FEBRUARY 3, 2009

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 3, 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; Elaine Renick; Jimmy Conner; 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; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.


Reverend Leon Bloder from the First Presbyterian Church of Eustis gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Commr. Cadwell announced that they were going to move some items around on the Agenda, and reported that he had an item to add to the agenda that was a Board appointment to the Shared Services Network.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to place that item on the Agenda.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that at the end of the meeting today, he would like to have a closed session with the Board to discuss union negotiations and that they could do that after they adjourn the meeting this morning.


Commr. Cadwell presented the employee awards with Ms. Kasie McAdams, Employee Services Manager, commenting briefly about each employee’s service to the County.


Michelle Perrier, Animal Shelter Technician, Public Safety/Animal Services

Sharon Wall, Employee Services and Quality Improvement Director, Employee Services and Quality Improvement


Deborah Miller, Office Associate III (not present), Environmental Utilities /Mosquito Management

Phyllis Miller, Dispatch Officer, Public Safety/Animal Services

            Mary Pfeifer, Library Technician, Community Services/Library Services


Donna Gray-Williams, Librarian III, Community Services/Library Services

Mitchell Montgomery, Energy Maintenance Technician (not present), Facilities & Development/Energy Management


Braxton Bisceglia, Fire Lieutenant/EMT, Public Safety/Fire Rescue

Karen Chester, Associate Planner, Growth Management/Zoning


Clarence Gillard, Sign and Striping Technician, Public Works/Road Operations/Sign, Signals and Striping


Ryan Ross, Internet Applications Developer, Information Outreach



Sean Loughlin, Disaster Assistance Coordinator, Public Safety/Emergency Management


Karen Burt, Office Associate III, Public Works/Road Operations



Mr. Jim Bannon, Director of Capital Construction, stated that this presentation was in connection with the roundabout which was part of the Phase II Downtown Judicial Center project.  He reported that they would concentrate on the design, costs, and pros and cons of the roundabout.

Mr. Joe Waddell, Landscape Architect with Heery Design, stated that they would give a summary of the roundabout at the intersection of Main Street and Sinclair, and he gave a brief overview of the project, including the new courthouse, the new parking garage, the 320 office building, and how the intersection relates with the County Administration Building, Historic Courthouse, and the jail.  He noted that this intersection was thought of as the gateway from the west side of the city and would set precedent for what happens with new downtown streetscape as well as being almost the center of the Judicial Center Complex.  He presented a slide on the overhead showing the existing conditions at that four-way intersection with a traffic signal, two lanes running east/west on Main Street west of Sinclair with a lane in the middle for left turns, and three lanes southbound and northbound on Sinclair with parking on both sides.  He mentioned that in 2005 there was a massive plan done for the streetscape of the City of Tavares, where this intersection was shown to be a roundabout to help with the traffic on that side and to reflect the roundabout that was on the east side of town.  He showed on the next slide 32 points of vehicle to vehicle conflicts and 24 points of vehicle to pedestrian conflicts on a typical four-lane intersection with a traffic light as well as 8 vehicle to vehicle conflicts and 8 vehicle to pedestrian conflicts that were identified at a roundabout intersection, showing that the fluid movement of the roundabout significantly reduced these possible conflicts.  He pointed out that the crossings in the roundabout were back from the intersection at least a car length to provide a place where the pedestrians only had to cross traffic coming from one direction just one lane width before stopping at a place to rest in the middle and allowing them to proceed across from there, making a wide crossing safer.  He also commented that at a roundabout, traffic usually flowed smoother and that there were no mechanical failures.  He noted that the disadvantages were that sometimes bicycles were less secure going around with traffic and that people would need to be educated about roundabout use since it was new to people.  However, he mentioned that people were usually very successful once they got the knack of it.  Another disadvantage was that it would make it more difficult for visually impaired people to cross without a signal.

Mr. Waddell reported that in 2007 they had prepared various designs for a roundabout, which were included in the Public Facilities District Ordinance that was passed with the City, and one of several key factors of this intersection was the provision of a bicycle lane that would run from the west side of the courthouse to the Sinclair intersection and then down to connect south on Sinclair in the direction of Wooten Park.  They had expanded the roundabout and the various pedestrian crossings to 100-foot diameter, which provided space for an amenity in the center.  He showed that this roundabout allowed for the bicyclists to either stay in the right lane and follow the roundabout traffic or walk their bicycles on the sidewalk.  He noted that the agreement with the City required two twelve-foot lanes on Main Street running east-west and two six-foot bicycle lanes.  He reported that the estimated cost for this roundabout was about $3.17 million, which included all the amenities, parks, other improvements, and utilities.  He presented a slide of a proposed smaller roundabout with a 60-foot diameter, which was the minimum size they recommended to give enough space for people to maneuver safely.  It had the same characteristics of the larger one and incorporated the requirements of the bicycle lane and the lane widths on Main Street, at an estimated cost of $2.8 million.  He then showed a slide of a signalized intersection which followed the recommendations by the traffic consultant, pointing out the markings for the turn lanes.  He related that there was about 200 feet of left turn lane for vehicles going north to the parking garage, and in most ways it was very similar to what they currently had.  They had included six-foot bike lanes westbound on Sinclair, which required them to go outside the existing curve line into green space that they were trying to maintain with the roundabout designs.  He specified that this intersection would cost approximately $2 million.

Commr. Cadwell inquired whether that included engineering costs for that intersection.

Mr. Waddell responded that it would not include the engineering costs and that the engineering had only been done on the 100-foot roundabout.  He then showed another slide which illustrated a signalized intersection, eliminating the bike lane completely on Main Street west of this intersection, with a cost of about $1.8 million.  He pointed out that each of the concepts retained the parks that were part of the project.

Commr. Conner stated that his main concern about the roundabout has been the cost, and he opined that they would probably not be able to complete Phase II of this project as presented and might have to look at building within their budget.

Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, whether he had an average cost of an ongoing expense for a signalized intersection, including the replacement of the lights, timing, and electricity.

Mr. Stivender responded that there was an ongoing annual cost and a utility fee, and he would get back to him with the exact cost.

Mayor Nancy Clutts of Tavares stated that this roundabout was proposed to bring citizens in and out of that area as efficiently as possible so that traffic was not stacked up during peak times beyond the intersections.  She commented that as an elected official, she understood that they had to look at things in terms of financial obligations, but when making a request to substantially amend the permit, she hoped that they understood that the conditions they placed upon every applicant that comes before them must also apply to those in government.  She commented that making a change in the permit at the eleventh hour because they did not have the money to fulfill their financial obligations after they had built the building was a little difficult to understand, and she pointed out that the private sector commercial and residential developers did not have the opportunity to make that same argument.  She understood that they had to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, but reminded the Board that the City of Tavares was a partner with the County, and they wanted to diminish as many adverse impacts for their citizens as possible.  She noted that one of the most important things that they had acquired through their three-year long public input sessions was that they had pride in their community, and they were investing in their city.  She emphasized that as a result, their elected leaders bonded $8 million of their taxpayers’ dollars to invest in the neglected downtown that houses the County’s offices.  She hoped that the Board would demonstrate the same respect to their citizens as they have done.

Commr. Renick apologized for the eleventh hour discussion of amendment of the permit, and opined that the roundabout was always presented to her as an option.  She also just recently discovered that this was part of the agreement with the City of Tavares, and she did not want to renege on an agreement with them.  She inquired whether it was the architect’s understanding that the roundabout was integral to the project and not an option that could be taken out at any time.

Commr. Cadwell commented that he did understand that they were going to put in the roundabout.

Mr. Bob Egleston, Executive Associate, Heery-HLM explained that that was part of the Public Facilities District Ordinance that was passed by the City during approval for the entire rezoning of the project, and that was his understanding all along.

Mr. Bannon stated that he knew there was a developer’s agreement, but he thought there was still the potential to take it out.  However, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, confirmed to him that it was part of the developer’s agreement, and it would not be easy to pull it out.

Commr. Cadwell stated that there might be part of the project in general that was not done due to economic restraints, but they were going to build infrastructure that they promised the City in the Agreement.

Commr. Stewart asked if it was possible to compromise by going with the smaller roundabout that was presented.

Mr. John Drury, City Manager for the City of Tavares, pointed out that a developer’s agreement was a package, and when they negotiated the developer’s agreement, the City agreed to procedural concessions that saved the County millions of dollars.  He emphasized that a lot of time and effort was spent negotiating a whole package deal to save the County’s citizens as much money as possible and to get this as bare bones and basic as they could.  He stated that picking and choosing little pieces of this project would affect everything else that was negotiated to save them that money on their project.  As far as the safety issue, he related that there were hundreds of case studies that cited facts showing the safety of the roundabout, and opined that they were the safest form of intersections.

Commr. Hill pointed out that the roundabout was part of the development order, was what fit the best into their overall development plans, and what was wanted by the citizens of Tavares.  She also did not know the cost feasibility of going back through the whole process again, and she was concerned about the trust that they had built with the City of Tavares.  She noted that they wanted the area to be as pedestrian friendly and esthetically pleasing as possible and to be an asset to downtown.  She also pointed out that they have not actually bid this project out, so the costs could be less than they anticipate.

Mr. Glen Mullins, Vice President Regional Manager with PPI stated that the figures presented were estimates, and nothing has been purchased from subcontractors at this point.  He was hoping that the markets would be favorable to them.

There was consensus to give staff direction to move forward with the development order.


At 10:00 a.m., the Chairman announced that there would be a ten-minute recess.


On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously, by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of January 6, 2009 (Regular Meeting), as presented.


On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Court’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 6 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.

            Monthly Distribution of Revenue

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Monthly Distribution of Revenue Traffic/Criminal Cases, for the Month Ending December, 2008, in the amount of $186,592.14.  Same period, last year: $149,999.57.

            Before the Public Service Commission

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Before the Public Service Commission:

Notice of Application For An Original Certificate

Notice is hereby given on January 9, 2009, pursuant to Section 367.045, Florida Statutes of the application in Docket No. 080499-WU of TLP to operate an existing water system providing service in Lake County, Florida

            Before the Public Service Commission

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Before the Florida Public Service Commission

            Commission Conference Agenda

Monday, January 26, 2009, 9:30 a.m., at Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148

Docket No. 080632-EU – Joint petition for approval of amended territorial agreement in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Citrus, and Levy Counties by Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

            Resolution from City of Mount Dora

            Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of executed Resolution No. 2009-01 from the City of Mount Dora adopting an amendment to the Northeast Community Redevelopment Agency Master Plan to promote pedestrian and bicycle access to community facilities and to include Lincoln Avenue shared use trail as a NECRA Project.

            Notice of Application for Extension of Service Area

            Request to acknowledge receipt of Notice of Application for Extension of Service Area – Pursuant to Section 367.045, Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030, Florida Administrative Code, notice is hereby given on January 22, 2009, by Lake Utility Services, Inc., 200 Weathersfield Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, of its “quick take” Application for Amendment to Water Certificate No. 247-W and Wastewater Certificate No. 465-S for territory in Lake County, as described in Notice of Application.

Any objections to the Application must be made in writing and filed with the Commission Clerk, Office of Commission Clerk, Florida Public Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this notice, with a copy provided to Martin S. Friedman, Esquire, Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP, 2180 W. State Road 434, Suite 2118, Longwood, Florida 32779.  The objection must state the grounds for the objection with particularity.


            Commr. Conner stated that he wanted to pull Tab 10 for discussion.

            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 17, pulling Tab 10, as follows:


            Request for the following budget change requests:

Budget transfer - MSTU-Stormwater Section Fund, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, MSTU Stormwater Section.  Transfer $803,751 from Professional Services to Infrastructure-Design/Permits for various project accounts (list attached).  The engineering, design and permitting component of each approved stormwater project was budgeted in the professional services object code, which is in the operating category.  This transfer will realign all approved design funds to an object code in the capital category for the same project.  This transfer will assist with tracking project costs and was a collaborative effort between Budget, Finance and Public Works.  Budgeted project amounts do not change.

Budget transfer - MSTU-Stormwater Section Fund, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, MSTU Stormwater Section.  Transfer $8,655,458 from Improvements Other Than Buildings to Infrastructure-Construction for various project accounts (list attached).  This transfer will realign all approved stormwater construction budgets to new object codes in the capital category for the same project.  This transfer will assist with tracking project costs and was a collaborative effort between Budget, Finance and Public Works.  Budgeted project amounts do not change.

Budget transfer – Public Lands Capital Program Fund, Department of Budget.  Transfer $187,500 from Public Lands Program (Growth Management) to Public Lands Program (Public Works).  Due to the Fiscal Year 2007-08 reorganization of Public Lands from Growth Management to Public Works, these funds need to be moved to the Public Works org code.

Budget transfer - Various Assessment Funds, Department of Budget.  Transfer $637,459 from the current object codes of various assessment funds to new object codes for the various assessment funds.  Need to reclassify various revenue object codes to reflect the Fiscal Year 2008-09 updates to the Uniform Accounting System Chart of Accounts as required by the State of Florida.  Update information was received from the State of Florida Chief Financial Officer.

Budget transfer – Landfill Enterprise Fund, Department of Environmental Utilities, Solid Waste Programs Division.  Transfer $11,930,000 from the current Solid Waste Disposal Assessment object code to the new Solid Waste Disposal Assessment object code.  Need to reclassify various revenue object codes to reflect the Fiscal Year 2008-09 updates to the Uniform Accounting System Chart of Accounts as required by the State of Florida.  Update information was received from the State of Florida Chief Financial Officer.

Request for approval for the Chairman to sign the Public Assistance Subgrant Agreement (Funding Agreement) with the State of Florida for Tropical Storm Fay (2008).

Request for approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached FY 2008-09 Computer Network Interlocal Agreement related to funding of State Attorney technology support costs. Approve quarterly payments for contractual services under this agreement.

            Community Services

            Request for approval of Resolution No. 2009-13 to amend the General Fund in order to receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2008-09 in the amount of $12,000.00 from Suwannee River Area Health Education Center, Inc. to implement “Your Heart, Your Life” community education program; and approval from Chairman or designee to sign contract and any supporting documents to implement program in Lake County.

Growth Management

            Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute interlocal agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills relating to collection of Lake County Impact Fees and Fire Rescue assessments.  Commission District 3.


            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 and contract modification actions in excess of $25,000 under "term and supply" contracts and in certain other specified contractual actions. At the BCC meeting in October 2007, there was discussion regarding a need to provide information to the BCC regarding such actions for a limited period of time. The contract actions discussed below fall within these informational parameters.

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

            Public Works

            Request for approval of Amendment #1 to the Dead River Stormwater Pond Contract for PEC to prepare the LCWA grant application package to cost share the construction, and extend Contract # 04-077 through September 30, 2009 in order to complete the construction bid process.  Commission District 3.

            Request for approval of Amendment #3 to the Hollondel Road Regional Pond Contract to prepare grant application package to LCWA to cost share construction, and extend Contract # 04-077 through September 30, 2009 in order to complete the construction bid process.  Commission District 3.

            Request for approval and signature on Resolution No. 2009-14 authorizing the posting of "No Parking on Right of Way" signs on the Public Cross Access Easement on the north side of Hooks St (1346) in the Clermont area, in Commissioner District 2.

            Request for authorization to award #1040 Lakeshore Drive Intersection with #1039 Harder Road Project No. 2009-04, Bid No. 09-0015 to Boykin Construction, Inc. in the amount of $395,297.95, and encumber and expend funds in the amount of $395,297.95 from the Road Impact Fees Benefit District 5 Fund. Commission District 2.

            Request for approval of the Legends Way Phase II project total cost of $1,159,856.66.  Commission District 2.

            Request for approval and acceptance of the list of public right of way deeds that have been secured in conjunction with roadway and / or stormwater projects. (Commission Districts 1, 2, 5).

            Request for approval of budget amendment and a capital substitution to be used for the purchase of equipment.


            On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 18 and 19, as follows:

            Request for release of the escrow money currently being held by the escrow agent to Amerirus, Inc./Frederick Belton in the amount of $90,000 and to Lake County in the amount of $30,000; authorize the County Attorney's Office to execute the necessary escrow release documents.

            Request for return of $5,000 deposit by Superior Concrete Services held by the Clerk of Court for professional fees for a noise consultant.  Commission District 2.

            PUBLIC SAFETY


            Commr. Conner inquired how long they would have the grant money and what the long term plan was regarding the FEMA EOC Grant Program funds referred to in Tab 10.  He also asked if there was an expectation that they would be building something in the next 36 months.

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, explained that the $250,000 would be an in-kind match, and the grant was written so that land donation would count towards that.  She related that they did not have a specific project yet, but they have been looking for sites.  However, the site selection has been incredibly difficult to find a site that was suitable for EOC (Emergency Operations Center), but they were still investigating two or three different areas.  She also noted that they were already successful in obtaining two or three grants that have different requirements and time frames to them, but it was possible that they might not be able to benefit from all of them since they did not have anything going at this time.

            Commr. Conner asked if there was an expectation from their staff or the distributor of the grant to build some sort of a facility within a certain amount of time.

            Commr. Cadwell responded that it had always been on their project list, because they knew the dire straits they were in by having the EOC in the Administration Building, but every time they thought they had come up with a solution, something else had changed that caused them not to be able to do it.

            Mr. Jerry Smith, Emergency Management Director, reported that the figure they were currently using as a possible project was $7 million for the total building, and they had up to $3.7 million in total commitments so far.  He explained that if they did not meet the stipulation of the contract with the State of Florida, which currently was to build a minimum of 10,500 square feet for an emergency operations center, then the funding would be returned.

            Commr. Conner asked if there was a time commitment in the grant that required them to build the building in a certain length of time.

            Commr. Cadwell responded that the period of performance was 36 months, but that did not mean that the building would be done in 36 months, only that they were in the process.

            Mr. Smith stated that they did not know specifically on this particular grant what that will state, and the current grant that they have with the State of Florida for roughly up to $1.2 million for general construction and up to $1.5 million to harden the facility states that the building would be built by June 30, 2009.  He added that they could apply for extensions of contracts and up until the summertime had complete support from the Florida Division of Emergency Management, who the contract was with, to get those extensions, because they understood the conditions.  He explained, however, that they did not have stipulations in this contract and would not know that until probably around September, when the actual award would be provided to them.

            Commr. Conner clarified with Mr. Smith that by accepting the grant, they were not committed to building the building if they did not have the money, and he commented that there was not any reason not to apply for it.

            Mr. Smith recommended that they continue to apply for this grant, and then at the point they would be able to accept it, they could have further discussion at that time, or if the three years ran out without expending the funds, they would be returned to the Department of Homeland Security.

            On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 10, the request from Public Safety for approval for the Emergency Management Division to submit a grant application to the State to be considered for FEMA EOC Grant Program funds in the amount of $1,000,000 to construct an Emergency Operations Center (EOC).




            Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Services Director, stated that this item was regarding some updates to LCC-11 and commented that they were currently going through the library policies with a little bit of a different process than in the past, because they were a cooperative library system.  She explained that policy revisions started with the Library Directors, including input from the Branch Managers.  They were then taken to the Library Advisory Board, and once they got their recommended approval, then they sent it out to their city member libraries to get their approval.  She noted that this procedure was laid out in their interlocal agreement with the member libraries, so the policies brought to the Board had already been approved by all the cities.  She related that the policy was originally developed in 1993, which was before they had branch libraries, so they added branch libraries in the policy and were also recommending changing the name of the policy to broaden it to also include how donations were treated, how materials were de-selected or weeded, and to add updated documents from the American Library Association.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 21, the request from Community Services for approval and signature of revised Policy LCC-11, Lake County Library System Collection Development Policy. 



            Mr. Gregg Welstead, Director of Conservation and Compliance, recapped that in July the Board received a presentation from Mr. Gary Siebein, Senior Principal Consultant, Siebein Associates, Inc. concerning noise and directed staff to look into multi-tiered limits with potential of a study.  After a number of months, they finally pinned it down to a proposal of $50,000 for a study, which was a little more expensive than they considered as appropriate.  He reported that since that time, Mr. Minkoff has drafted an ordinance dealing with new development, which was going to the LPA (Local Planning Agency) this month.

            Commr. Renick commented that although they had doubts about the noise study to begin with, staff has been researching this thoroughly, and she thought they should go forward with what staff has already in the works.

            PUBLIC HEARING


            Mr. Minkoff stated that this was a public hearing because it was a development agreement pursuant to Florida Statutes, which the County entered into with the developer of The Villages.  He explained that The Villages had several DRI’s (Developments of Regional Impact), and they were making a modification to the one in Sumter County.  As part of it, they were attempting to change many of them and change their agreements with DOT (Florida Department of Transportation) in terms of the monitoring and modeling that were required.  He specified that under the existing DRI’s, they were required on a regular basis to monitor traffic on US Hwy 441, CR 466, and CR466A, and if they have an impact that exceeds the thresholds in the DRI, then they were required to make improvements to those roads.  As part of their discussions with DOT, they were seeking to eliminate that monitoring and modeling requirement, and a main part of that is that they were going to be widening a significant portion of State Road 301 in Sumter County.  The Villages also wanted to get rid of the local requirements, and he believed they were entering into agreements with Marion, Lake, and Sumter Counties to deal with local monitoring and modeling.  In Lake County’s case, this proposed agreement would relieve them of the requirement that they monitor, model, and make improvements to CR 466A, and in exchange for that, they have agreed to complete construction of CR 466, of which the County was in right of way acquisition at this time, so this agreement would obligate The Villages to take the construction from Rolling Acres Road all the way across US Hwy 27 to Lemon Street.  He mentioned that the County would be paying some of the costs, including the costs east of US Hwy 441/27 on Lemon Street where it was necessary for the road to be changed to link up to the new CR 466, and he thought they agreed to pay some minor stormwater piping from CR 466 to the north towards the town’s library.  He added that the County also agreed to tear down the building that they agreed to purchase last week.  He noted that the County has worked with the Department of Transportation to ensure that the expenditures by The Villages will still qualify the County for the $5 million TRIP grant that they had previously gotten, and they had billed DOT for the first $500,000 or $600,000 that they have not received yet.  The Villages was working with the County to get them a written assurance from DOT that they would hopefully have before the second reading of this agreement confirming again that they would still be receiving those funds.  He reported that this advertised public hearing was the first reading, and the second reading would be in two weeks.

            Commr. Hill felt that the Board needed to give Fruitland Park the assurance that the dollars that were going to go to CR 466A would be forthcoming, since it was not in this development agreement, but it did pertain to the County and their commitment to the City of Fruitland Park.  She asked what the best way was to formally make sure that Fruitland Park had that assurance that any leftover dollars would go to them, and suggested that a separate resolution could be drawn up to that effect to give them that assurance.

            Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, stated that because of this project coming in, they already assigned $2 million to CR 466A that did not exist in the program that the Board approved in August, so that would be one assurance that they were showing.  Also, he pointed out that the funding that they were reimbursed from the Department of Transportation TRIP funding would also go to this project, and they hoped to see the whole $5 million if that funding was not cut.  He also added that the acquisition of the right of way is in the works and almost completed, and once they have those numbers, what monies are assigned to CR 466 would also be assigned to CR 466A.

            The Chairman opened the public hearing.

            Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter MPO, stated that they had been working with Lake and Sumter Counties, Fruitland Park, and Wildwood; and the biggest concern to the MPO was making sure that they follow this format as they try to get these projects accomplished and making sure all the voices are heard.  He commented that from the MPO’s perspective, cooperation did not get much better than this agreement.

            Mr. Scott Gerkin, Attorney for the City of Fruitland Park, commented that CR 466A was an issue that came up at many meetings.  He related that one of the first things he did as city attorney was oversee an interlocal agreement with the County, which illustrated the cooperation just discussed, where they used impact fee money to begin the plans for the widening of CR 466A that was now hopefully coming to fruition.  He stated that there have been many years of planning and public meetings, which has been positive.  He opined that Fruitland Park was a friendly, small city that really came out to support a project and that this project was important to the City of Fruitland Park and its citizens, since CR 466A literally cuts through the heart of the town.  He stated that the current plan was similar to what was originally presented to Fruitland Park several months ago, which was a positive thing.  He noted that the original concern of Fruitland Park was alleviated, because the funds that the County had slated for CR 466 as well as the $5 million in the DOT TRIP money were going to be shifted to CR 466A and basically taken care of by those monies.  He commented that Fruitland Park was very happy to support it, and he agreed that it was a wonderful example of people making some common sense decisions and appreciated the MPO’s involvement in making that happen.  He also commented that in recent weeks, because money was so scarce and there were impact fee concerns, there have been some waffling on whether that money would be there for CR 466A, which was what brought out the concern from Fruitland Park.  He also noted that he understood that the agreement that was to be approved today was not with Fruitland Park as well as the reason why the plans for CR 466A were not put in there, but they would appreciate some sort of a resolution documenting what the Commission said today.  He mentioned that they also understood that the Capital Improvement Plan was coming forward for amendment at the next meeting, and the timing for CR 466A was going to be moved up with right of way acquisitions to begin formally this year.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that they can add wording in the plan itself that specifically spelled that out to give Fruitland Park that comfort level.

            Commr. Renick also suggested that as part of the motion today they include that there would be an interlocal to spell out that Fruitland Park would get the monies for CR 466A, so that there was no confusion in the future.

            Mr. Ralph Bowers, City Manager of Fruitland Park, stated that would make them very happy and that he appreciated all the attention the Board was giving this.  He commented that anything they could do to memorialize the commitment would make them feel good and that they have been fully supportive of the process going forward.  He relayed that Fruitland Park Commr. Sharon Kelly asked him to convey to the Board that Fruitland Park would be willing to play some part of this project as a cooperative partner, such as what they did with the PD&E.

            Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff to decide what the best instrument would be to bring back with the final hearing of this that would give the City some confidence.

            Mr. Minkoff explained that they intentionally left that paragraph out because of their concerns with the DOT funding, but that they could bring back a resolution expressing the Board’s intent.  He also mentioned that Mr. Stivender should have an update of the work program as well when they adopt that on February 17.  He pointed out, however, that since this money was in their budget, there was no legal way to legally bind the next Commission when they were doing the budget, and they could only express their strong intent of their plan to do that.  He noted though that he did not think there was any intent from the staff or the Board to take this out of the road program next year.  He added that their goal was to spend this money as quickly as they could, and the design was almost done on this project.

            There being no one else 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 the First Amendment to the Development Agreement between Lake County Board of County Commissioners and The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.



            Mr. Minkoff stated that he originally put this item on the Agenda under regular business because he wanted to illustrate to the Board what occurred in the eminent domain process, but it turned out that they had a change that he wanted to make during the discussion today.  He explained that Tab 24 involved one of the parcels on CR 466, and the property was currently used as a residential property, but could be developed commercially.  He reported that originally their appraisal was almost $53,000, and the Board authorized eminent domain in this quick-take process where they filed litigation, had a hearing in front of the judge, deposited their estimate of value with the court, and then would try the values of the case later.  He continued to explain that they actually acquired the property back in June 2008, and in January they went to mediation on the issues that were left.  The property owners’ demand was $145,000 for what they thought the value was, and they reached a good settlement of $75,000, which was reflected in this agenda item.  However, the change he wanted to make was regarding six trees that all the parties believed were still located at the front of this property which were not supposed to be removed per page 3 of the Agreement, but that were inadvertently removed by the contractor.  He reported that because of that occurrence, they would like to increase the settlement from $75,000 to $76,000 to compensate the owner for the trees.  He also related that in addition to the settlement amount, they had attorney’s fees statutorily that they had to pay in the amount of $10,000, and they were required to pay appraisal fees of about $8700, which they agreed to pay in the mediation.  He reported, however, that the property owner was also seeking expert fees for an engineer and a land planner at a total additional fee of $25,000, which his office did not think were reasonable and did not agree to.  He summarized that their request was to approve the settlement of $76,000, reserving the engineering and land planning costs for when they go to court to contest the expert costs that the property owners were seeking.

            On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 24, the request from the County Attorney for approval of the Mediation Settlement with Onsi Derias and Gehan Mekhiel in the amount of $76,000, and to reserve the engineering and land planning costs requested by the property owners until they go to court to contest that.


             Mr. Minkoff reported that he discovered that there was no written policy determining who they would lease to or not lease to at the fairgrounds, and there already have been contracts which would allow for three more automobile sales this year.  However, he pointed out that the contracts could be terminated at the Board’s will, and he thought it would be safe for them to terminate those agreements and instruct the County Manager not to have any other auto sales during this year.

            Commr. Conner inquired whether he would want a policy regarding that.

            Mr. Minkoff stated that since they did not have one at all and this was deemed a temporary issue, he did not think it was legally necessary to have a policy to back it up, but if the Board wanted, he could prepare one for automobile sales only.  He also mentioned that the businesses reserve the fairgrounds way in advance, so it was more of a reservation form than a contract.

            Commr. Hill asked how much money the Fair Association would lose if those were cancelled.

            Mr. Minkoff responded that the Board, and not the Fair Association, would lose about $2,000 for each one, which would total $8,000 for the year.

            Commr. Stewart commented that she felt it was important to show support for their local businesses.

            Commr. Hill commented that she would have a difficult time doing that to businesses that had a contract, and she thought that some of them owned several dealerships throughout the region.

            Commr. Renick stated that until the Board discusses this further, she was not comfortable with cancelling the contracts.

            Commr. Conner suggested that Commr. Stewart get together with Mr. Minkoff to create a policy and bring that back to the Board for a vote after they do their due diligence.

            Commr. Cadwell concurred that that would be the best course of action and that a temporary policy would be best.


            Mr. Minkoff recapped that the Board looked at possibly creating an ordinance which would prohibit smoking in County owned parks. He reported that their research showed that there was a State Statute which preempts regulation of smoking to the State government and an Attorney General opinion which indicated that the county did not have the authority to regulate smoking outside in their facilities.  He recommended that they work with the Parks Department to post advisory signs that smoking would not be allowed.

            Commr. Conner commented that he did not want to pass something that would not be legally enforceable, and he thought if they put up no smoking signs, they would get 90 percent compliance.



            On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Commr. Stewart to serve as representative of the Board on the Shared Services Network.


            Mr. Paul Williams, a resident of Lake County who worked with credit unions in the financial industry, recommended a solution for the Board to consider regarding the open air vendor policy.   He related that some other counties have instituted a revenue share policy where they would tax the auto dealers that came into the county to conduct gigantic inventory sales under open air tents a portion of their revenue according to a sliding scale.  He pointed out that the revenue share equalized everything for everyone, so that the local retailers would not get hurt because the open air vendors would be sharing the revenues with the County.  He stated that he would write a letter to the Commissioners explaining this concept.


            There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.



                                                                        WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN