A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
june 21, 2011
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 21, 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; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Neil Kelly, Clerk of Court; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Rabbi Chayyim Solomon from the Traditional Congregation of Mount Dora gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Gray informed the Board that he wanted to pull Tab 21 off the agenda, since AECOM requested to come back at a later date to make that presentation to the Board.
Commr. Conner requested to pull Tab 16 under the County Manager’s Consent Agenda for discussion.
Commr. Hill announced that the presentation for Tab 28 would be heard immediately after Citizen Question and Comment Period.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of May 3, 2011 (Regular Meeting) and May 10, 2011 (Special Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Tavares who writes a blog on fiscal issues, addressed the Board to express concern about the lack of disclosure of the EOC discussion on the agenda at last week’s meeting and that the public would not have known that they would be discussing and moving forward with the EOC project, since it was buried under a capital project review. He also mentioned that they did not allow public input at all during that meeting, and he opined that the Board should allow public input at all of the BCC meetings. He also commented that he believed that the Sheriff and other constitutional officers should share their fair share of the budget cuts rather than letting the County take on the entire burden of the budget reductions, since the County has reduced the size of the budget of their operations significantly during the last four years, and he did not think the County should be cutting any more money out of the budget for operations. He clarified that he did not include the Clerk of Courts in that comment, since he received the majority of his funding from the state and had his own challenges dealing with that entity for funding.
Commr. Conner noted that the Clerk’s Office has also had some massive cuts in its budget due to reductions from the state while still providing a high level of service to the public, and he also specified that the County cut their budget by $23 million last year.
reports – commissioner parks – district 2
presentation of tobacco free parks month proclamation
Commr. Parks read and presented Proclamation 2011-69 proclaiming June 2011 as Tobacco Free Parks Month to Ms. Joy Goff-Marcil, Regional 8 Coordinator, Florida Department of Health, and he displayed a sign that they would provide to the County that would be placed at their parks and playgrounds discouraging smoking at those facilities.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 8, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk’s Office.
Proposed Budget for Pine Island Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Pine Island Community Development District’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012 for purposes of disclosure and information only and cover letter stating the District will schedule a public hearing not less than 60 days from May 25, 2011, for adoption of the same.
Proposed Budget for Central Lake Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of a copy of Central Lake Community Development District’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2012 for purposes of disclosure and information only and a cover letter stating the District will schedule a public hearing not less than 60 days from May 27, 2011 for adoption of the same.
Proposed Budget for Country Club of Mount Dora Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year 2012 for the Country Club of Mount Dora Community Development District. A public hearing to consider the adoption of this item has been scheduled for Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. at the Country Club of Mount Dora Community Center, located at 1400 Country Club Boulevard, Mount Dora, FL. This budget is being submitted in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes.
Ordinances from the Town of Lady Lake
Request to acknowledge receipt of ordinances from the Town of Lady Lake as follows:
Ordinance No. 2011-01: Annexing property being 18.18± acres of land, located south of County Road 466, west of Rolling Acres Road.
Ordinance No. 2011-02: Amending the Town of Lady Lake Ordinance No. 81-8-(83) to provide for a large scale future land use map amendment.
Ordinance No. 2011-03: Redesignating zoning classification for property being 18.18± acres of land, located south of County Road 466, west of Rolling Acres Road.
Ordinance No. 2011-04: Amending the Town of Lady Lake Comprehensive Plan for the 2011-2015 five-year planning period.
Ordinance No. 2011-05: Annexing property being 0.33± acres of land, located in the vicinity of West Lady Lake Blvd. and Rolling Acres Road.
Ordinance No. 2011-06: Amending the Town of Lady Lake Ordinance No. 81-8-(83) to provide for a small scale future land use map amendment.
Ordinance No. 2011-07: Redesignating zoning classification for property being 0.33± acres of land, located in the vicinity of West Lady Lake Blvd. and Rolling Acres Road.
Ordinance No. 2011-08: Establishing a Lady Lake Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
Ordinance No. 2011-09: Amending Chapter 13 of the Town of Lady Lake Code.
Clerk of Courts Annual Budget for FY Ending September 30, 2012
Request to acknowledge receipt of Clerk of Courts Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012, submitted in accordance with Section 129.03, Florida Statutes.
Budgets for Village Center Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of the proposed budgets for the Village Center Community Development District for the Fiscal Year 2011/2012, which is being submitted in accordance with Chapter 190.008(2)(b)(c), Florida Statutes.
List of Property Placed on Lands Available List
Request to acknowledge receipt of a list of property placed on the Lands Available List. Lake County has until August 22, 2011 to purchase property from Lands Available List before it is available to the public.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Campione related that she had asked the Public Works Director why Tab 12 was awarded to a company out of Sanford rather than a Lake County firm, and she wanted the record to show that there was a very valid explanation as to why a non-Lake County firm was selected for this job. She also noted on Tab 6 that the Community Services Accounting Technician position was a very important position in light of issues that they have had in the past as far as tracking those monies, especially since that department receives a lot of non-County funds that come in from other sources which require good record keeping to track that.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 15, pulling Tab 16, as follows:
Conservation and Compliance
Request for approval for Partial Release of Lien, Property Owners: Alan S. & Catherine Abrams, Property Address: 3730 Lake Brite Street, Groveland, FL 34736. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval of Resolution No 2011-77 to issue Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Note, Series 2011 in an amount not to exceed $3,700,000 and authorize Chairman and Clerk to sign all necessary closing documents.
Request for authorization to fill one (1) Program Specialist position in the Community Services Department/Health & Human Services Division as a limited term position, duration up to twelve (12) months. The fiscal impact is $41,559.
Request for authorization to fill one (1) Accounting Technician position in the Community Services Department/Administration Division. The fiscal impact is $33,539.
Fiscal and Administrative Services
Request for approval to (1) declare the items on the attached list(s) surplus to County needs, (2) authorize the removal of all of the items on the attached lists from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records, and (3) authorize the Procurement Services Director or designee to sign vehicle titles.
Request for approval of a one year extension to the Lady Lake JPA as requested by the Town. The Town of Lady Lake agrees to transmit an implementing Resolution No. 2011-78 to Lake County to begin negotiations of an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) prior to expiration of this extension within a period of one year. There is no Fiscal Impact.
Request to approve the use of product-matching criteria under future purchases of playground equipment at County parks. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval and signature of Lake County Library System application for membership in Tampa Bay Library Consortium. Fiscal impact is $125.
Request for approval of the Memorandum of Agreement by and between the Lake County Department of Public Safety Fire Rescue Division and the Florida Department of Corrections.
Request for approval of award of ITB 11-0411 for Traffic Striping and Marking to Oglesby Construction of Sanford, Florida and authorize Procurement Services staff to execute the related contractual documents. Fiscal impact is $250,000.00.
Request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 2011-79 to advertise Public Hearing for Vacation Petition No. 1168. Commission District 4.
Request for approval to execute the Local Agency Program Supplemental Agreement between Lake County and Florida Department of Transportation for CR-44 ARRA Resurfacing Project No. 2010-13 Bid No. 10-0022, FPN# 428521-1-58-01 and supporting Resolution No. 2011-80 to include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system language. (Fiscal Impact is $0.) Commission District 1.
Request for approval to execute the Local Agency Program Supplemental Agreement between Lake County and Florida Department of Transportation for CR-452 Project No. 2010-15, Bid No. 10-0024, FPN No. 428520-1-58-01 and supporting Resolution No. 2011-81 to include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system language. (Fiscal Impact is $0.) Commission District 5.
Commr. Campione, who resides in Park Place, wanted the record to reflect that this is a project that has been started and stopped since the cracks appeared about two years ago and was in process long before she was elected. She noted that the homeowners’ association has been the one driving the efforts to get the roads in the development micro-surfaced.
Commr. Conner commented that if the County created a problem, they needed to correct it. However, he understood that Park Place was located in the city and paid city taxes.
Mr. Stivender explained that the city annexed the lots but not the roads in the area.
Commr. Conner opined that he firmly believed that the roads should be annexed as well if the city annexes property so that maintenance of the roads would be the responsibility of the cities. He stated, however, that he would vote in favor of this because of their responsibility to fix it and since they were in the middle of a project, and he wanted to act in good faith. He stated that he hoped that the homeowners who are paying city taxes will tell their city commissioners that the roads should be part of annexation and a city responsibility, and he believed they should direct the County Manager to start discussions with the cities regarding the transfer of that responsibility. He also opined that this should be the last road located in a city that they put County money into to repair.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the residents in that neighborhood did not have anything to do with the decision by the City of Eustis at the time to leave the roads out of the annexation and were the victims of a situation that has created a hardship for those residents. She related that the Board has already directed staff to take several measures to make sure this situation did not happen again in other areas.
Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, recapped that they had a transportation workshop a couple of months ago where the Board had directed him and Mr. Stivender to go to the cities with this issue, and they had a list of roads that they would like to transfer to the cities. He reported that they have already had one major meeting with the cities which was well attended and that the cities understood the County’s position regarding this situation, and he would be bringing that report back in October.
Dr. Dallas High, a resident of Park Place and a member of its homeowners’ association, stated that Park Place was annexed by the City of Eustis in 2003, but they have waited eight years to have the streets, stormwater sewers, and sidewalks transferred to the City. He reported that in 2006, the City Manager made some recommendations for work that needed to be completed and brought up to the City’s standards before they would accept the system from Lake County to their current city-maintained system, including leaking conduits, stormwater system repairs, and resurfacing of streets. He also mentioned that sidewalk repairs needed to be done for sidewalks that were considered dangerous hazards, and in several instances residents were having trouble selling their homes to prospective buyers because of the condition of the streets. He stated that he hoped the Board would go ahead with this, and he urged the Board to also take into consideration repairing the sidewalks that were deemed by the insurance company as a trip-and-fall hazard.
Commr. Hill noted that they did have a transportation presentation where they made note that they would not only discuss this with the cities through the League of Cities, but go through the MPO and all of the technical committees. She indicated that after the roads were put on a list, they would be upgraded to County standards before being transferred to the cities.
Mr. Stivender reported that the problem is due to the normal aging process of their road system, since the roads in this subdivision are 15 or 20 years old, and roots have a big factor in that. He related that they have examined all of the pipes in the subdivision’s stormwater system, had estimates ranging as high as $400,000 to repair those pipes, and would follow up with a memo to the Board explaining exactly where they have repaired the pipes and what money they have spent to do that. He indicated that they are in the process of looking at the sidewalks as part of their sidewalk program, and they will identify those and contract those out. He informed the Board that his staff identified microsurfacing as the improvement they felt was necessary to bring the roads up to a standard as part of their discussions with the City, which is less expensive to extend its life than a full repair of an inch of asphalt. He also mentioned that in 2010 they crack-sealed these roads along with other roads throughout the county, but they have had some vendor issues which have delayed the microsurfacing of those roads.
Commr. Campione announced that she will recuse herself from this vote.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Tab 16, the award of ITB 11-0413 for Micro-Surfacing and Related Services - Type 2 (Park Place). Fiscal impact is $111,187.41.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 17 and 18 as follows:
Request for approval to advertise ordinance amending Chapter 6, Section 6-43 of the Lake County Code, entitled Members, establishing a quorum requirement for the Board of Building Examiners. No fiscal impact.
Request for approval to advertise an ordinance creating Section 14-6 of Chapter 14, Article I of the Lake County Code, entitled Objects of Historical, Cultural or Archaeological Value. No fiscal impact.
utilization of concurrency reservation fees to fund
transportation construction program
Mr. Gray explained that about a month ago they discussed where they were in the transportation reservation fees during the discussion of the ordinance for changing the credits for the educational impact fees, and he recapped that the Board wanted to see a presentation on the transportation piece before they voted on the educational piece.
Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, reiterated that this presentation was provided at the request of the Board and would give them an overview of the impact and concurrency fees as funding for the transportation construction program. She related that Mr. Stivender would be discussing the draft transportation construction program from 2012 to 2016; she would be presenting the funding sources; and Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, would be discussing options for prepayments, reservation fees, and developer’s agreements.
Mr. Stivender stated that before the Board today was a modification of their road program, which would be presented to the Board on August 23, and they were asked to present both the funded and unfunded projects to the infrastructure committee on June 30. He went through the project list for the draft five-year transportation improvement plan (TIP) that was in the background information briefly, and he pointed out that some projects evolve from year to year. He specified that they have identified almost $23 million worth of projects on that list and where they would use the money.
Ms. King stated that one source for the road construction program is impact fees, which they have collected since 1985, was based on a development’s impact on the roadway system, was spent per district, and had to be spent within six years of collection or it was subject to refund claims. She explained that the use of the impact fees are approved annually by the Board, and these monies are refundable under certain conditions, such as permit expiration, cancellation prior to construction, or a double payment of the fees. She named impact fee prepayments as another funding source, which were allowed by code in order to introduce certainty for property owners with future plans, were treated as paid impact fees, were budgeted in the five-year road program, and were nonrefundable and nontransferable. The prepayment ensured a property owner that they were protected against increases, but the prepayment was converted to a credit after 12 months. The next funding source that Ms. King discussed was transportation concurrency reservations, which started in 1991 and was required by state law until very recently. She stated that it basically required that the proposed development has to show that there is available roadway capacity to support the development. She explained that developers are required to pay a reservation fee which would later become a credit against the impact fees due at the time of development, and it was refundable if the development order is abandoned before the funds were encumbered or if later fees were paid for the same capacity. She noted that concurrency monies can be immediately spent by the County and are included in the proposed five-year work program. She listed developer’s agreements as another funding source, which would stipulate that a developer would provide property, design, or road infrastructure beyond that required for approval of a development in exchange for impact fee credits that could be applied towards building permits for the project. She reported that they had approximately $4.7 million in concurrency management system credits for 165 subdivisions and 10 commercial projects, $18.4 million in the impact fee trust funds, and $5.4 million in developer’s agreement credits, which have already been spent and are considered a liability and not an available balance, resulting in a total amount of cash available of $23.2 million.
Mr. Minkoff related that staff identified three different alternatives for the Board to look at to deal with all three types of funding sources, one of which was to make no changes to the current code; the second option was similar to the educational impact fee ordinance that would be later on the agenda that day, and a third would be a refund of some or all of the monies that have been paid. He explained that if they made no changes, then the amounts that people have prepaid will remain with their land if they purchased a building permit and built a home or a commercial building. He added that the concurrency reservations would be treated similarly to the prepaid impact fees and were assigned for the most part per lot or partial project. He related that the developer agreements were slightly different, because they typically were not tied to a particular parcel and were written so that the developer could freely transfer those within the district, and the developers would still be able to use their credits if the fees were put back in place. He went on to explain that if the County created a system similar to the educational system which he called “banking,” which he noted would take ordinance changes, the developer would be able to move the credit they had paid during suspension of the fees into an account maintained by the County, and later they could transfer that upon reestablishment of impact fees. He explained that the concurrency reservation would be similar in that the amount of credit transferred would have no value until impact fees were instated and that this system also would have no impact on the developer agreements, since it would essentially be similar to the way it currently was done. He continued to explain that the third option of electing to refund some or all of the payments would take an ordinance change, and he pointed out that there may be some property owners who may not want a refund of the prepayments, particularly those that were prior to the 2007 change, since it would ensure protection against future increases and because the amount prepaid was relatively low. He also reported that under current code, the concurrency fees could not be refunded unless the plat is vacated, but if they change the code to allow the refund, those lots would still be vested and the developers would pay whatever impact fees were due when they bought a permit. He noted some of the developer’s agreements allowed the developer to use their own engineer and not go through the CCNA process that the County was required to use, resulting in difficulties for the County to refund the design costs. He also indicated that if the County elected to refund a part of the amounts that were due, the staff believed that the developer’s agreements should have priority, since those developers actually spent money to build county roads that have been accepted by the County, with concurrency reservations second and prepayments last. He pointed out that if they elected to refund any of those funds, then the road program presented by Mr. Stivender would have to be reduced by the amount of the refund.
Mr. Stivender reported that the staff recommendation was to make no changes and to use those funds to move forward with construction of the roads that were in the Transportation Construction Program.
Commr. Parks asked how much they currently have available for the right of way acquisition for Hancock Road.
Mr. Stivender responded that the County had about $3.8 million available identified for that project as of right now.
Commr. Hill asked whether the Governor has signed the growth management bill eliminating concurrency language.
Mr. Minkoff answered that the Governor has signed the bill that has made concurrency voluntary.
Commr. Hill expressed concern that some of the projects on the five-year priority list were connected to FDOT or federal dollars, and a refund of fees would do away with a lot of those.
Commr. Cadwell commented that all of the projects on the list were high priority projects, and he did not know how the County would get those done without using those dollars. He opined that they should move forward with the staff recommendation.
Commr. Campione commented that she agreed with that, and she believed they would have to address in the near future the question of whether concurrency for transportation would remain in Lake County. She related that she was in favor of staff’s recommendation and of concurrency remaining in the County for transportation, since they were still catching up from deficiencies that went way back from the 1980’s when they did not have concurrency to deal with the boom at that time, and she believed that dismantling that system would be irresponsible on their part, especially since some of the projects on the list are clearly important.
Commr. Parks emphasized that they needed to make it clear and proclaim that they were moving forward with concurrency, and he mentioned that they discussed that at a joint meeting with the School Board.
Commr. Hill pointed out that Lake County was the pilot project for concurrency.
Commr. Cadwell made a motion which was seconded by Commr. Campione that the Board approve the recommendation to utilize concurrency reservations to fund the Transportation Construction Program, making no changes to the ordinance.
Commr. Campione asked whether allowing banking would preclude them from using those dollars.
Mr. Minkoff responded that if they set up a system similar to education, then someone who purchased a building permit and completed a structure while there was a suspension of impact fees would have the ability to resell that credit once impact fees were reestablished.
Commr. Campione asked if they would allow public comment today on this issue, since she believed it would be helpful in making a decision to hear from someone who would be impacted by it.
Commr. Hill asked if anyone from the public wanted to comment on the motion.
Mr. Jim Bible from Showcase Homes commented that he personally recognized that the Board has had a strong commitment to concurrency and that they need to keep up with the infrastructure. He indicated that allowing developers to bank the prepayments for the eight months left in the impact fee moratorium would help put them on the same playing field as those that do not have to pay the fees to allow them to provide a house for the same price. He pointed out that they were talking about very small numbers, because currently the County is only issuing about 25 building permits a month for residential and most of those were not prepaid, which he believed would amount to about $50,000 to $100,000 for the rest of the year. He related that the money that is banked would still be available to assess to the projects the County wanted.
After clarifying with Mr. Minkoff that banking would take an ordinance change, Commr. Cadwell announced that he wanted to withdraw and change his motion to recommend utilizing the concurrency reservation to fund the Transportation Construction Program, separating out the banking and possible ordinance change into a separate motion.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the recommendation to utilize concurrency reservations to fund the Transportation Construction Program.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved the ordinance be redrafted to include banking, which would come back before the Board before it is advertised.
Mr. Minkoff indicated that he could have that ordinance to the Board by the first meeting in July.
request for return of school concurrency reservation fees
Ms. King recapped that the Board had asked for her to bring back a timeline of the Shader Ridge projects and that Mr. and Mrs. Erckert had requested a refund of their school concurrency reservation fees they paid in October 2010, which was based on the timing of this reservation fee. She related that a little over a year before the reservation by the Erckerts, the BCC adopted an amendment to Chapter 5 in July 2009 which required capacity being covered 120 days upon the issuance of a capital encumbrance letter (CEL) and required a reservation of capacity before construction plan or final plat approval, whichever occurs first. She gave a history of Shader Ridge, stating that the preliminary plat was submitted in May 2008, and a two-year extension was granted in January 2010 under Senate Bill 360. She stated that Public Works received the final plat for Shader Ridge in September 2010, and she outlined what the requirements are under the code. She continued to explain the CEL was issued on September 1, 2011, and they paid for their reservation of capacity for their six lots in the amount of approximately $5,000 for road, $28,000 for school, and $666 for park, which enabled them to receive their final plat in December 2010. However, in April of 2011 the BCC adopted an ordinance which suspended school impact fees, creating a situation where Shader Ridge was the only project subject to the requirements of the amendment made to Chapter 5 in 2009. She reported that staff has no objections to refunding the reservation fee.
Mr. Gray added that they had verified that Mr. Erckert was the only one that had paid the education reservation fee and that they had some funds they could use for this reimbursement.
Commr. Conner commented that this was a very unique situation, and he pointed out that the County had required the Erckerts to prepay that fee.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the recommendation to return the school concurrency fees in the amount of $27,972.
Mr. Minkoff related that they would be discussing the new language for the ordinance regarding educational impact fees which would allow them to implement this.
affordable housing advisory committee ordinance
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
an ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, florida; amending section 2-88, lake county code, regarindg membership of the lake county affordable housing advisory committee; providing for the appointment of alternate members; 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 explained that the ordinance allowed the Board to have alternates for each of the members on the committee.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2011-29 amending Section 2-88, Lake County Code, regarding membership of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to provide for alternate members.
ordinance regarding prepaid educational impact fees
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
an ordinance of the board of county commissioners of lake county, florida; amending section 22-11 of the lake county code entitled prepayment of impact fees, providing for the conversion of educational prepayments into credits or exemptions; providing for the transfer of educational credits to other property within the same impact fee district; 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 reported that they had some proposed language changes for Paragraph 8 that he recommended be included which he demonstrated on the monitor that would authorize them to make the refund to the Erckerts, as follows: “For so long as the collection of educational impact fees are suspended, upon issuance of a building permit, the educational capacity reservation fee, if applicable, associated with the property subject to the building permit may be converted into educational impact fee credits equal to the amount paid at the request of the property owner or may be refunded. Requests shall be made as set forth in subsection (4) above except that any request for refund must be made on or before June 1, 2011.” He requested to change the June 1 date to August 1 to allow the Erckerts to make an actual refund request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Bible from Showcase Homes commented that the changes in the ordinance addressed the changes that came up at the last meeting.
Mr. Barry Erckert stated that he appreciated the Board’s vote on refunding the school impact fees, and he asked whether he would have to apply for a refund of the transportation impact fees.
Commr. Campione responded that they did not currently have a provision for a refund of those fees.
Commr. Hill recommended that he discuss that with the County Manager or County Attorney so that one of them could explain the process.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2011-30 Amending Section 22-11, Lake County Code, to allow for the conversion of prepaid educational impact fees to educational impact fee credits or transferable impact fee exemptions, with the addition of the new language for Section 8 as follows: For so long as the collection of educational impact fees are suspended, upon issuance of a building permit, the educational capacity reservation fee, if applicable, associated with the property subject to the building permit may be converted into educational impact fee credits equal to the amount paid at the request of the property owner, or may be refunded. Requests shall be made as set forth in subsection (4) above, except that any request for refund must be made on or before August 1, 2011.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
transportation disadvantaged grant funding
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Community Services Director, explained that this was a request for the Board to accept the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) Trip and Equipment Grant funding for fiscal year 2011-12 and supporting Resolution No. 2011-82, which would give her authority to sign the grant agreement documents. She related that the Florida CTD is an independent commission which oversees the transportation disadvantaged trust fund and awards funding to the counties for their TD trips. She specified that the total grant amount is $578,432 with a ten percent match required by the County of $57,840, and she estimates that the grant will provide over 34,000 TD trips next year. She mentioned that Lake County uses the grant for operation to pay for the trips through their contractor, MV Transportation.
Darren Gray related that they were planning to come to the Board on August 9 for a Public Transportation workshop and go over that whole program with the Board at that time.
Commr. Conner asked whether they would be segregating the TD program from the LakeXpress program in their budget to identify how much total money has been spent as well as the breakout of local dollars. He commented that he would like to see a high level of scrutiny to get a true financial picture of what their non-disadvantaged programs are costing the County.
Darren Gray assured him that they would give him a clear picture of that in August.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and Equipment Grant funding for FY 11-12 and approval and signature of the supporting Resolution No. 2011-82, which includes designation of authority for the Director of Community Services to sign any and all items in connection with the Grant Agreement. The fiscal impact is $578,432 (County Portion: $57,840 / Grant Funded $520,592).
contract amendment for engineering services
Mr. Stivender stated that Tab 25 was an amendment to the contract they had with Shaw to continue services on the operation for the first year of the Astatula fuel cleanup and recapped that there was a 2007 agenda item about the cleanup that went forward. He noted that in the 1980’s the County used a fuel facility that was in downtown Tavares, which was moved to Astatula in the mid-1980’s, but since there were a lot of changes in the rules and laws associated with cleanup and standards associated with fuel facilities, he had to retrofit the Astatula facility in the early 1990’s, resulting in the elimination of all leaks. He believed that the problem subsequently discovered in the late 1990’s was a result of the original installation back in the 1980’s. He elaborated that Phase I was a perimeter set of connected wells to entrap the spill so that it could not spread any further, and they would use a pump system to get the hydrocarbons out from the fuel until there was only water left over. He stated that Phase 2 was to put wells on site to extract the material right at the center point, but that phase has not yet been brought forward for design or construction. He explained that the amendment was to allow Shaw to operate that for them, and he noted that they have been working closely with them to avoid running up extra costs due to state rule changes. He showed the Board a diagram illustrating what they had to do in the next ten years. He specified that the original construction amount was about $450,000, but the continued engineering services in the amendment would be another $107,847.40 to operate it for the next year. He mentioned that they would be bringing back to the Board in the future an agenda item for the design for Phase II, and they would have to budget money in FY 2012-13 for the second phase and operation. He recommended approval for Shaw to do this project, and they would be bringing something back next year to continue the process, which they hoped to end by 2020.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved execution of the contract amendment providing for continued engineering services in regards to the subject project. The fiscal impact is $107,847.40.
appointments to capital facilities advisory committee
Commr. Campione opined that Mr. Smith would be an excellent agent on this committee and that he would freely exchange ideas and facilitate a lot of deep discussion.
Commr. Parks agreed that Mr. Smith was very dedicated and would do a good job. He also pointed out that the terms end in August in 2012, and there would be another opportunity in 14 months for appointments to this committee.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Ms. Lucille Espey-Francis as a Lake County Conservation Council representative and Mr. Ralph Smith as a Citizen At Large representative to the Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (formerly Impact Fee Committee) to complete two-year terms ending August 2, 2012.
reports – county manager
request for impact fee waiver
Commr. Cadwell commented that after looking at the request, discussing it with staff, and going through the timelines of what occurred, he was not in favor of granting the refund; and he did not want to reward bad behavior.
Commr. Conner stated that he was in agreement with Commr. Cadwell.
Commr. Campione commented that they did not want to encourage a situation of someone proceeding without getting the proper permitting.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to deny the request by The Village Paw Spa for the impact fee waiver.
211 system and inmate medical items
Mr. Darren Gray, County Manager, reported that there were a few items that were not on the agenda for this meeting, one of which was the discussion of the 211 system, which was now scheduled for next week, because the United Way was still working to put that presentation together. He also related that they were looking at the issue regarding inmate medical care and planned to bring that back to the Board in August.
Joint workshop with school board
Mr. Gray mentioned that they have confirmed the next joint workshop with the School Board for July 19 at 2:00 p.m. at the new Lake Minneola High School, where they would be focusing on their economic development plan.
Commr. Campione mentioned that General Thomas Baptiste with the National Center for Simulation and Modeling has agreed to participate and put on a presentation about the impact that that industry has on the Central Florida region and potential opportunities for providing some educational exposure to modeling and simulation, such as in the form of academies. She mentioned that there were some schools in Orange and Seminole Counties that were taking advantage of those opportunities, and she thought this was a perfect chance to showcase those. She opined that it went hand in hand with some of their high technology targeted industries. She asked the Board whether they should make a formal invitation to include Dr. Chuck Mojock, President of Lake-Sumter Community College, and Lake Tech at this presentation.
Commr. Hill responded that they had two different focuses on education criteria and curriculum, and she thought that was a good idea.
Mr. Gray assured the Board that they would invite them.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
greater orlando aviation authority stakeholder session
Commr. Hill stated that she would be attending the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority special stakeholder session on Thursday, June 23, so she would not be able to attend the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) conference.
reports – commissioner Parks – district 2
Commr. Parks noted that he has had some good business meetings over the last couple of weeks, including with the Nemours Children’s Hospital to recruit them to consider opening up a facility in Lake County.
Commr. Parks related that he has received a request from a 4-H student for two speaking engagements, and he asked if the Commissioners wanted to attend one of them on June 28 or June 30.
Commr. Hill responded that she has already informed the student that June 28 was a Board Meeting day, and she had previously had something scheduled for June 30.
Commr. Parks volunteered to speak on June 30.
minneola athletic complex update
Commr. Parks informed the Board that the City of Minneola has agreed with the County’s proposal regarding the County’s investment and involvement with the Minneola Athletic Complex, and he asked staff to move forward with that expeditiously.
Mr. Gray reported that they have a meeting set up with both of the attorneys to start working on that agreement to bring back to the Board.
reports – commissioner conner – district 3
meeting at clermont
Commr. Conner reported that there will be a public meeting in Clermont regarding some road issues on Monday, June 27 that will be attended by the FDOT Secretary, and he noted that since at least two Commissioners would be there, the County Attorney’s Office has made sure all of the legal requirements have been met.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that this meeting is advertised as a Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting, with any MPO member entitled to go, and the MPO would take minutes.
timeframe for opening of passive parks
Commr. Conner recommended that the County slow down the 90-day timeframe that they had to open the passive parks and that the Commissioners are informed and more involved in that process.
Commr. Parks commented that there was merit to that.
Commr. Campione opined that it was the responsibility of the Commissioners to keep themselves apprised about any issue or project, and she stated that she was not in favor of backing off of the 90-day goal. She recommended that they have staff bring the Board an update in the future to handle things of that nature, and in the case of this particular situation where they had a deviation from the original management plans that were approved, they should have brought back those modifications to the Board. She requested that in the future the Board would be given the opportunity to weigh in on something that could be perceived as a major shift in policy from something that had previously been approved. However, she commended the staff for working to have an opening that was due at the end of July, and she noted that she has gotten a lot of positive feedback from people about their excitement about these properties. She also commented that she thought staff did the right thing on the decision to stabilize parking areas, but she believed it would have been better to have that discussion with them and be involved in that decision.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER campione – vice chairman and DISTRICT 4
tri-county septic tank advisory committee
Commr. Campione requested authorization to serve on an advisory committee to the Tri-County Septic Tank Committee, which is made up of Seminole, Orange, and Lake County property owners to track the different changes that have been proposed for septic tanks and the impact on the Wekiva Protection Area.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to add that to the Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Commr. Campione to serve on the Tri-County Septic Tank Advisory Committee.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced that there would be a recess until a closed session at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Minkoff stated he had previously asked for the closed session authorized by Florida Statute 286.011 to discuss pending litigation in front of a court or administrative agency, and once the closed session started, it would be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation and litigation expenditures. He noted a court reporter would record the entire session, as well as when they begin, when they end, and all discussions in the proceedings, including the names of all persons present at any time and whoever speaks. He explained the court reporter’s notes would be transcribed and be made public at the time the litigation was concluded. He added he had a copy of the required advertisement of the meeting.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
jennifer hill, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK