort of a tiered structure that would encourage people to come in and get a tree permit and would factor that in, unless the Board objected to it.

            Commr. Stewart commented that she felt the fee was pretty high, as well, and that, with expenses going up, she would rather have the person involved with the act be the one to pay the fee than the citizens at large, but noted that it is going to have to be paid one way or another.

            The request was withdrawn and it was noted that Mr. Welstead would bring it back before the Board at a later date.

            GROWTH MANAGEMENT

            BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH (BEBR) 2007

            POPULATION PROJECTIONS

            Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board and presented the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) 2007 Population Projections that were established in March of 2008.  She reviewed the projections that staff has been using for the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities, what they have been working on with the Lake County School Board, and the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO), noting that the numbers that began in 2004 showed an accelerated rate of growth that was reflective of the housing bubble that was happening at the time; however, BEBR has gone back and reconciled those numbers, based on the fact that the housing bubble is over.  It still shows a growth rate, but it is more reflective of the growth rate that was occurring before the housing bubble.  She stated that staff was recommending that the Board accept the BEBR Medium Projections that were established in the report (Volume 41, Bulletin 150, dated March of 2008) and, if accepted, staff would go back to the LSMPO, the School Board, and those people that are working with Capital Facilities, to reconcile the numbers in their adopted and accepted reports.

            Ms. King was asked whether she had had any discussions with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) about the matter and informed the Board that she had.

            Commr. Hill interjected that she did not want the County to under-plan, commenting that there are issues with transportation, solid waste, schools, etc.

            Commr. Renick stated that the numbers the County accepts are the numbers that are going to be used on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and she feels this is an opportunity for the County to decide what it wants to be, noting that it is not at the mercy of projections – the Board is going to be deciding it, and she would recommend that they go with the BEBR Low Projections.

            Commr. Stivender pointed out the fact that the population projections the County has been using are higher, so they have actually dropped.

            Commr. Stewart interjected that she feels the County can be realistic and plan for the future, even with the low numbers.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that the County can do everything it can to control its destiny, but it is going to continue to grow and questioned whether the Board was realistically looking at the numbers.

            Ms. King reminded the Board that, if they go with any other number – be it lower or higher than the BEBR Medium Projections, staff would have to go back and prepare methodology to justify whatever number that may be, for the DCA to then accept.

            It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan cannot be submitted, until an agreement with DCA is reached, and that the number that staff would be using is for the year 2025, which indicates a reduction of approximately 33,000 people.

            A motion was made by Commr. Stivender and seconded by Commr. Hill to approve a request from Growth Management and accept the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) 2007 Population Projections, which would be the Medium Projections.

            The Chairman announced that he did not plan to vote in favor of the motion, at which time Commr. Hill withdrew her second to the motion.

            The motion died, for lack of a second.

            A motion was then made by Commr. Renick and seconded by Commr. Stewart to adopt the BEBR Low Projections.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-2 vote.

            Commrs. Hill and Stivender voted “No”.

            PUBLIC WORKS

            FINAL STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAKESHORE DRIVE BRIDGE

            IMPROVEMENTS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating that most of the bridges in Lake County were built between 1940 and 1980 and there were a range of design standards that occurred during that time, because of larger vehicles and heavier trucks.  He stated that all of the two dozen bridges in the County are unique, in that they cross water – there are none that cross another road, and they are relatively short.  The County started replacing them in the mid to late 1990s and recently moved forward with the Picciola Bridge project, which is pretty much wrapped up - the County is just waiting for funding to become available to do the project.  The older and weaker bridges that need to be addressed are being targeted, either through traffic volume or just sheer age, or where the original design of the bridge is a little light duty for the normal traffic capacity.  There are a series of bridges that are moving forward, which is a continual process, in that the County adds another one to the program every few years.  The Lakeshore Drive Bridge is an older bridge that has some design features that need to be replaced and will be the next project after the Picciola Bridge project.

            Mr. William Umlauf, HNTB Corporation, the County’s consultant regarding the Lakeshore Drive Bridge Improvements Preliminary Engineering Study, addressed the Board and gave a power point presentation, noting that the limits of the proposed project are from Osprey Point Boulevard to the South Clermont Connector and falls between Lake Susan and Lake Minnehaha, with the bridge actually crossing the Palatlakaha River.  He stated that the purpose of the project is to improve safety on the bridge, since it currently has no shoulders and does not meet current design standards, and pedestrian and bicycle features will be added, without adding any traffic or capacity to the bridge.  He indicated that the consultants are at the end of Phase I of the study and are requesting approval of the concept and to proceed to Phase II, the Final Design.  He discussed the characteristics of the bridge, which was constructed in 1962, and its existing conditions, being a posted speed limit of 35 mph; 11 foot travel lanes; no shoulders; stormwater that runs directly into the Palatlakaha River, without being treated; and there are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities along the roadway.  He then reviewed the Project Goals, as follows:

·        Maintain the posted 35 mph speed limit

·        New bridge with a 75 year design life

·        Bridge under clearance that is consistent with the other bridges on the Clermont Chain of Lakes

·        Meet current standards

·        Pedestrian and bicycle facilities

·        Maintain the existing roadway elevation

·        Minimize disruption to the motoring public

·        Minimize environmental impact

·        Minimize cost

            Mr. Umlauf discussed the existing roadway design, versus the proposed design, as well as the preferred alternative alignment, noting that it is a two lane roadway that will tie into Hammock Ridge Road, which is four lanes.  He stated that they are going to go with a French drain system, eliminating the need for any retention ponds, which eliminates any right of way needs for the corridor.  With regard to bridge alternatives, he commented that there were three, being: (1) Widen existing bridge; (2) Build new three span bridge; and (3) Build new single span bridge.  He stated that some of the things they took into consideration were construction cost, aesthetics, environmental impacts, maintenance, constructability, vertical clearance, and right of way impacts for a single span bridge, versus a three span one, noting that the preferred alternative alignment is a single span bridge.  A public hearing was held on November 8, 2007, where alternative improvements were presented; however, it was noted that only five citizens attended that meeting and their main concerns were the number of piers in the water and making sure that the grade of the roadway was maintained.  He noted that the next steps would be to finish Phase 1, which consists of selecting a preferred alternative and obtaining approval from the Board; start Phase 2 – the design phase, which is anticipated to take 12 months; and then start actual construction of the bridge, which is currently unfunded.

            A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Renick and seconded by Commr. Stivender to approve the Final Study Recommendations from HNTB Corporation for the Lakeshore Drive Bridge Improvements Preliminary Engineering Study, which includes the design and construction of a new two-lane single span bridge with shoulders and a sidewalk, to replace the current bridge, which spans the Palatlakaha River along Lakeshore Drive, south of Clermont - Commission District 2.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

            ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT

            QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY ”PROJECT FOAM” RESOLUTION

            Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth and Redevelopment Director, addressed the Board stating that they had before them a Resolution in support of a project that is recommended for a Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund award.  The award, in the amount of $123,000, is part of an incentive program established by Enterprise Florida, Inc., as a tool for Florida communities to encourage quality job growth in targeted high value added businesses.  The program requires local participation by the County, in the form of a 20% match in funds, which in this case would be $24,600, payable over four years.  Staff recommends that said funds be taken from the Jobs Growth Investment Trust Fund.  This particular project will create 41 new jobs, paying in excess of 150% of the County’s average annual wage.  Each job will qualify for a $4,000 award, for a total of $32,800.  It is a clean tech business and falls in line with the County’s Strategic Plan.

            Mr. Rodney Hughes, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC), addressed the Board stating that the EDC’s role is to bring qualified jobs and opportunities to the community and they feel this project meets that criteria.  The company has the potential to be a Fortune 500 company, with its technology.  It is an environmentally friendly company, out of Del Ray Beach, Florida, that is looking at opportunities to locate not only a facility in Lake County, but also their headquarters.  The EDC feels it is a great opportunity for the region and for Lake County, particularly the Clermont area, which is the targeted location that they have chosen.  The project, which is called “Project Foam”, entails ridding landfills of Styrofoam.  The company uses its technology to return Styrofoam to its original form and then manufactures new polystyrene plastic products.  It is felt that “Project Foam” will provide a solution that expands the opportunity to reduce the world of its problem with Styrofoam.

            Mr. Hughes noted that the company is being recruited by other communities, which have been narrowed down to the City of Clermont and a city in Missouri.  The company meets all the criteria of the QTI Program; the capital investments will be in the millions; it will create not only production jobs, but also administrative jobs, which will bring a high wage to the community, averaging more than 150% of the County’s average wage; and it owns a patent that produces the product, which it is felt could be world changing.  He asked that the Board support “Project Foam” and vote in favor of the request, noting that he feels it might be an opportunity to make the County an example across the world, regarding what can happen with Styrofoam recycling.

            It was noted that the incentives are only given when the jobs are actually created and approved by the State.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Economic Growth and Redevelopment for approval of Resolution No. 2008-90, which recommends that "Project Foam" be approved as a Qualified Target Industry (QTI), and that it be awarded a QTI Tax Refund, which commits to a 20% match in funds of $32,800.00 over a four year period - Commission District 2.

            ADDENDUM NO. 1

            COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORTS

            SEVEN OUT TANK SITE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that they had before them what he hoped would be the final resolution of the action that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took against the County, with regard to the disposal of leachate from the County Landfill that was improperly disposed of at the Seven Out Tank Site in Waycross, Georgia.  The County had contracted with a firm in Jacksonville to dispose of the leachate, which in turn sent it to Waycross, Georgia, and did not dispose of it properly.  The EPA threatened everyone who sent materials to the site and the total cost of cleanup, including what the EPA has already spent, is approximately $1 million.  He stated that Lake County’s portion of that cost is $125,240, at which time he noted that the figure contained in the backup material was incorrect.  He indicated that there is no guarantee that it will be the final amount, because in any environmental cleanup unforeseen things can occur, but the contractor has been hired.  He stated that the process involves the County settling with the EPA, which is what staff is asking approval of this date, and agreeing to join a trust and send the County’s share of money to that trust, for the purpose of paying the agency that has been hired to clean up the site.  He noted that Mr. Mike Bowers, Water Quality Services Director, Environmental Utilities/Water Quality Services Division, is going to be involved with watching what occurs during the cleanup process, enabling the County to have eyes and ears present, as the process goes forward.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of the Seven Out Tank Site Trust Agreement, the Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRP’s”) Group Agreement, the Administrative Settlement Agreement, and the Order on Consent for Removal Action and Allocation Schedule, with regard to the Seven Out Tank Site leachate cleanup.

            REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY (CONT’D.)

            PARKING AT LAKE COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER

            The County Attorney informed the Board that he had received a request from Administrative Judge Don Briggs, regarding some issues involving “Reserved” parking spaces at the Judicial Center that people are not honoring.  He stated that, in discussing the matter with the Judge, he suggested that said sites be posted with “No Parking – Tow Away Zone” signs and requested the Board’s approval to do so.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stivender and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Administrative Judge Don Briggs, through the County Attorney, that reserved parking spaces at the Judicial Center be posted with “No Parking – Tow Away Zone” signs, to prevent unauthorized people from parking in said spaces.

            REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER

            LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE WORKSHOP

            The County Manager, Ms. Cindy Hall, requested approval to schedule a workshop after the Board Meeting on June 24th, which appears to be a short meeting, for staff to present to the Board the Landscape Ordinance and answer any questions there might be regarding it.

            Mr. Brian Sheahan, Community Development and Design Director, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board stating that staff has received several concerns from departments and divisions within the County, as well as from the Home Builders Association and some private consultants, and that they would like to present those concerns to the Board and obtain direction from them on how to bring back a final Landscape Ordinance.

            It was the consensus of the Board that the County Manager schedule a workshop, to be held immediately after the June 24th Board Meeting, to allow staff to present to the Board a draft Landscape Ordinance and get final direction from them regarding it and to provide them with a copy of said Ordinance, for their perusal, prior to that meeting, to allow them time to prepare any questions they may have regarding it.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – VICE CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1

            PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BILL

            Commr. Hill informed the Board that she had received a memorandum from Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO), by way of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, indicating that Pedestrian Safety Bill No. 154, which deals with pedestrian safety while using crosswalks, has been signed into law by the Governor, and they have asked the County to participate and educate the public regarding same.

            It was noted that said memorandum would be given to the Public Works Director, for his perusal.  He will then decide how to handle the matter.

            TRAFFIC REGULATION CHANGE ON HWY. 441 IN LEESBURG

            Commr. Hill stated that she had received a letter from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), regarding a traffic regulation change on Hwy. 441, in Leesburg, from SR 44 to College Drive, dropping the speed limit for that section of the highway to 45 mph and questioned the reason for said request.

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works Director, stated that the County and the City of Leesburg each questioned said change and that he has submitted a request to the FDOT regarding it.

            NOMINATIONS TO 2008/2009 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION’S

            BOARD OF DIRECTORS

            Commr. Hill discussed the fact that there is a deadline for making nominations to the 2008/2009 Economic Development Commission’s Board of Directors and questioned whether those recommendations had to come through the Board, or whether the names are just submitted, and was informed that the names are just submitted.

            SAFETY RESOURCE DEPUTY NEGOTIATIONS

            Commr. Hill questioned how the Safety Resource Deputy (SRD) negotiations are going with the Lake County School Board and was informed that no meetings have been held yet regarding the matter.

            CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR FOCUS PROGRAM

            Commr. Hill informed the Board that she received her Certificate of Completion for completing the FOCUS (Fulfilling Our Customers through Unbeatable Service) program that was put on by Employee Services and encouraged the rest of the Board to attend the program, as well.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2

            MASS GRADING ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION BY LOCAL PLANNING

            AGENCY (LPA)

            Commr. Renick brought up for discussion the fact that the Board had received a letter from Ms. Nadine Foley, Chairman of the Local Planning Agency (LPA), asking that an ordinance addressing mass grading be brought before the Board for consideration.  She noted that she was in favor of it and wondered if the Board was going to take any action regarding it.

            Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works Department, addressed the Board, stating that the proposed Ordinance is in modification to the existing lot grading rules, which deal with single family residential type lots and someone building a home on their lot.  He stated that one of the concerns of the LPA is an overall Mass Grading Ordinance, with some of the members feeling that the County should bring one forward and some of the other members feeling that something should be put in the Lot Grading Ordinance about it.  He stated that they discussed sending a letter to the Board suggesting that, if the Lot Grading Ordinance, as it is currently written, is to be modified, they wanted the Board to know that they had an interest in it and wanted further discussion on the mass grading rule.  He commented that the LPA has put in the Lot Grading Ordinance a mass grading requirement, stating that subdivisions cannot cut or fill more than 10 feet and commercial sites cannot cut or fill more than 15 feet, however, noted that there was some discussion about the Clermont rules and how they may apply.  He informed the Board that a request has been scheduled to come before them on June 24th for approval to advertise the Lot Grading Ordinance, which deals with single family lot grading, under the LDRs, and includes the issue of mass grading, which will come back before them the first Tuesday in August for the public hearing and approval.  He noted that there is a lot of community support for the Lot Grading Ordinance.

            Commr. Renick stated that her experience has shown that the biggest problems involve mass grading, rather than lot grading, and questioned whether the Board would want to direct staff to consider what the LPA has asked for and look at a Mass Grading Ordinance.

            Commr. Stivender stated that she would like to see what the LPA has come up with, to be added to the Lot Grading Ordinance, before taking any action on the request.

            OCEAN ECONOMY FORUM

            Commr. Renick stated that Mr. Ray San Fratello, former member of the Industrial Development Authority, recently informed her that Dr. Duane DeFreese, formerly with the Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute and now in the Department of Biology and Life Sciences at the University of Central Florida (UCF), will be talking about Florida’s ocean economy, which she noted is a sector of an emerging innovative economy, and felt that the Board might be interested in attending the forum.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STIVENDER – DISTRICT 3

            LAKE COUNTY’S ARTS AND CULTURAL ALLIANCE

            Commr. Stivender informed the Board that she wanted to make sure that they were kept up to date about the County’s Arts and Cultural Alliance, noting that staff is working with the United Arts and the municipalities and have come up with a new program for banners, which they will be starting soon.  She stated that disbanding the old way of doing things and creating the new Alliance is working out well.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4

            “OUR COMMUNITY – OUR FUTURE” SESSION SPONSORED BY LAKE-

            SUMTER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

            Commr. Stewart stated that she attended the fourth session of “Our Community – Our Future”, which was sponsored by the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization and its Executive Director, Mr. T. J. Fish, and that she commended them for putting together the sessions, noting that they had the foresight to realize that people need to start thinking about the County’s future 20, 30, 40, and 50 years from now and not just think about it, but start putting a plan of action into place.  She stated that they understand that a truly great county does not wait for problems to arise and react to them, but makes plans now, so that the County can avoid some of those problems, and they understand that everybody has to be involved – the County, the Municipalities, the School Board, and the LSMPO, to make it work.  She feels everyone is on the right track, noting that they all committed themselves to the findings of myregion.org, which was a regional effort that over 20,000 citizens representing the public, private, and civic sectors participated in and came up with ideas about how the County should grow.  She stated that, while she had some problems with it, in the end, she liked what they had to say, which was that the County’s growth should be guided around the aspects of conservation, green open spaces, urban centers, and transportation corridors, which she noted makes sense to her, because urban sprawl is bad for everybody – schools, roads, services, transportation, the economy, the cost of living, and quality of life.  She stated that the whole concept also fits into the County’s Economic Development Plan, noting that the County has got to attract good companies, with high paying jobs, to offset its unbalanced tax base - 80% residential and 20% business/commercial, which is not a good tax base to have.  She further elaborated on the sessions and the fact that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Strategies that they learned from the consultants are helping the County formulate its plan for sound economic growth and fits right in to what myregion.org said, except that they used different terminology – they called it quality of place.  She stated that, if the County does not grow right, it is not going to be able to attract the kinds of businesses that it needs to give the citizens of the County – decent high paying jobs, especially the over 30% that are having to work outside of the County.

            Commr. Stewart stated that every entity in the County has been approached about it and has committed to it, however, noted that lately she feels that some of them may be wavering in their commitment, which scares her, because it just takes one or two of the entities to decide not to work with the rest of them on the big picture that they have committed to and ruin the plan for everybody.  She stated that, unless they all buy into it, it is doomed to fail and things will end up being business as usual and the same things that have been a detriment to the County in the past will continue to happen – urban sprawl, the cost of services going up, and the quality of life and place going down.   She informed the Board that Mr. Fish is going to be holding some meetings with the various Task Forces throughout the County, to specifically discuss the detriment that sprawl has on the County, and she would like to invite the cities and their representatives to participate in those meetings, noting that she feels it is important for the future of the County.

            REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 5

            ADVERTISING OF ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ORDINANCE

            Commr. Cadwell presented the Board with a request for approval to advertise an Ordinance creating Section 2-25 of the Lake County Code, entitled Economic Impact Statement, which will require that, when an ordinance is brought before the Board for approval, an Economic Impact Statement be prepared by the County Manager, or designee, and be provided to the Board, identifying the potential economic cost and benefits of the proposed amendment to the County internally, as well as to property and building owners, industry, and the labor market.  He noted that the backup material contained some examples from other counties that had adopted such an Ordinance.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Ordinance would identify positive impacts, as well as negative ones, and should not be seen as a negative type of cost to the County.

            On a motion by Commr. Stivender, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to advertise said Ordinance.

            CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

            Mr. Anthony Wiseman addressed the Board suggesting that they look at the rules and regulations that govern the County’s Flea Market, which is held at the Lake County Fairgrounds, and possibly get some input from the vendors regarding them, noting that he has been a vendor at the Flea Market since 2006 and had an incident occur recently with a new vendor over having a local newspaper delivered to his home.  He stated that he complained to the Flea Market staff that the newspaper he paid for was not being delivered to his home, but that the vendor would not refund his money, and that the staff would not do anything about it.  He felt they were not standing behind him and that they had let that vendor defraud him, after he had been a vendor there for several years, so he started telling people about his experience and was told by the staff that he could not do that - that he was on private property and could not talk to other people about his experience and try to hinder the other vendor’s business in any way, so he informed them that, since he had been a vendor there for years and they would not stand behind him, he no longer wanted to be a vendor there and would like a refund of the money that he paid for his spot, but was informed that he was not eligible for a refund, because he had signed paperwork to that effect.  He stated that he feels he was treated unfairly by the staff and that his money should be refunded, at which time he noted that, if a vendor is a few minutes late, they will rent that spot to another vendor, even if the vendor has been renting that same spot for years, and he did not think that was right.

            A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time a motion was made by Commr. Stewart and seconded by Commr. Hill to place Mr. Wiseman’s request on the Agenda.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion to place said item on the Agenda, which was carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote.

            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board directed the County Manager to have staff refund the money ($14.12) that Mr. Wiseman paid for his spot at the Flea Market and to look at the Flea Market’s rules and regulations and determine if any changes need to be made.

-------------------------

            Ms. Gwen Manning, former Mayor of the City of Eustis, addressed the Board stating that she has been working with Mr. Bill Gearing, Community Enhancement Coordinator, and the Community Enhancement Area Working Group, regarding a project in Yalaha.  She thanked the Board for their support, in approving the recommendation of said group, presented to the Board this date, and to let them know that the group is working hard in Yalaha.

            The Chairman thanked Ms. Manning for all she does.

            ADJOURNMENT

            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

 

 

__________________________

NEIL KELLY, CLERK