A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 22, 2011
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22, 2011 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: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Jimmy Conner; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Darren Gray, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Office Associate V, County Manager’s Office; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor Paul Guthrie from Northpointe Fellowship in Umatilla gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Hill noted that there was an Addendum 1-I item to go under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, and they would put the item regarding a regional water strategy from Addendum 1-II under the County Manager’s business.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board voted to add those items on the Agenda.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, mentioned that he had a couple of reports which he did not think would require action.
Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, requested to pull Tab 1 to have staff present that to the Board.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tab 2 and Addendum 1-I, pulling Tab 1, as follows:
Request for approval of the Management Plans for Lady Lake Preserve, Helena Run Preserve and Dead River Road Regional Stormwater Pond. Estimated fiscal impact is $650 per year.
Request for approval of an interlocal agreement between Lake County and the Lake Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO) relating to the Lake County Traffic County Program.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 6 as follows:
Request for approval and authorization for Chairman to execute an Affidavit releasing Lot 28, Lake County Central Park, from the deed restriction on commencement of construction.
Request for approval of Settlement Agreement at Mediation between Kathleen Higgins, Paul Sellitto, Estate of Virginia Sellitto, Serena Baldwin, Anthony Martinez and Lake County.
Request for approval of the 4th Amendment to Restrictive Covenants for the Lake County Central Park. No fiscal impact.
Request for approval for Chairman to endorse check from Universal Insurance Company for $4,215.04 on behalf of Lake County Housing & Community, Development Division. There is no Fiscal Impact.
process for tdc capital projects funding requests
Mr. Adam Sumner, Economic Development Director, related that they presented a policy and application process for tourist development capital projects funding to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) last week, and he noted that in the past they only funded one project for the National Training Center (NTC) softball complex over a period of three years. He explained that they wanted to put together a policy and application with a grading scale and a quantifiable way to track the impact of capital projects for amenities that would attract more tourists, and he stated that they did extensive research on what other counties were doing. He reported that Sumter County has a very lengthy application, and they looked at that as well as applications from Osceola and other counties to figure out how to create one that they thought worked best for Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell commented that there was extensive discussion by the TDC during that meeting, resulting in some changes that were made that were reflected in the proposed draft documents in the backup information of the Policy and Guidelines and Application that was presented to the Board.
Commr. Hill suggested that they add language to make it clear that it was still at the Board’s discretion as to the final amount as well as approval of the projects. She also thought that it was misleading for the formula to be based on gross revenue collections, since that was not the way the three cents are broken down. She explained that there are budget costs that need to be taken out of the first three cents for ongoing maintenance and other costs, but the fourth penny is really restricted, and then there were some administrative costs. She wanted to make it clearer how it is broken down and how it is utilized.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that those funds would not be part of the eligible funding that they were going to set aside, so that it would not be in that money.
Mr. Sumner explained that they had tried to limit the size of the document so that it would not overwhelm clients, and they did not want to put the full history of the TDC in there. He assured the Board that he could add one paragraph in there to clarify how the funding is broken down.
Mr. Gray added that they could also add the word “eligible” to clarify that issue.
Commr. Parks asked how the evaluation criteria listed under 1(e) on Page 4 which stated “will have an economic impact on the County and the community…” would be evaluated more objectively, such as a model that would determine the amount of benefit the County would receive as a result of the amount of tax dollars they would invest.
Mr. Sumner responded that they could model economic impact of construction of the improvement, but he noted that it was extremely hard to track that for a tourist event and would be done through surveys of people who attend the event, and they were dependent on the promoter of the event to collect that data for that, which was one of the things that they require and track. He explained, however, that until they get a track record of what they were getting back, it would be hard to quantify that at this time.
Commr. Conner opined that it would be problematic to go through the application process four times a year and believed it would be more practical to do it once or twice a year at the most, and he thought multiple times a year could also could minimize the financial impact of the award.
Commr. Campione suggested that twice a year would be a good compromise.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the TDC wanted to encourage overnight events as opposed to day trips, and they would be able to track that a lot better as it evolves.
Commr. Conner asked whether they had money set aside already in this fund for capital projects.
Mr. Gray responded that they had over $1 million set aside.
Mr. Minkoff explained that they would have to show this line item in their budget, and they could not sign the contract with someone unless it was a budgeted fund. He related that that money is currently kept in a fund balance or reserve account, so if they approve this program, it could be moved over to this line item. He added that next year they would anticipate how much money they received in the budget, and they could award that money during the year.
Mr. Sumner stated that they could provide a comprehensive history of the TDC funds that have come into the County over the last ten years, and he related that they have collected roughly $1.85 million for the last three years.
Commr. Conner opined that the sentence stating “The percentage of the requested amount that will be recommended is equal to the points earned” on Page 5 needs to be stricken, since the County Commission will decide the award. He also commented that he preferred to start taking submittals of projects for determination immediately.
Commr. Cadwell related that the TDC was concerned about being fair to everyone, including those who were not currently aware of this program and have not done their due diligence yet, and giving them another opportunity to apply for this funding by having more funding cycles. He opined that the number of funding cycles would not be an issue, because they may not have any money left for a third or fourth cycle.
Commr. Campione suggested that they clarify that they would receive them but not necessarily award them four times a year.
Commr. Conner opined that he did not think that delving out smaller awards of money would make a significant economic impact. He also had a concern about a statement on Page 3, which stated that there will be a maximum of five presentations scheduled at each TDC meeting, and he believed that everyone that applied by the deadline needed to get a fair hearing.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that the TDC anticipated that they might have to meet more often in order to hear all of the applications. He recommended taking out the sentence limiting the presentations to five.
Commr. Conner asked if the Board would hear the presentations in addition to the TDC.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he understood that that would be up to the Chairman after staff has evaluated them and they have been seen by the TDC.
Commr. Parks stated that he would like to see the top three but reserve the right to hear other presentations if that was agreed on by a majority vote of the Board.
Commr. Conner commented that he believed it would be problematic not to be clear in the policy what the process would be, and he believed Mr. Parks’ suggestion was good. He suggested that they put in the policy that once the recommendations from the TDC are made, then the Commission will make a determination of who will be presenting.
Commr. Cadwell suggested making the last sentence to read “The BCC presentations will adhere to the rules and guidelines set forth by the BCC,” rather than the Chairman only.
Mr. Gray explained that all of the applications are scored, and then the Board can take the top three or however many they decide.
Commr. Campione suggested that they use generic language to indicate that the BCC will take into consideration the recommendations of staff and the TDC and determine the extent the presentations would be made to the BCC.
Commr. Conner pointed out that on the next to the last paragraph in bold on Page 3 where it states that there are no guarantees and decisions were at the sole discretion of Lake County, he believed that “at the sole discretion of the BCC” rather than “Lake County” would be more appropriate there. He stated that on page 4, under Eligible Capital Projects, he wanted to clarify whether multi-purpose fields would quality under that definition.
Mr. Sumner stated that he can add that in.
Commr. Conner asked if the reference to in-kind match on Page 5 would pose any problems, and he inquired how they would have applicants quantify an in-kind donation.
Commr. Hill suggested that they use the word “professional services” there.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the definition of eligible capital projects came directly from the statute, and multi-purpose fields are not in the statutory definition. He commented that he would hesitate to deviate from the statutory definition of what is an allowable expense, although in some cases it might qualify for it.
Mr. Sumner stated that the statute does mention recreation complexes, which would include multi-purpose fields.
Commr. Campione commented that she was concerned about the word “repair” to the extent that it relates to maintenance, because she did not feel that that would be a good use of these funds as opposed to improvements, expansions, and remodeling.
Commr. Cadwell recommended that they leave the policy the way it was regarding the amount of funding cycles at least throughout the first cycle until they see how that works to give people multiple opportunities during the year to apply for the funding, but he did not have any problem with any of the other changes. He also added that they would put this information on their website as well as use several different media sources to make sure people know it is available.
Mr. Sumner related that their staff would visit local companies that would have interest in it, present the package, and explain the process in person.
Commr. Campione pointed out that this was one accomplishment they had as a goal in their economic plan.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Comm. Parks and carried unanimously, the Board approved the policy and guidelines establishing a process for capital projects funding requests, with this past year’s budget not exceeding a maximum of $1,000,000.00 and with the changes made by the Commissioners, including BCC determination of how many and which presentations would be heard; substituting the words “professional services” for the words “in kind match” on Page 5 under Financial Guidelines; and striking the phrase “The percentage of the requested amount that will be recommended is equal to the points earned” on Page 5.
proclamation for florida surveyors & mappers week
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2011- 34 proclaiming March 20 - 26, 2011 Florida Surveyors & Mappers Week. Commr. Parks was not present for the vote.
Commr. Hill read the proclamation and presented it to the group of surveyors and mappers who were present.
Mr. Dean Williams, President of the Central Florida Chapter of the Florida Surveying and Mapping Society, thanked Lake County for the recognition of their profession and commented that surveying and mapping has been a big part of history through the development of the country, states, municipalities, and communities.
vacation petition 1163 – umatilla area – shipley law firm
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of Engineering, Public Works, presented Vacation Petition 1163 by the Joel K. Evans Revocable Trust, the Eloise M. Webster Revocable Trust, Rep. Christopher Shipley, and the Shipley Law Firm, and related that this was a request to vacate portions of platted right of way for Lake Avenue and Marvin Street in the Plat of the Town of Hampton, located in Section 10, Township 18 South, Range 26 East in the Umatilla area. He explained that the area that is requested to be vacated is platted right of way, and there are not any roads that exist in the area. He pointed out an area on the overhead where they were requesting to retain a drainage easement that would be recorded upon the Board’s approval to vacate the underlying right of way. He recommended approval of the vacation.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Christopher Shipley, attorney for the applicants, commented that the staff report was thorough and accurate, and there did not seem to be any controversy.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1163 and execution of Resolution No. 2011-35.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Planning Director, Planning and Community Design, illustrated on the overhead that this meeting has been properly noticed, and noted that they had no changes to the agenda, with all cases remaining on the Consent Agenda.
rezoning consent agenda
Commr. Hill opened the public hearing for the cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda as follows:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2011-15
Rezoning Case No. PH#4-11-2
Francisco & Armando Alonso, Trustee
Lake County School Board Transportation Facility – US 27
Request to rezone property from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Community Facility District (CFD) for a transportation depot vehicle maintenance shop, general offices for an ancillary health care office for Lake County School Board employees and their dependents.
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2011-16
Rezoning Case No. PH#5-11-3
Lake County Board of County Commissioners
Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park DRI DO – Amendment
Adam Sumner, Economic Growth & Redevelopment Manager
Request to amend the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) (Ordinance #2010-8).
Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2011-17
Rezoning Case No. PH#6-11-5
Mildred Wolfe/Lady Lake Mobile Home Park, Inc.
Lake County Division of Planning and Community Design
To rezone 22.20 acres from Agriculture (A), Rural Residential (R-1) and Mobile Home Rental Park District (RMRP) to Mobile Home Rental Park District (RMRP) for an existing Lady Lake Mobile Home Rental Park.
Mr. George Wright, a resident of the Woodlands of Church Lake located in Groveland, stated that he served on the Board of Directors of the homeowner’s association, and there were some lots and businesses on the west and northwest side of the Commerce Park directly visible to the south side of their community. He commented that they all chose the Woodlands because of the quiet, rural atmosphere, and they had expressed their concern to the Department of Growth Management over what new industrial uses the rezoning in Tab 2 would bring to their area. He proclaimed that he was there to publically thank the department and the County staff, especially Mr. Sheahan, for their prompt and courteous response to address their concerns. He opined that the planned uses should not cause them any concern, and the openness of the County staff to listen to their concerns bodes well for any future issues to be addressed.
REPORTS – COUNTY ATTORNEY
coordination of zoning board hearing with impact fee hearing
Mr. Minkoff related that when they approved advertising the ordinance last week for suspension of impact fees for education, they had discussed setting the public hearing for April 5, but since they need to clarify a part of the concurrency section to make it clear that new projects did not have to make a reservation fee for education and transportation impact fees and that section is actually in the LDR’s (Land Development Regulations), it requires them to bring the ordinance in front of the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z Board) prior to coming to the County Commission. He noted that since the P&Z Board does not meet until April 6, it might be necessary to defer the public hearing until April 12 or April 19, still being retroactive to the February date. He also reported that the Impact Fee Committee has a meeting scheduled for April 12, and he asked if the Board wanted to wait to let them look at the ordinance, which would push the public hearing back until April 26.
Commr. Conner stated that he did not want to postpone that hearing, and he suggested that they ask the Planning and Zoning Board to have a special meeting so that they could move forward without letting time cycles control them and be able to stick to their April 5 goal.
Commr. Hill pointed out that the School Board was planning on having the discussion and vote on this issue on March 28, which would be in line with their April 5 goal.
Mr. Minkoff related that the Planning and Zoning Board meetings would require a ten-day meeting notice requirement, with a two-day notice for the newspaper, so it would be at least 12 days out for a special meeting. He recapped that the original suggestion was to only move it to the second Tuesday in April, which would only be a one-week delay to April 12.
Commr. Campione suggested that they have Planning and Zoning meet on Monday.
Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, stated that she thought they could make that meeting date happen, provided they have a quorum.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they would leave the hearing scheduled for April 5, and they will try to schedule the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on April 4.
jury trial on negligence case for accident on county road
Mr. Minkoff reported that a jury trial started that morning in front of Judge Law on a negligence case involving an accident on a county road and a state road, and Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, is the County’s representative at that trial.
county manager’s report
regional water strategy implementation assessment
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Conservation and Compliance Director, informed the Board that subsequent to the discussion which focused largely on irrigation last week, he changed the language in that particular block to read, “Current interpretation by St. Johns River Water Management District legal staff has eliminated any local control over establishment of DSS wells regardless of location (including within existing utility service areas). As a delegated responsibility, local health departments must follow this direction despite its potential adverse effects on local municipal and private utility providers and existing requirements to connect to services when available.” He explained that he removed any indication that the irrigation wells were affected.
Commr. Campione stated that she still had several concerns with the assessment as a whole, including recommendation 1-9 that requires “the water management districts in the Central Florida Coordination Area to adopt by rule policies for the consumptive use and management of water that incorporate conservation goals, metrics, and projects,” and she was concerned that if you lumped alternative water supply into these types of policies, they could be in a situation where the codification of these requirements could be overly burdensome to the County, considering their geographical situation and the fact that they do not have access to alternative water supplies to the same extent that some of the adjoining counties do. She noted that a large portion of their residents rely on domestic self-supply well systems, and she felt that they should be very careful when they engage in a regional policy that they are not putting their residents at a disadvantage. She also pointed out another section that caused her concern, which was recommendation 1-10 referring to revisiting and updating laws and rules governing domestic self-supply and residential irrigation wells, because she believed that was getting into an area where they could potentially violate property rights as a result of changes to some of those rules, and she was reluctant to support a policy that could have a detrimental impact on their residents. However, she commented that she did like and support the language in recommendation IV.1 regarding the use of the most scientifically-based information.
Mr. Welstead noted that it was placed in the “needs further discussion” column, because they do need to address that further, and he mentioned that this package was going to the Congress of Regional Leaders.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he will take back any of those concerns that come out of their discussion today.
Commr. Campione commented that she felt that recommendation IV.2 to coordinate efforts to fill in data gaps and the information currently available about water use throughout the region was positive for their County.
Mr. Welstead mentioned that they have the only county that has an accurate knowledge of domestic self supply wells and that he knows where every well has been put in throughout the county since 1999. He stated that other counties have never factored that into their models, and about four to five years ago there was a domestic self-supply impact study done by the district of the impact the County’s wells had on their wetlands and lakes. He opined that they need to have a holistic feel for what the water is rather than just picking one or two elements, and he related that the districts right now are working on coordinating the models for across the region.
Commr. Campione stated that they could go even further than Mr. Welstead’s reply to recommendation III.4 regarding the establishment of policies related to regional collaborative alternative supply development, which noted that “a regional strategy to alternative water supply must be developed or Lake County will end up high and dry. Although we are not a utility provider, would like to participate in the discussion to ensure our citizens are protected” to include some language about the feasibility and proximity of alternative water supplies to be a factor. She related that she has heard some discussion about the possibility of areas such as theirs participating in a project somewhere else and getting credit so that they would not necessarily have to tap into that alternative water supply.
Commr. Cadwell noted that there was a lot of discussion about that particular item, and it is watered down from what it was. He commented that he was one of the members in favor of keeping it more general, since he was conflicted about some items such as surface water, and he did not want them to talk about specific projects or specific alternative uses, but just state that they were going to continue to work together regionally on those.
Commr. Campione commented that it was feasible for regions that were geographically able to tap into alternative supplies to do that, but she emphasized that Lake County was not. She opined that they should be able to get some credit for helping with those types of projects and then be allowed to use their consumptive use permits there without an alternative water supply. She thought it was important that they continue to be part of the negotiations, but they should continue to be cognizant on the impact it has on the County’s own private property rights and their residents who are dependent upon wells, as well as the fact that their County does not have a regional water supply system.
Mr. Welstead expressed a concern about the potential of other counties’ actions depleting the water supply in Lake County, resulting in the County’s wells going dry. He stated that at a committee meeting there was discussion about the idea that areas with alternative water supplies available would use that water supply, and the areas that did not have access would be allowed to continue using the aquifer, while contributing to that solution.
Commr. Campione opined that that would make more sense than building gigantic pipes from many miles away to bring water to Lake County.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would take the Board’s concerns about property rights and individual wells to the Congress of Regional Leaders.
Mr. Welstead stated that he would add language related to regional collaborative alternative supply development and feasibility and availability of AWS.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Regional Water Strategy Implementation Assessment for Lake County, with the changes discussed in regard to regional collaborative alternative supply development and the feasibility of forecasting the availability of AWS.
REPORTS – COUNTY MANAGER
economic action plan report
Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, related that staff has prepared the first presentation to the Board to be given in April as part of their Economic Action Plan, and they would be giving those reports on a monthly basis to inform the Board of what staff was doing and how they were implementing that action plan that they had put into place a couple of weeks ago.
reports – commissioner conner – district 3
child care awareness month proclamation
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2011-36 proclaiming April 2011 as Child Care Awareness Month in Lake County and April 3, 2011 as Parents’ and Children’s Day in Lake County.
proclamation honoring william pruitt
On a motion by Commr.Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2011-37 honoring Mr. William Pruitt, Early Learning Coalition of Lake County for his outstanding commitment and dedication to improving the quality of early childhood education.
cities engaged in fire services discussions
Commr. Conner related that he had attended a very positive discussion about fire service with the mayors from the Cities of Tavares, Mount Dora, and Eustis and trying to eliminate the duplication of services and streamline that operation without sacrificing the level of service; and he commended those cities for their efforts in that regard.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CAMPIONE – VICE CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT 4
SUPPORT OF FREIGHT RAIL LINE IMPROVEMENTS
Commr. Campione asked the Board if they would be supportive of her reaching out to the Mayor of Apopka to express their support of the freight rail line improvements and letting them know the Board’s thoughts about that from an economic standpoint. She commented that the Cities of Tavares, Eustis, and Mount Dora were interested in doing the same, and she would organize a meeting if the Board was supportive of that. She also mentioned that Apopka was the last partner that would need to sign on in support of that project.
Commr. Hill noted that they sent a packet from the MPO explaining this issue with a letter, and it would be fine if she wanted to follow up with that.
school board tour
Commr. Campione recapped that the School Board reached out to the Board to go on a tour of the schools, and at the last Board meeting they talked about all of the different obstacles to doing that. She wanted to make sure their County Manager was working on that, and she thought that was a great first step before they convene for an actual economic summit to get the opportunity to see some of these academies and programs that the School Board has in place that line up with the County’s economic plan.
Commr. Hill reported that she talked to the Chairman of the School Board, who was working through that with the Superintendent before meeting with the County Manager,
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the Commissioners rotate visits to the schools so that only one Commissioner would be at a specific school at a time.
Mr. Gray mentioned that he has been working with the School Board, and they have been looking at the last week of April for that tour. He assured the Board that he would continue to work with the School Board and get that taken care of.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
jennifer hill, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK