A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
The Lake County Board of
INVOCATION
Pastor Brooks Braswell from the First Baptist Church of Umatilla gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
At the request of Commr. Cadwell, Pastor Braswell updated the Board on the recent mission’s activities of the First Baptist Church of Umatilla.
Agenda update
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Commr. Renick stated that she wanted to discuss the Hardship Assistance Program that was previously discussed at one of the workshops. She commented that she had a LPA issue that might require a vote.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the items for Commr. Renick would be discussed under her business.
MINUTE APPROVAL
Commr. Renick stated that she had some minor changes to the July 21, 2009 minutes and that the Board Support Office did a good job on the minutes. She stated that on Page 22, Lines 23 and 24, the Board was referring to nodes and on Page 26, Line 39 she suggested adding that Scott Strong was a former school board member and not a current one.
Commr. Stewart stated that on Page 18, Line 9 of the July
21, 2009 minutes it refers to the Lake Harris Food Pantry and it should be
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Minutes of July 21, 2009 (Regular Meeting/Workshop) as amended and July 28, 2009 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 4, as follows:
City of
Request to acknowledge
receipt of notification from the City of
Lake
Request to acknowledge receipt of Lake County Clerk of Courts’ Semi-Annual Investment Report for Fiscal Year 2008-09.
Lake County Water Authority’s Draft Tentative Budget
Request to acknowledge receipt of Lake County Water Authority’s Draft Tentative Budget 2009-2010.
Lake County Water Authority’s July 2009 Special District Public Facilities Report
Request to acknowledge receipt of Lake County Water Authority’s July 2009 Special District Public Facilities Report as required by Florida Statue 189.415.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and
carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Budget
Request for approval of the following Budget Change Requests and Check Requests:
1. Budget transfer – General Fund, Department of Economic Growth and Redevelopment. Transfer $23,000 from Reserve – Economic Development to Aids to Private Organizations. On August 4, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners approved the award of two High Value Job Creation (HVJC) Program Awards totaling $110,000. There is currently $87,000 available in the Aids to Private Organizations account line for HVJC awards. An additional $23,000 is needed to cover both awards. Funds are available in Reserve – Economic Development. After this transfer, the balance in the Reserve – Economic Development account will be $3,059,150.
2. Approval of request from the Sheriff’s Office for reimbursement of expenses from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. Total payment is for $26,064.00.
3. Approval of request for payment of invoice for inmate medical expenses. Total payment is for $60,381.00.
4. Approval of request for payment of invoice for inmate medical expenses. Total payment is for $44,647.05.
Conservation and Compliance
Request for Satisfaction and Release of Fine for property owners, Richard and Linda Lawson, Case No. 2007080035.
Employee Services
Request for approval to
change positions designated by
Environmental Utilities
Request for approval of Arthopod Control Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Certified Budget.
Request for approval of Amendment # 3 amending the Arthopod Control Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Certified Budget by: increasing revenue by $88 due to unanticipated revenue from vehicle and surplus equipment sales; transferring $4,254 from Travel & Per Diem and $1,855 from Books, Dues and Pubs and $255 from Capital Outlay to Operating Supplies to purchase chemicals for adulticiding and adoption of Resolution No. 2009-127.
Growth Management
Request for approval to
accept sponsorships for the Green Team’s 2nd Annual Green Fair to be
held on Saturday, November 14, 2009 at
Procurement
Request to declare the items on the submitted list(s) surplus to County needs; authorize the removal of all items on the submitted list(s) from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records, and authorize the Procurement Services Director or designee to sign vehicle titles.
Request to approve staff
recommendations to piggyback
Public Works
Request for approval of a
Proportionate Fair Schedule Agreement with Ladd Development, Inc., DCS Land
Development, Inc. and Lacek Gauldin, LLC for
Request for authorization to
release a performance bond in the amount of $1,106,897.00 posted for
Request for authorization to release cash funds posted as maintenance surety in the amount of $14,802.65 posted for East View Estates. East View Estates consists of 8 lots and is located in Section 14, Township 18 South, Range 24 East.
Request for approval of
Resolution No. 2009-117 to change C W Harrell Road “Part” (the portion laying
between
Commr. Conner requested that Tab 16 be pulled for discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart,
and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the
Request for approval of the
Stipulated Final Judgment with James A. Cichielo for needed right-of-way for
the completion of the CR
employee awards
Commr. Cadwell presented the Employee and Quarterly awards with Ms. Susan Irby, Employee Services Manager, commenting briefly about each employee’s service to the County.
Five Years
Tyrone Baquie, Network Administrator
Information Technology/Information Systems
Samuel Cauley, Surveying Manager (N/P)
Public Works/Engineering/Survey & Design
Barry Fitzgerald, Firefighter/Paramedic (N/P)
Public Safety/Fire Rescue
Francis Franco, Transportation Concurrency & GIS Manager (N/P)
Lake/Sumter MPO
Elizabeth Heine, Webmaster
Information Outreach
William Jenkins, Firefighter/Paramedic
Public Safety/Fire Rescue
Ten Years
Pamela Goodson, Librarian II
Public Resources/Library Services/Astor Library
Lisa Grider, Code Enforcement Officer (N/P)
Conservation & Compliance/Code Enforcement Services
Paul Proctor, Roadway Designer II
Public Works/Engineering/Survey & Design
Albert Sikes, Chief Inspector
Growth Management/Building Services
Fifteen Years
Randy Beadle, Maintenance Specialist
Facilities Development & Management/Maintenance/Jail & Sheriff Facilities
Michael Smith, Equipment Operator I (N/P)
Public Works/Road Operations/Maintenance Area I (Leesburg)
Twenty-Five Years
Anita Greiner, Chief Planner
Growth Management/Zoning
Supervisor of the Quarter
(held over from the August 4, 2009 meeting)
Tracy Swank, Regional Branch Manager
Public Resources/Library Services/Cooper Memorial Library
Impact Fee Committee Certificate
Commr. Cadwell presented a plaque to Jean Kaminski for years of service on the Impact Fee Committee from 1996 to 2009.
Ms. Nancy Holder, Chairman of the Impact Fee Committee, commented on the service of Ms. Kaminski. She expressed her gratitude to Ms. Kaminski for all her efforts and time on the committee.
presentations
Mr. Hugh Kent, President of Trout Lake, presented the
Annual Report. He stated that the
submitted report outlines the programs and activities available at the nature
center, the amount of community involvement, and the funding of both public and
private partners. He explained that in
the past year
Commr. Cadwell stated that Mr. Kent has been working on
connecting the
Mr.
Commr. Cadwell stated that it would become a regional destination at that time, and people will come for the trails and other activities.
Commr. Conner stated that a few years ago Commr. Stewart;
Bernie Yokel, Former Trout Lake President; and Larry Metz, Lake County School
Board Member, worked hard to expand the partnership of the Lake County School
Board with
Commr. Stewart stated that from a teacher’s perspective,
she can not speak highly enough of the education experiences at
community services
resolution no. 2009-118 for unanticipated revenue
Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Director, requested approval of Resolution No. 2009-118 for Unanticipated Revenue for a vehicle damaged in an accident on February 13, 2009. He stated that the county received $30,493.50 as part of a settlement for that vehicle and asked that the Board approve the purchase of a used 2005 Chevy 3500 paratransit vehicle for $20,000.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 2009-118 for Unanticipated Revenue and the purchase of the 2005 Chevy 3500 paratransit vehicle.
transfer funds request for medicaid costs
Ms. Wendy Breeden, Community Services Interim Director,
stated that
Commr. Conner asked if the County verified the accuracy of the bills. He requested an explanation of the verification process.
Ms. Cindy Hall,
Ms. Breeden explained that a staff member inquired about the ability to review the actual invoices, and the State would not allow it.
Commr. Conner asked how the County can verify the accuracy.
Ms. Breeden stated that the only means of verification is to verify the residency which was confirmed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) when the applicant applied for Medicaid. She stated that the County does verify the residency and does not pay any bills for out of county residents.
Commr. Conner asked if the state does random audits to verify the accuracy of the bills.
Ms. Breeden explained that the state does perform random audits. She explained that the nursing home or hospital submits the bill to Medicaid through the Agency of Healthcare Administration and that agency verifies that the individual is a Medicaid recipient.
Commr. Conner asked if the County was allowed or had a legal right to perform an audit on the itemized bills.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff,
Commr. Renick stated that she understands the concern, because everyone has received a hospital bill in which services were not rendered and a careful review of the bill needs to be done. She stated that during bad times, there are going to be more people on Medicaid and prices are going to increase, with apprehension if there are adequate funds in the budget to cover the costs.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the County does not pay 100 percent of the cost. He stated that the state pays a significant portion so they have a benefit to verify the accuracy of the bills. He stated that the main issue for the County is to confirm residency.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request to transfer funds from the General Fund Reserves to cover the Medicaid costs for August and September 2009.
resolution no. 2009-119 adopting the
Ms. Allison Thall, Community Services Director, explained that the Florida Homebuyer Opportunity Program (FHOP) Strategy would be replacing the SHIP Program due to legislative changes. She requested approval of the adoption of the FHOP strategy into the County’s Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP).
Commr. Renick explained that FHOP is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She stated that the County added new language to motivate taxpayers to repay the County when tax refunds are received. She reported that the remaining changes to the LHAP were still being made.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption of the Florida Homebuyer Opportunity Program (FHOP) strategy into the 2009-2012 Local Housing Assistance Plan.
employee services
contract renewal and new rates with symetra
Ms. Susan Irby, Employee Services, explained that this item is for renewal with Symetra for the County’s stop loss excess medical insurance. She stated that one proposed change is to increase the specific deductible from $150,000 to $200,000. She reported that the County has analyzed this data and at a minimum, comparing the premiums from this year to next year and the proposed deductible increase, would be a savings of $91,000. She stated that if the County renewed with a deductible of $150,000, there would be a savings of $120,000. She explained that the County has had several discussions with the benefits consultant and the broker for the coverage, who are both in agreement that this is a good decision for the County.
Commr. Conner stated that raising the deductible from $150,000 to $200,000 means that if the County has a claim of $200,000, the County will be responsible for the full amount and reinsurance will not pay anything. He commented that insurance is a gamble and it depends on the loss ratio. He asked the staff present the number of claims that exceed $150,000.
Ms. Irby reported that the County has only had one claim that has exceeded the $150,000 limit by $130,000. She stated that another claim has met the deductible amount of $150,000. She commented that in a worst case scenario the underwriters assume the County will assume $111,000 in additional claims if renewed with the $200,000 deductible.
Commr. Conner asked what the consultant’s prediction was for future claims over $150,000.
Ms. Irby explained that the consultant did not predict the number of claims but predicted that the total would be $111,000.
Commr. Conner asked that if the consultant predicts an additional $111,000 in claims and only a savings of $91,000 in premiums, how this is a cost benefit for the County.
Ms. Irby stated that the $91,000 is comparing the proposed premium for next year at a total of $280,739.40 with a deductible of $200,000 versus renewing with a deductible of $150,000 and a total premium of $432,000 with an actual difference of $127,000.
Commr. Conner stated that he would like the Board to review the medical insurance and health benefits in the future workshops for the 2010/2011 Budget because the claims appear to be increasing. He commented that the County would save some money on premiums but would be increasing its exposure.
Commr. Cadwell opined that it appears to be a good gamble for the County to save some money.
Commr. Stewart agreed that after researching past statistics on claims, it appears to be a gamble where the County might end up saving money.
Commr. Renick stated that this matter is completely unpredictable.
Commr. Conner asked for clarification on aggregate claims and if they were impacted by this vote.
Ms. Irby explained that aggregate claims are set at 25 percent higher than predicted claims. She stated that the underwriters project that the overall claims could be $7.5 million and the Aggregate Stop Loss insurance is set at $9 million plus. She reported that the County has not met that limit and explained that the County pays a small premium per employee per month for that coverage.
Commr. Conner stated that staff has access to claims history that is not available to the Board. He asked for the staff’s recommendation on the future claims based on the current loss ratio.
Ms. Irby reported that the County has had one claim exceed the deductible of $150,000, one that has met the deductible, and another that is approaching the deductible amount.
Commr. Renick opined that if staff had information to support an increased cost to the County, they would not be proposing the change.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the contract renewal and new rates with Symetra for the employee medical excess loss insurance.
material recovery facility (MRF)
Mr. Daryl Smith, Environmental Utilities Director, requested that the Board direct the Department of Environmental Utilities to proceed with the development and implementation of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) that will provide for the further separation and marketing of the individual materials which make up the co-mingled recyclables; also direct the Department to proceed with the purchase of the equipment necessary to construct the MRF, direct the Department to proceed with hiring four part-time laborer positions to perform the separation, and direct the Department to amend the FY 2010 Budget to provide for the implementation and operation of the MRF Program.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he toured
Commr. Conner stated that he is not supporting this item for various reasons. He commented that one of the main reasons is because people are getting out of the recycling business because it is a volatile market. He explained that one of his concerns is with the pricing. He asked staff for documentation of the market price for the separated recyclables, specifically aluminum. He asked if the County had contractual guarantees on the stated revenues in the Agenda.
Mr. Smith explained that the County does not have any contractual guarantees and that the County has not previously separated the co-mingled recyclables.
Commr. Conner asked what prices other counties are receiving for separated recyclables.
Mr. Smith stated that an extensive study has not been done but based on their research they are receiving the published market prices which are listed in the documentation provided to the Board.
Commr. Conner asked staff to compare the prices on the Agenda item to the supplemental submitted documentation. He explained that the Agenda item projects the expected revenue and the supplemental information lists the actual prices received by other counties.
Commr. Renick inquired about the urgency of making a decision today.
Commr. Conner stated that the Agenda item shows the projected market price for Aluminum to be $1,240 per ton. He asked for clarification of the prices on the commodity pricing sheet.
Mr. Smith reported that the commodity pricing sheet represents both high and low regional pricing for the nation on a price of cents per pound basis. He explained that the price on the commodity pricing sheet would need to be multiplied by 2,000 to calculate the price per ton.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board would discuss this matter later after the Public Hearings.
public hearings
resolution no. 2009-120 - greater groves municipal service unit
Commr. Cadwell stated that this is a request to approve and authorize the execution of Resolution No. 2009-120 to adopt the “Greater Groves Municipal Service Unit” non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director, acknowledged Ms. Carol Boyle, an employee in the Budget office who manages the Assessment Program and maintains compliance with the statutes. He explained that the statutes require a public hearing to establish non-ad valorem rates and assessment rolls for three benefit districts and three street lighting districts. He stated that all of the districts were properly advertised on August 13, 2009 in the Lake County Sentinel. He reported that this would be for a five year period beginning October 1, 2009. He explained that the five year period is consistent with past practice and allows the County to avoid the public hearing requirement for the next five years and all other associated costs with advertisement and postage for the resident notices. He reported that the three benefit districts’ rates were established by their Homeowner’s Association Board of Directors for the first year, and were increased by five percent for each following year. He explained that the street lighting districts were based on current street lighting bills that were received and increased by five percent. He stated that if the rate established is not sufficient in a subsequent Fiscal Year or the Homeowner’s Association Board desires to increase it, a public hearing and advertisement would be required.
Mr. Krueger stated that the first district is for the Greater Groves Municipal Service Unit, and the Homeowner’s Association has proposed a rate of $421.19 per parcel to be effective on October 1, 2009.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Renick clarified that this assessment was not initiated by the County. She explained that the Homeowner’s Association assess themselves and have asked the Board to approve it so it is included in the tax bill which the County collects from the homeowner.
Mr. Krueger stated that many Homeowner’s Associations do their own billing. He explained that many years ago a program existed where the County would include homeowner association fees on the tax bill; and that program has since been discontinued. He stated that the County is grandfathering in these three districts. He reiterated that it is the choice of the Homeowner’s Associations and they have established the fee.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-120 adopting the Greater Groves Municipal Service Unit non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
Resolution no. 2009-121 - greater hills municipal service benefit unit
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-121 adopting the Greater Hills Municipal Service Benefit Unit non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
resolution no. 2009-122 - greater pines subdivision
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-122 adopting the Greater Pines Subdivision municipal services non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
Resolution no. 2009-123 - picciola island subdivision
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by the vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-123 adopting the Picciola Island Subdivision non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
resolution no. 2009-124 - valencia terrace subdivision
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-124 adopting the Valencia Terrace Subdivision non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
resolution no. 2009-125 - village green subdivision
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2009-125 adopting the Village Green Subdivision non-ad valorem rate schedule and the non-ad valorem assessment roll.
ordinance no. 2009-47 repealing and replacing chapter 4 of lake county code entitled animals
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPEALING AND REPLACING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 4, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR UPDATED DEFINITIONS AND SECTIONS TO ALLOW MORE CLARITY AND CONCISENESS; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THIS CHAPTER; PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT THROUGH CHAPTER 8, LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR IMPOUNDMENT AND REDEMPTION OF ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR RECOMMENDED PENALTIES CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 162, FLORIDA STATUTES AND CHAPTER 8, LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RECOMMENDED PENALTIES FOR DAMAGE, INJURY, SEVER INJURY AND DEATH; PROVIDING FOR NEW SECTION RELATING TO NUISANCE ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR RABIES VACCINATION, CERTIFICATES AND COUNTY TAGS; PROVIDING FOR LIVESTOCK AT LARGE OR STRAYING; PROVIDING FOR HEARINGS FOR DANGEROUS DOGS AND ANIMALS BEFORE THE SPECIAL MASTER; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Minkoff stated that a memo was submitted with the recommended
change that all references for repeat violations be changed from one year to
five years so it is consistent with statutes.
He explained that the recommended change would impact repeat offenders
with enhanced fines when they violated once and obtained a subsequent violation
within five years.
Commr.
Hill commented that she had concerns on Page 10, Article 2, Section
4-28(c). She remarked that when the Code
states, “if injury or damage the person or animal occurs, then a medical doctor
or veterinarian is required…” she commented that this scenario then becomes a
criminal offense and possible jail time.
She asked if the victim would recover any medical costs if there is a
permanent damage and injury if this is brought before a Special Master. She asked what leverage the County would have
in recovering medical costs and fines.
She referenced Page 9, Article 2, Section 4-26 unlawful interference
with an Animal Control Officer, and she asked that if a first degree
misdemeanor of battery and injury occurs, how medical costs are to be
recovered.
Commr.
Renick agreed with Commr. Hill’s comment on the recovery of medical costs for
the victim. She commented that she had
concern that the first offense of a dog with unknown aggressive behavior was
the same as a dog that has been known to be vicious and aggressive. She opined that if someone adopts a dog that
has unknown proclivities to bite someone, their fine should not be as serious
as a known dangerous dog. She stated
that once a dog has bitten someone, the owner has a lot of responsibility to
make sure the animal is not a danger to others and that it remains confined. She commented that if the owner fails to take
the necessary steps and a known dangerous dog bites someone, the owner should
be severely fined. She mentioned that
she had concern with the section of the Code that states if injury or damage to
the person or animal occurs such that a medical doctor or veterinarian is
required; the recommended penalty will be $1,000. She explained that her concern was that this
did not specify the level of severity and did not take into account the nature
of the dog. She stated that this
Ordinance was meant to discourage people from owning dangerous dogs and to
establish a higher level of punishment for dangerous dogs and repeat offenders.
Commr. Cadwell commented that it appears that this Ordinance needs more work; however, he stated that the Board was still going to have a public hearing because he would like to hear public comment.
Commr. Hill agreed that she would like to hear public comment as well. She stated that she researched nine different counties to compare their Ordinance to those counties. She reported that other counties require a dangerous dog to be registered with the County and a chip is inserted into the animal. She explained that there is a different fine if a registered dog continues to bite and there would be a record of all incidents. She asked for clarification if it could be separated when there is serious injury or damage to a person or another animal and becomes a criminal matter which is handled by the judicial staff as opposed to the Special Master.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the dangerous dog section of the statute is in the Ordinance, and if a dog is declared dangerous, it is a criminal offense if that dog bites someone else. He explained that the criminal penalties are not repeated in this Ordinance because they are included in the state statutes. He reported that Page 21 of this proposed Ordinance states that if a dog is declared dangerous, the County requires permanent identification by either tattoo or implantation of a chip. He commented on the scenario presented by Commr. Renick that if a dog attacks someone or another animal and the Department feels it is a dangerous dog, the Department petitions the Special Master to have the dog declared dangerous. He explained that previously the Department Director would perform the hearing, but the proposed Ordinance assigns that duty to the Special Master. He stated that if the Special Master declares the dog dangerous, then the animal is never allowed out without being fully muzzled and on a leash with an owner. He explained that if the owner violates the dangerous dog restrictions, then the owner could face criminal penalties. He commented that the County hopes that the owners will allow the animal to be destroyed after it has been declared dangerous. He reported that the County charges significant annual fees and performs inspections for dangerous dogs. He stated that if the Ordinance is applied correctly, a dog that has been declared dangerous would not have the opportunity to bite someone again. He stated that based on state law if the dog has been declared dangerous and there is severe injury or death the animal is confiscated and destroyed. He stated that the penalties listed in the proposed Ordinance are only recommended and the Special Master can exceed them or lower them according to the circumstances of the case.
Commr. Renick asked for clarification about why the penalty is the same for an animal that is not known to be dangerous versus an animal that has been declared dangerous.
Mr. Minkoff responded that on Page 23, Section 4-58 (f), the County assumed that there would most likely be a criminal charge in addition to the County’s civil penalty, since an attack by a declared dangerous dog would be a criminal offense. He stated that the criminal penalties are not included in the proposed Ordinance because they are not imposed by County Code.
Commr. Renick stated that her concern is that a person may be fined when they adopted the animal and did not have any knowledge of the animal’s tendencies.
Commr. Stewart agreed with the Commr. Renick’s concern.
Ms. Marjorie Boyd, Animal Services, clarified that this Ordinance does not have anything to do with a specific breed of dog, but instead has to do with owners being held accountable for their animals. She stated that owners must be able to control their animals, whether on a leash or in their home.
Mr. Minkoff reminded the Board that the fines outlined in the Ordinance are only recommended and the Special Master can raise, lower, or eliminate the fine based on the case. He explained that the Animal Control Officer can make a decision at the time of the incident and possibly not even issue a citation, but if a citation is issued, the owner has the ability to be heard before the Special Master.
Commr. Renick stated that she was concerned that if the fines were too high, people would not adopt any dogs from the animal shelter in fear that the animal might bite someone.
Commr. Stewart commented that she still had concerns with the first offense because it is a lot of money and people would have to take time off of work to address the matter before the Special Master. She stated that if the fine was lower, it would give the owner the opportunity to pay the fine instead of requiring them to appeal to the Special Master, whereas if the fine remains at $500 it almost guarantees the owner will have to appeal it.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board has the ability to revise the penalty amount.
Commr. Hill asked if the Special Master has the authority to request the medical costs for the victim.
Mr. Minkoff explained that he would have to order compliance, and failure to do so would result in a fine. He stated that the Special Master can order restitution in lieu of the fine.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Hale suggested having the canine teeth ground or extracted whenever a person adopts an animal. He asked if it was more inhumane to grind down or extract the canine teeth or to put the animal down.
Mr. Ken Miller, resident of Lisa Drive, asked if the County has a leash law in effect.
Mr. Minkoff responded that the owner must have their animal on a leash or under control and stated that this Ordinance repeats that prohibition.
Mr. Miller stated that the leash law is violated in his neighborhood. He commented that it is his contention that animals should be in the owner’s home or in a fenced yard. He stated that some people state the animal is on their property when it is in their front yard and not on a leash, where it can leave the property and attack someone.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that it states that all animals not just dogs must be confined or under control of the owner.
Mr. Miller stated that this matter is very important. He related that one evening while his sister and brother-in-law, who live in Seminole County, were walking they were attacked by a large dog that was being held by a small child. He stated that this was a friendly dog but she panicked and shattered her wrist by falling. He opined that all dogs or animals should be under control of the owner or they should be fined. He commented that in this situation the fine of $500 does not equal the pain and suffering of the victim. He stated that one evening when he left his parents home, he was charged by three large dogs. He stated that he would like to see Animal Control respond quicker when there is an animal that is loose.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Hill asked if the licenses and fees are waived for the community public service working dogs.
Ms. Marjorie Boyd, Animal Services, stated that those dogs are still required to have a rabies vaccination and a license.
Commr. Stewart asked if a decision was made for the first offense penalty.
Commr. Cadwell opined that he wants people to know the severity of this matter and they can appeal to the Special Master.
Commr. Hill stated that she feels the Ordinance needs a little more work in regards to the recovery of medical costs for the victim and the leverage of the County to collect the fines.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County is currently issuing citations that go to County Court. He explained that the County pays a filing fee to the state in order to have the citation issued. He reported that the collection of fines is inefficient at the state level and that the money collected stays with the state. He explained that using the Special Master provision, when a fine is ordered and not paid, it will become a lien on all of the real and personal property that the individual owns. He stated that the County does not intend to make money on this issue, and their goal is to force compliance. However, he opined that the Special Master provision would be more efficient.
Commr. Renick stated that she wanted to clarify an earlier mentioned concern about someone having to appear before the Special Master when it was not a serious incident. She asked if the owner had to appear in person or if they could submit documentation to the Special Master without appearing.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the owner does not have to appear in person. He mentioned that he doubts the Animal Control Officer would issue a citation if it was not an equitable case. He reported that if the owner contacted Animal Control or the County Attorney’s Office, the staff would work with the owner to bring a resolution agreeable by all parties to the Special Master.
Ms. Marjorie Boyd, Animal Services, confirmed that the Animal Control Officers have the leverage to make a judgment call at the time of the incidence. She provided an example of a cat scratch and stated that a citation would not be issued.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Conner, carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2009-47 Repealing and Replacing Chapter 4, Lake County Code, entitled Animals.
Commr. Hill voted “no.”
ordinance no. 2009-48 amending chapter 8, sections 8-4 and 8-6, lake county code entitled code enforcement special master
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Tab 30 would be the final adoption of Ordinance No. 2009-48. He then placed the proposed Ordinance on the floor by title only, as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 8-4 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR WRITTEN STIPULATIONS IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES; AMENDING SECTION 8-6 OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE TO REDUCE THE NOTICE REQUIRED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FROM 15 TO 10 DAYS IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
Mr. Minkoff explained the current process requires the County to give a warning and an opportunity to come into compliance unless it is a repeat violation or there is a serious threat to health, safety and welfare. He stated that when the County started analyzing the enforcement of the water irrigation rules, it was discovered it was going to be difficult to contact all of the violators and have them appear before the Special Master. He stated that when the discussion took place about Animal Control and Code Enforcement, the suggestion was made to create a procedure that allows someone to pay an uncontested fine instead of having to appear before the Special Master. He explained that this Ordinance does two things; it changes the notice requirement to conform to statute and also provides that if the Board passes an Ordinance with a recommended fine or penalty the Code Enforcement Officer has the ability to inform the violator of the option to pay the fine instead of appearing before the Special Master. He stated that it is up to the discretion of the Code Enforcement Officer or Animal Control Officer to give the option to pay without having to appear before the Special Master.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried by a vote 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2009-48 amending Chapter 8, Sections 8-4 and 8-6. Lake County Code, entitled Code Enforcement Special Master.
Commr. Hill voted “no.”
resolution no. 2009-126 diane drive and lisa drive special assessment
Commr. Cadwell stated that Tab 31 was a request to approve and authorize the execution of Resolution No. 2009-126 adopting the Diane Drive and Lisa Drive special assessment non-ad valorem assessment roll.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works, stated that this is a new process of putting special assessments on the tax rolls. He explained that Diane Drive and Lisa Drive were completed last December and are County maintained roads, as accepted by the Board last January. He stated that this request is to add this special assessment on the tax rolls starting in 2010.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Miller, resident of Lisa Drive, stated that he has opposed the project from the beginning. He commented that if the residents were going to be asked to pay for the road, that they should have been consulted before work began. He stated that a petition has distributed and signed by some of the residents. He opined that the residents should have been consulted about the engineering design and pricing. He asked if the engineering report took into consideration of the conditions of Venetian Village. He reported that approximately 80 percent of the homes on Lisa Drive and the remaining Venetian Village community are sinking due to poor soil conditions or sinkholes, and the roads are sinking as well. He commented that the cost to repair the homes is in the range from ten thousand up to a hundred thousand. He stated that his home is one of the homes in bad shape and in need of repair. He expressed concern over the added cost of the road to the residents. He asked for a copy of the engineering report.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he could obtain a copy of the report from Public Works.
Mr. Miller stated that most of the neighbors he has spoken with state they are against the road, although he acknowledged that some of that may be related to the bill that has been received. He requested a copy of the petition because he would like to see how many residents signed it. He stated that his parents have lived on Lisa Drive for almost 30 years and have paid taxes that entire time which have supported other County roads. He asked why the residents had to incur the cost to repair the road. He questioned the fact that the road may not be up to code because they are having problems with cracks in the road. He stated that he has contacted the Road Department and is awaiting a response from Mr. Jeff Johnson. He explained that there are spots in the road that are starting to deteriorate now after less than a year. He stated that the road is too narrow as there is not enough room on the road for two cars traveling in opposite directions plus pedestrians or cyclists. He stated that he believes the width of the road is only 17 feet. He commented that the roads should have been at least three or four feet wider to allow for pedestrians along with the traffic. He reiterated that he is against having to pay for the road. He expressed that he felt the County should have incurred all of the costs for these two roads. He stated that other residents wished to attend the meeting today but they had work obligations. He asked the Board to consider the engineering and the condition of the road before charging the residents for this road. He suggested reviewing the agreement and warranty with the contractor.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of the final assessment Resolution No. 2009-126 adopting the Diane Drive and Lisa Drive special assessment non-ad valorem assessment roll.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced that there would be a ten minute recess at 11:13 a.m.
other business
reports – county attorney
two year extension authorized by senate bill 360
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there have been discussions between Public Works, Growth Management and the County Attorney’s Office regarding the impacts of Senate Bill 360 (SB 360) particularly the portion about the extension of permits. He reported that there is litigation that has been started by the City of Weston and some other counties and cities, including one Lake County city that has challenged Senate Bill 360 in its entirety as being an invalid act for various reasons. He explained that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) hosted a web seminar where he provided comments on his interpretations of Senate Bill 360 including the permit extensions. He reported that a few days later, the Secretary of DCA retracted some of those comments and stated that a permit extension was a local government matter. He stated that a copy of the letter written by Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin in response to the comments about the permit extensions has been submitted to the Board for their review. He commented that the County had an Ordinance pending before the Local Planning Agency (LPA) that would have created an extension, similar to Senate Bill 360, on the permits that Lake County had already presented. He explained that Senate Bill 360 refers to Development orders and it is unclear if that refers to Development orders as defined under Chapter 163 or under local Land Development Regulations (LDR). He stated that Lake County’s LDRs are not defined the same as in Chapter 163. He reported that the County would like to obtain the Board’s approval of the interpretation of the permit extensions in Senate Bill 360. He stated that the County would like to interpret the extension language somewhat liberally and generally that any Lake County Development Order, whether preliminary or final, be granted the two year extension. He explained that the County issues certain types of development approvals that could be argued are or are not a Development orders, such as Vesting Letters, Concurrency Reviews, etc., that the County recommends be extended by Senate Bill 360. He explained that the County just changed the Concurrency requirements for subdivisions, and they do not believe that Senate Bill 360 postpones implementation of that Ordinance change. He commented that the Departments believe that any subdivision that has construction plan approval will fall under the old Concurrency rules where they have already met Concurrency. He explained that any new subdivision that does not have construction plan approval will have to meet Concurrency and construction plan approval and pay reservation fee. He stated that the analysis shows there are not a lot of Development Orders, construction plans or subdivisions pending. He reported that there are some old preliminary plats that are approved that go back before there were expiration dates. He stated that overall he does not feel there is a significant impact on development by granting these extensions. He recommended using Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin’s letter as the basis for granting these extensions upon request of the permit holder.
Commr. Cadwell stated that Senator Bennett was the author of the legislation and believes he is the best person to clarify the legislation. He asked if the County would be able to make this change based on Senate Bill 360 or whether an Ordinance or policy be required.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the County can use the statute and noted that he would watch the litigation on this matter. He stated that if the Bill is declared invalid, then the County will have to prepare an Ordinance. He commented that the time periods will have expired before the litigation is over. He reported that there are rumors that Senate Bill 360 will be readdressed in a special session later this year perhaps as early as next month in an attempt to clarify some of the issues. He stated that there are some issues regarding the Transportation Currency Exception areas which do not affect unincorporated Lake County that are much more significant than the permit issues.
Commr. Hill asked for confirmation that the extension was for three years for Development Orders and platted subdivisions under the County’s current Ordinance.
Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board never executed an Ordinance. He clarified that a draft was presented to the Board with the three year language, but the Board directed that to be changed to two years. He explained that this Senate Bill was happening at the same time and it was decided that an Ordinance would not be required once the bill was passed.
Commr. Renick asked if there had been discussion to join those that are challenging Senate Bill 360. She commented that it was interesting to find a couple of Lake County cities on the list of those opposing the bill.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there was previous discussion by the Board to oppose Senate Bill 360. He confirmed that there is at least one Lake County city, Fruitland Park, which is opposing the bill.
Commr. Renick asked for clarification on the dates of the permits that would be extended. She stated that the bill states that if the permit expires between September 1, 2008 and January 1, 2012.
Mr. Minkoff reported that Lake County does not have any Development orders that have expiration dates as far out as 2012. He explained that this bill states that if someone has a Development Order and they notify the County before December 31, 2009, and that Order would have expired between September 1, 2008 and January 1, 2012, then it would be extended by two years.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the two year extension of local government development orders and building permits authorized by Senate Bill 360 and consistent with the letter written by Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin.
Commr. Renick voted “no.”
environmental utilities
material recovery facility (MRF)
Commr. Conner stated that the last year of revenue from recycling is overstated based on the information provided by Mr. Smith.
Mr. Daryl Smith, Director of Environmental Utilities, disagreed with the statement that revenues were overstated, and that the projected revenues in the Agenda will be different than what the County has received in the past because this is a different type of operation being proposed.
Commr. Conner asked for clarification that the pricing commodity sheet is the price that recyclers have been paying for sorted recycling. He noted that the price fluctuates so much that when averaging the numbers over the past year, the projected revenues are overstated.
Mr. Smith responded that the Commodity Pricing sheets were for July 2009 and the Agenda referenced August 2009 prices.
Commr. Conner confirmed that staff used a one month price to calculate revenue instead of a twelve month average. He asked if the projected revenues would have been lower if the annual average was used.
Mr. Smith explained that it would be difficult to answer that question without doing the analysis. He stated that the prices were considerably higher prior to November 2008.
Commr. Cadwell stated that others in the business are still reporting a profit even though their revenues have decreased.
Commr. Conner asked why more county and city governments were not doing recycling if there is the ability to make money. He commented that more people are getting out of the recycling business than those that are getting into the business. He stated that there are other alternatives. He opined that the revenues are overstated and the expenses are understated. He clarified that the proposal asks for part time labor which will most likely turn into full time positions. He stated that this proposal does not take into consideration the maintenance of the equipment.
Commr. Conner asked why sorting is not done curbside.
Mr. Smith stated that he met with the Solid Waste Authority in Palm Beach County, which is the largest and most progressive in the State, which strongly advocates for the two sort recycling program. He commented that the industry trend seems to be for a two sort recycling program.
Commr. Renick commented that she had serious reservations about getting into recycling. She stated that she liked that is was being contracted out to a vendor because of the volatile pricing. She mentioned that she has concerns that more labor and equipment is going to be needed. She asked if the County has the option of contracting the recycling to a vendor like it was done in the past.
Mr. Smith responded that the recycling services are currently provided by employees, but the Board does retain the option to have the recycling done by an outside contractor.
Commr. Renick mentioned that she noticed the glass processor was being purchased from Sumter County. She asked if Sumter County had attempted this program and why they were selling the equipment.
Mr. Smith explained that approximately 10 years ago the State invested money into Sumter County as a model for special processing. He stated that glass processor was a product of that State investment, and a significant amount of the County’s recyclables are glass. He explained that the County wanted to obtain the glass processor because not all of the recyclers accept glass.
Commr. Renick stated that it would be more advantageous to the County if it had mandatory recycling.
Commr. Cadwell opined that he may be biased as a result of his recent tour of Alachua County’s Facility which is a replica of the facility the staff is proposing. He stated that his research has discovered that there is money available and commented that the County might be missing an opportunity to make some money if the County decides to contract out the recycling instead of doing it in house. He reported that if the County attempts to run the program and it fails, there is only a total of $69,000 in capital.
Mr. Smith reported that staff received notice that effective September 10, 2009, the County will be required to pay $16 per ton for processing.
Commr. Hill provided a brief history of the recycling programs in Lake County. She explained that when the recycling was being outsourced, the contractor did not maintain the equipment or compensate the County for use of the County’s facility and equipment. She explained that the County did a full cost analysis and had to upgrade some of the equipment when the County reinstated the recycling program. She reported that the County was trying to meet the state standards for recycling as cost effectively as possible. She expressed her concern with the funding for the program. She asked if the funding would come from the General Fund Ad Valorem.
Mr. Smith reported that there would be no changes. He explained that as the County is budgeting for 2010, it will be shown as excess revenue that will be applied to the Surplus.
Commr. Hill confirmed that the Board will not need to increase the transfer from the General Fund for this operation. She opined that the County has to put some money into the system to make it more efficient.
Commr. Renick commented that the industry does have volatile pricing and the County wants to encourage recycling. She stated that in the future the Board is going to have discussions on how to increase recycling in Lake County. She stated that although she has some serious reservations, she is going to support this item.
Commr. Stewart asked if staff factored the concern of part time employees becoming full time.
Mr. Smith stated that the Board would have to approve changing the positions from part time to full time. He commented that it is his intention that these positions remain part time.
Commr. Conner stated that the Board has not been presented other options or a cost analysis of curbside sorting. He expressed concern about the upcoming price increase for materials. He opined that staff should be doing research for price comparisons with other vendors.
Mr. Smith stated that there are very few vendors that provide the current level of service, and of those that do provide that level of service, some will not accept glass. He stated that the County went through a procurement process a year ago, and the current vendor is the only provider in the area that will provide the current level of service and accept glass. He stated that if the Board wishes to continue keeping glass in the program, the County will have to use the current vendor or sort the recyclables.
Commr. Conner asked if this specific issue had been presented before the Solid Waste Committee.
Commr. Hill stated that the specific MRF program was not presented to the committee, because the Board wanted to revisit the committee.
Commr. Conner stated that he thought it was revisited and it was decided to keep the committee. He reported that a Resolution was to be forthcoming to form another committee for one specific purpose. He opined that if the County has a Solid Waste Committee, then it should either be utilized or disbanded.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the Solid Waste Committee had any members.
Commr. Hill stated that there have not been any
advertisements to replace the two members, and that there would not be a quorum
without the replacement members.
Commr. Cadwell suggested returning the matter to the Board next week if they can not obtain replacement members for the Solid Waste Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Renick, and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board voted to present this issue to the Solid Waste Committee.
Commr. Hill and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
Commr. Renick asked if there was a Solid Waste Committee or should the Board make the decision today.
Commr. Hill stated that there is not a fully functioning Solid Waste Committee.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager stated that there is not a quorum for the Solid Waste Committee.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board decided to reconsider the issue.
Commr. Conner voted “no.”
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the development and implementation of the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) program, the purchase of the necessary equipment and the hiring of four part time laborers.
Commr. Conner voted “no.”
strout v. lake county
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, presented an Agreement to resolve the Strout v. Lake County litigation.
Commr. Conner opined that $51,000 lawsuits should not be settled on the Consent Agenda. He commented that including legal fees the total is going to be closer to $70,000 or $75,000. He opined that the Board should be fair to the County Manager and give her the opportunity to address this lawsuit.
Mr. Minkoff stated that discussion should not take place while the case is still open. He explained that if the Board does not approve the settlement, then the case is still in litigation and he would prefer that a potential witness not share details of the case. He stated that he would be glad to answer any questions regarding why the County is settling the case.
Commr. Renick stated that it is the Board’s decision, not the County Managers. She commented that it would be okay for the County Manager to say something after the Board votes.
Commr. Hill concurred that it is the Board’s decision. She asked if the County could request that the file be sealed as part of the settlement.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the file could not be sealed.
Commr. Renick stated that the file should remain open. She opined that it sends the wrong message to seal the information.
Commr. Hill stated that the public could access the general release and the amount.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the County operates under the Sunshine Law so there is no need for the discussion. All records are public record.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Settlement Agreement for Strout v. Lake County.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager stated that she had no comment.
reports – commissioner renick – district 2
Hardship Assistance Program
Commr. Renick explained that the Board eliminated the hardship assistance program for waste management and fire fees that are included on tax bills. She stated that the program was created to prevent the Tax Collector from having to repossess property because those fees were not paid. She stated that during the Budget workshop she was not aware of the details of this program. She requested the Board reconsider the elimination of this program.
It was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to present this matter next week.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager stated that staff will include this matter on the Agenda for the Public Hearing.
local planning agency (lpa)
Commr. Renick motioned for the Board to sunset the Local Planning Agency (LPA).
Commr. Cadwell asked if the Board should discuss what structure would replace the LPA.
Commr. Renick agreed that discussion needs to take place and commented that the Board might want to combine the LPA with Zoning.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board added the discussion on sun setting the LPA to the Agenda.
Commr. Cadwell asked the County Attorney how this matter would have to be handled if the Board decided to sunset the LPA.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney stated that there has to be an LPA and that the Board could name themselves or the Zoning Board as the LPA.
Commr. Conner stated that this matter needs to be put on an Agenda and allow time for the Commissioners to research and discuss the matter. He commented that this motion is different than the previous motion by the Chairman at the Budget Workshop. He explained that his understanding of the previous motion was to expand one board and combine the boards instead of sun setting one board. He opined that he would like to allow more deliberation before making a decision on this issue. He commented that although he does not always agree with the LPA, they work for free and put in a lot of time and effort. He concurred with past comments by the Chairman that there is merit in combining the two boards due to the lack of work.
Commr. Stewart concurred with the comments by Commr. Conner. She asked what benefit there would be by sun setting the LPA. She agreed that it might be beneficial to combine the two boards.
Commr. Renick clarified that she thinks the LPA has done a wonderful job. She stated that her recommendation does not have anything to do with their performance. She explained that this issue was on a previous Agenda and that is why she felt it would be appropriate to discuss it again today. She stated that her intention was to sunset the LPA and bring back the issue back at a later date.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that he would work with staff and the County Attorney’s office to come back with a model group for discussion.
Commr. Renick withdrew her motion to sunset the LPA.
REPORTS – commissioner conner – district 3
Library content in youth section
Commr. Conner stated that he has received emails and phone calls from parents regarding age inappropriate books in the twelve year old section in the County libraries. He stated that adults have the right to watch and read whatever they wish and that he does not support censoring or removing books from the library. He commented that the books in question have words that can not be read on television. He stated that the County librarian is working with the City of Leesburg and defending those books in the Children’s section. He opined that the books should remain in the library but not in the children’s section, where they are currently located. He commented that when the book cannot be read aloud at a County Commissioner’s meeting in front of people on broadcast television, then it is too vulgar to expose to adolescent youth. He explained that he did not want to ask the Board to do anything but wanted to make them aware of the situation.
Commr. Stewart expressed her support of Commr. Conner’s comments and stated that she read the books in question. She explained that twelve year olds are allowed to check out these books. She suggested implementing a rating system for the books. She reported that she has received feedback stating that it is the parent’s responsibility.
Commr. Renick thanked Commr. Stewart and Commr. Conner for having the courage to mention this issue. She opined that the issue is where the book is located in the library, not that it is available.
Commr. Hill stated that she spoke with a Commissioner from the City of Leesburg who reported that they are working on developing separate sections and reclassifying the age limits for those sections. She reported the City of Leesburg was researching the creation of a citizen’s purchasing committee to enhance the community’s input on the purchases.
Commr. Renick stated that there were previous discussions regarding the Library’s budget and the allocation of the funds for purchasing DVDs versus books. She reported that the Board voted that books would be purchased with the available funds. She compared her visit to the new Cooper Memorial Library to Blockbuster. She reported that the County is still purchasing new release DVDs. She stated that she understood that libraries are not only for books anymore but she hoped that the Budget would not include money for new release DVDs.
judge aulls
Commr. Conner expressed sympathy to the Aulls family. He expressed appreciation and admiration to Judge Hill for the eulogy he delivered at the funeral.
mt. plymouth/sorrento community redevelopment area (cra)
Commr. Stewart stated that the Mount Plymouth, Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) was presented a few weeks ago. She reported that the Board had some issues with the size of the CRA, but the size of the CRA has been reduced. She explained that the original proposal included the parcels where CR 437 would eventually be rerouted, and those parcels have been taken out of the CRA. She stated that the newly proposed CRA mimics the area that has been designated the Main Street District. She reiterated that the Board is not voting on the size of the CRA; the vote today is for approval to move forward to develop a finding of necessity and a Redevelopment Plan.
Commr. Cadwell asked for an explanation of the process after the Board grants staff approval to move forward. He stated that he would like to know the various steps in the procedure that would allow the Board to reconsider the CRA if desired.
Commr. Stewart explained that after approval to move forward, the staff will proceed with a blight analysis.
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Economic Growth and Redevelopment Director, stated that staff was only asking for approval to obtain a finding of necessity. She explained that if the blight criteria is met, then staff would proceed with the development of a Redevelopment Plan is approved by the Board. She stated that the Redevelopment Plan would be created with community input.
Commr. Stewart reiterated that this is not a plan to bring a lot of development into the area, but to maintain the existing businesses that are currently in the area. She commented that none of the business owners along SR 46 that she has spoken with are opposed to the CRA.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney explained that if the Board granted the approval for staff to move forward to develop a finding of necessity, then the staff would have to present the facts to the Board. He stated that the Board would have to adopt a Resolution finding that it met the requirements of the statute for a necessity. He reported that the next step would be the creation of the CRA which would then create the development plan. He stated that there would be two more opportunities for the Board to stop this process.
Commr. Cadwell opined that he is not completely comfortable, but would vote to allow staff to move forward at this point.
Commr. Renick commented that she was not happy about the County entering into a CRA. She asked if the Board would have the opportunity to completely stop the process or would it be opportunities to change the plan.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board can decide to completely stop the process.
Commr. Stewart stated that if the Board does not believe in CRAs, then the Board should not approve staff to move forward.
Commr. Conner concurred that if the majority of the Commission is philosophically and fundamentally opposed to the County entering into a CRA, then the Board should not go through the process. He opined that his biggest concern is that CRAs make financial commitments to given areas from any increases in revenue that are based on increased property values from that area. He stated that it appears there is a financial advantage to the municipalities. He expressed that he is reluctant to move forward without knowing how it will benefit the County. He stated that the Board should not pledge money from the future General Fund, like the park in Clermont.
Commr. Stewart explained that the benefit of a CRA is that if times are bad, property values are not going up and therefore no funds will be taken from the County. She stated that when the property value does increase, then the money collected by the County will go back into the community that paid those taxes.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was considering Astor as a possibility for the next CRA if the Board decides to move forward on the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento CRA. He opined that Commissioner Stewart has spent a lot of time and that the Board should allow her to complete the first steps of the process.
Commr. Renick commented that this would cause a chain reaction starting with this community CRA and then leading to one with Astor and then Four Corners. She acknowledged that other counties do engage in them but opined that she is not in favor of it.
Commr. Stewart stated that the Board needs to make a decision today on its opinion of CRAs. She explained that she does not want to waste the staff’s time and resources if the Board is against it. She stated that she has been meeting with business owners in the area and does not want to continue to waste their time if the Board is against CRAs. She asked the Board if they believe in county CRAs.
Commr. Hill stated that her primary concern is the financial commitment on the taxes. She stated that the County has entered into a few Municipal Services Taxation Unit (MSTU) and asked if that would be more appropriate for this area. She explained that the community would prepare an MSTU for a specific purpose.
Commr. Cadwell stated that a MSTU requires the community to tax themselves more for a specific purpose.
Commr. Hill explained that she understands the difference between the CRA and MSTU and stated that the MSTU process has been done for other communities. She remarked that this is the process used when Homeowners Associations request it.
Commr. Cadwell explained that the process for the Homeowner Associations was done before anything was built and the residents that moved into that subdivision were aware of the additional taxes.
Commr. Hill suggested presenting this option to the business owners so they can put something back into their community without taking funds from the County. She reported that there are areas in her district that could benefit from a CRA. She asked how the Board could deny one area when if it has been granted to another area.
Commr. Cadwell reported that the area would have to qualify for the CRA.
Commr. Renick stated that there are a lot of areas that could qualify.
Commr. Cadwell asked Commissioner Hill if she was in favor of CRAs.
Commr. Hill opined that it is too premature. She stated that the Board does not have a consensus of the community. She reported that she has received emails from both sides of the argument.
Commr. Renick distributed a map prepared by Priscilla Bernardo Drugge, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Planning Advisory Committee. She stated that she met with Priscilla to suggest a different CRA. She stated that the map provided has a different boundary and an idea. She commented that she has not received feedback against the CRA.
Commr. Stewart stated that she wanted the Board to base their decision on their belief in CRAs, not from any input they have received from the community. She reported some of the feedback she has received from the residents and business owners of that community. She explained that the proposed CRA was a result of meetings and discussions with the residents and small business owners of that community. She stated that the purpose of the CRA is to make the community attractive and successful. She opined that she firmly believes that the CRA will accomplish that and be a benefit to every resident of the subject area.
Commr. Renick stated that she felt Four Corners would benefit from a CRA, which made her think that if Four Corners were done, then other communities would want it too. She apologized for wasting staff’s time. She stated that she had reservations initially but wanted to continue to research the matter. She opined that she does not want the County to enter into CRAs in any area.
Commr. Hill stated that she had a problem with CRAs but agreed to the process because she wanted to see the results. She opined that philosophically she is against CRAs.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Hill, and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied the request for staff to move forward on the development of a finding of necessity and redevelopment plan for the proposed Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA).
Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Stewart voted “no.”
reports – commissioner stewart – district 4
transportation disadvantage board award
Commr. Stewart congratulated Lake County’s Transportation Disadvantaged Board for being awarded the Board of the Year award at the 17th Annual Transportation Disadvantaged Training and Technology Conference at Disney.
reports – commissioner cadwell – district 5
landscape ordinance
Commr. Cadwell asked the Board to provide staff with any additional language they would like included in the landscape ordinance before another workshop is scheduled.
Commr. Conner asked Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning and Community Design Director, Growth Management to schedule a meeting for discussion on this topic.
CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
Ms. Tina Feray, resident of Umatilla, expressed interest in leasing a county-owned undeveloped property across from the Umatilla Airport. She stated that she lives adjacent to the property and would like to lease the property to allow her horses to roam.
Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Feray if her horses were on the property now, because he received a phone call about the horses being on the property.
Mr. Feray replied that the horses were not on the property right now, but that she did allow them over the weekend.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would personally contact Ms. Feray after discussing it with the County Attorney’s Office.
--------------
Mr. Robert Kelly, LPA member, stated that when the building permit extension ordinance was presented to the Local Planning Agency (LPA), one of the revisions included that all permits and things that are approved would have a six month forward time frame. He asked if that language was still included in the ordinance or if it had been revised to include only items that have been approved or are in the process and not any newly applied for permits.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that there was not an ordinance. He explained that the statute requires people to notify the County by December 2009 to request the extension. He stated that it could apply to a development order issued by that December date, but could not apply to any development order issued after that date.
---------------
Mr. Robert Hale, resident of Lady Lake, addressed the Board regarding the Orange Blossom Hills South subdivision located near Lady Lake. He stated that he owns property in this subdivision where there are platted right-of-ways that have been blocked by fencing, which has stopped development. He asked the Board for their assistance in resolving this matter.
Commr. Cadwell referred him to speak with Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Works.
Mr. Hale stated that he had another issue regarding the Oak Tree Terrace subdivision located in Fruitland Park. He commented that this subdivision contains a retention area that was platted during the original plat of the subdivision. He reported that based on his conversations with the Water Management District, the retention area is part of the flood water control system for that subdivision. He opined that the lot was unlawfully taxed based on his research. He explained that he purchased the tax deed to this property which was a result of the taxation of this lot. He asked the Board for their assistance in discovering the possible taxing error.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he should contact the County Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that if the Property Appraiser’s Office appraises the parcel and taxes are assessed against it and not paid, then the Clerk is entitled to sell the tax deed. He noted that the County is not involved in that process. He explained that people are supposed to do the research to know what exactly they are getting when they purchase tax deeds. He stated that the statute outlining the assessment of common areas is relatively new. He commented that this matter would be better handled by Mr. Havill’s Office instead of the Board. He described that the process is started by Mr. Havill’s Office which assesses the property and then when the assessment is not paid a tax certificate is sold. He commented that it goes back to the assessment portion. He explained that a couple of years ago someone bought the property where the Lake Dalhousie boat ramp is, and they did not know there was a permanent easement to the Department of Environmental Protection for a boat ramp. He stated that the easement encumbers the whole property and it can only be used as a boat ramp. He reported that it was the responsibility of the person purchasing the lot to have done their research.
------------------
Ms. Peggy Belflower, resident of Lake County, thanked the Commission for funding the Resource Conservationist position. She stated that Ms. Cindy Strickland, Resource Conservationist, has addressed over 58,000 Lake County students and has a full schedule for the coming school year. She informed the Board that on Thursday, September 3, 2009, Mr. Roy Hunter, President of Northeast Lake Chamber of Commerce, asked her to announce that Sheriff Gary Borders will be at Spring Creek Elementary School in Paisley to deliver a firearm course.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:54 p.m.
_________________________________
welton g. cadwell, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK