A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
october 22, 2013
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 22, 2013, 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: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Jimmy Conner, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: David Heath, 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
Reverend Karen Burris from Morrison United Methodist Church gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Campione asked for a few moments of silence in the memory of EMS Captain Joseph Dragojevich, adding that he will be missed and that they appreciated the time he served Lake County.
Mr. David Heath, County Manager, noted that the order of the agenda for the meeting has been modified somewhat, specifying that after Mr. Drury makes his presentation on the update of Alfred Street, they will go to the various consent agendas and then discuss Tab 30, Tab 37 regarding the sector plan, and end the morning with a discussion of the Transit Development Plan in Tab 31, which includes an update on Route 55 and 204. He related that after a lunch break, the meeting will continue at 2:00 p.m. with discussions for Tab 32 regarding impact fees, Tab 33 about the health insurance ASO fees, Tab 34 regarding sidewalks, and Tab 35 concerning solid waste. He added that they will also consider a letter from School Board Member Kyleen Fischer during the discussion about sidewalks.
Commr. Parks related that he wanted to present two proclamations that were approved at the last BCC meeting.
presentation of proclamations approved at previous meeting
Commr. Parks commented that it was his privilege and honor to present Proclamation No. 2013-116 proclaiming October “Lake County Cares Enough to Wear Pink” month that was approved by the Board during the last BCC meeting to the firefighters who were outstanding community citizens going above and beyond their job to help with the fight against cancer. He read the proclamation and presented it to Lieutenant Brian Gamble and his team.
Commr. Parks also read Proclamation No. 2013-117 honoring National Long-Term Care Residents’ Rights month and presented it to Ms. Allison Thall, Health & Human Service Division Manager, and Ms. Rebecca Foley-Kearney, Children & Elder Services Manager.
presentation regarding alfred street improvements
Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Manager, noted that the Alfred Street improvement project had its beginnings in 2006, when the citizens and leadership of the City of Tavares decided that a master plan that incorporated a partnership with the County for improvements throughout the downtown area including traffic circles, courthouses, and landscaping was needed to bring the City up to a higher standard in order for the City to make a good first impression to visitors. He commented that County staff has been very helpful getting the Caroline and Alfred Street project done, which was the gateway coming into the city with each street going one way, and he reported that they plan to kick off the stormwater portion in November with the actual construction beginning in January and lasting about one year.
citizen question and comment period
No one present wished to address the Board.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 5, 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.
Annual Report for Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program
Request to acknowledge receipt of Annual Report for the Florida Forest Service’s Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program and Fire Protection in Lake County, Florida identifying major forestry activities throughout Lake County from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.
Notice from Founders Ridge Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of a Notice from Founders Ridge Community Development District regarding scheduling and noticing of public meetings for Fiscal Year 2014.
Annual Meeting Schedule for Pine Island Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of Annual Meeting Schedule for Pine Island Community Development District for Fiscal Year 2014.
Notice from Central Lake Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of a notice from Central Lake Community Development District regarding scheduling and noticing of public meetings for Fiscal Year 2014.
Southwest Florida Water Management District’s FY 2013-2014 Annual Service Budget
Request to acknowledge receipt of copy of the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual Service Budget-In-Brief.
Letter from Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District
Request to acknowledge receipt of a letter from the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District dated October 1, 2013 stating that it has filed its 2012 Annual Financial Report with the Department of Financial Services and requesting a link on the website of Lake County to the Department of Financial Services website pursuant to Section 218.32(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’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 Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 26 as follows:
Request for approval of a staff-recommended list of vendors to be used for competitive bidding of residential rehabilitation and replacement projects under the CDBG and SHIP Programs; and authorize the procurement office to complete all implementing documentation. The annual fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. Total expenditures for all such projects during the last fiscal year amounted to approximately $340,000. All expenditures under the programs are grant-funded.
Request for approval of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Fiscal Year 2013-2014 through 2017-2018 Major Update as recommended by the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval to give a 90-day written notice without cause to Florida Hospital Waterman and South Lake Hospital terminating the Hospital Service Agreements pursuant to Section 11 "Early Termination" for the provision of inpatient and outpatient care rendered to Lake County Jail inmates. There is no further need for Lake County to maintain agreements with the hospital providers due to the transition of services to Armor Correctional Healthcare. There is no fiscal impact.
Economic Development and Tourism
Request for approval of award up to and not to exceed $25,000 to Raney Construction for the creation of five (5) qualifying positions and approval and signature on the Business Assistance Incentive Program Agreement with Raney Construction and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners. The fiscal impact is $25,000 (expense).
Request for approval of a High Value Job Creation Program (HVJCP) Award in the amount of $20,000 for the creation of eight (8) qualifying positions and approval and signature on the HVJCP Program Agreement with Raney Construction and the Lake County Board of County Commissioners. The fiscal impact is $20,000 (expense).
Fiscal and Administrative Services
Request for approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution No. 2013-122 for the receipt of funds from the City of Clermont for the Supervisor of Elections Office. The fiscal impact is $3,468 (revenue).
Request for approval of contract 13-0439 for Uniform Rental and Laundry Services to Cintas Corp., (Orlando, FL), and authorize the procurement office to execute all implementing documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $22,000 (Expenditure).
Request for approval of agreement with Bank of America to support acceptance of credit cards in conjunction with various County functions, and authorize the procurement office to complete all implementing documentation. Fees assessed to the County by Bank of America in FY 2013 for these services amounted to approximately $45,000 and were partially offset (roughly 6%) by application of convenience fees paid by the card holder. The fiscal impact is estimated at $45,000 (Expenditure).
Request for approval of check request (Direct Pay) for Florida Association of Counties membership dues. The fiscal impact is $27,228.00.
Request for approval and execution of a Satisfaction of Lien for Patrick A. Smith, who has paid the civil citation for unlicensed contracting. The fiscal impact is $500 which has already been received.
Request for approval to award contract 13-0220 for fire inspection and plan review services to BESH (Tavares, FL). The annual fiscal impact is estimated at $25,000.
Request for approval and execution of Special Master Agreement between Lake County and Anna M. Stebbins. The County will pay half ($112.50) of the special master fees.
Request for approval and signature of Agreement with CenturyLink for County Internet Service. The fiscal impact is $61,920 (Expenditure) for the three-year agreement ($20,640 per year).
Request for approval for the County Manager to sign the FCCI Insurance Group General Release for settlement of a claim for water damage at the Judicial Center. The fiscal impact is $69,318.43 (Expenditure) – Reimbursement.
Request for approval of contract 14-0601 to Pierce Manufacturing (Appleton, WI / Bradenton, FL) for purchase of fire trucks on an as-required basis with initial potential purchase of one (1) triple combination pumper truck, and execution of all implementing documentation by the procurement office. The fiscal impact for the initial potential purchase of the pumper truck is $259,312.00 (Expenditure).
Request for approval to (1) receive funds in the amount of $48,054 for the FY2013-2014 Florida Department of Health and Emergency Medical Services Grant, (2) execute the disbursement of the FY2013-2014 grant funds of $48,054, plus $11,374.67 in funds available from the FY2012-2013 and prior years, and (3) approve staff to complete any necessary budget transfers and purchasing actions. These funds are shared between the County, Lake Emergency Medical Services, and participating Fire Service agencies within the County. The fiscal impact is as follows: FY2013-2014 Grant $48,054.00 (Revenue) and $48,054 (Expense); FY2012-2013 Grant $11,374.67.
Request for approval and execution of (1) Memorandum of Agreement for Participating Orlando Urban Areas Securities Initiative (UASI) Agencies by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners; and appointment of the Lake County Emergency Management Manager as the primary representative for Lake County to the UASI Working Group; and (2) Authorization for the County Manager to sign future amendments/modifications that do not involve financial impact. The fiscal impact is $1.4 million for the Region; County share to be determined
Request for approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Amended Agreement with the City of Umatilla. This agreement adds the newly constructed traffic signal at SR 19 & CR 450 to the list of traffic signals currently maintained by Lake County Public Works for the City of Umatilla. The fiscal impact is $2,076.26 (Revenue). Commission District 5.
Request for approval and acceptance of the attached list of public right of way deeds that have been secured in conjunction with roadway and / or stormwater projects. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for authorization to award #7807 Griffin Avenue Intersection with #6903 Rolling Acres Road and #7212 Griffin View Drive Intersection with US 27/441, Project No. 2013-08, Bid No. 14-0005, to Beesley Construction (Weirsdale, FL) in the amount of $457,999.59, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $457,999.59 from the Renewal Sales Tax Capital Projects – Infrastructure – Construction (Expense) fund. The fiscal impact is $457,999.59. Commission District 5.
Request for authorization to apply for two Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) "Drop-by-Drop" grants, and authorize acceptance. The "Drop-by-Drop" grants are awarded to educators and community groups in an effort to promote freshwater resource education and initiatives within Lake County. The fiscal impact is $2,950.00 (Revenue).
Request for approval of an agreement with Center Lake Properties for Right of Way needed to construct the N. Hancock Road Extension Project which begins at CR 50 and continues to north of Fosgate Road. This agreement will settle the lands needed for the project which is under ownership of Center Lake Properties only. Additional right of way is required from other property owners to complete the project. The City of Clermont will also be a party to this agreement as it relates to concurrency and proportionate share requirements of the proposed Development. The City of Clermont is expected to consider the agreement on October 22, 2013 as well. The fiscal impact is ($117,253) - Balance Sheet. Commission District 2.
Request for approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Amended Agreement with the Town of Astatula. On July 12, 2005, Lake County entered into an agreement with the Town of Astatula for Traffic Signal Maintenance. The parties now desire to amend the existing Agreement to update it with no changes in signals maintained. The fiscal impact is $3,207.88 (Revenue). Commission District 3.
Request for approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Amended Agreement with the City of Clermont. On December 1, 2001, Lake County entered into an agreement with City of Clermont for Traffic Signal Maintenance. The parties now desire to replace the existing Agreement. The County is transferring ownership to the City of the traffic signals at the following locations: SR 50 & Hancock Rd, US 27 & Citrus Tower Blvd, Old Highway 50 & N Hancock Rd, US 27 & Hartwood Marsh Road, US 27 & Citrus Tower Blvd, Citrus Tower Blvd & Hooks Street, Hancock Road and Hooks Street, US 27 & Steves Road, SR 50 & Sandhill View, Citrus Tower Blvd & Steves Road, Hooks Street and Excalibur, Citrus Tower Blvd. & Johns Lake Road and the school zone flashers on Hancock Road. The fiscal impact is $63,622.09 (Revenue). Commission District 2.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 27 and 28 as follows:
Request for approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Section 9-4 of the Lake County Code regarding public use and access to the Lake County Courthouse.
Request for approval of Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Tavares regarding the roundabout and downtown landscape maintenance. No fiscal impact.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor and read the ordinance by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 7, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES; CLARIFYING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE HIGH VALUE JOB CREATION PROGRAM; REPEALING THE ARTIST RELOCATION PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this proposed ordinance, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance No. 2013-56 amending Chapter 7, Lake County Code regarding Economic Development and Business Incentives. No Fiscal Impact.
public hearings: rezonings
Mr. Brian Sheahan, former Planning Manager for the Department of Growth Management, stated that there were no changes to the rezoning agenda but pointed out that since they have had some opposition to Tab 2 regarding Victoria Estates at Clermont, that case had to remain on the regular agenda. However, he requested that the remaining items on the rezoning agenda be moved to the consent agenda unless there are questions about those cases.
rezoning consent agenda
The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the Rezoning Consent Agenda.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding those cases, 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:
Ordinance No. 2013-57
Miller Property Rezoning
Request to rezone property from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture (A) to conduct agricultural uses.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Rural Support Intersection
SR 44/CR 437 Intersection (Transmittal).
Ordinance No. 2013-58
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Policy III-2.2.7 and Policy III-2.5.13
Shoreline Protection and Minimum Buffer (Adoption)
Ordinance No. 2013-59
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Renningers, Florida Twin Markets, Inc. (Adoption)
rezoning regular agenda
victoria estates at clermont – ph#19-13-2
Mr. Sheahan stated that this was the rezoning request for Victoria Estates at Clermont, which has frontage on CR 455 and has been made by the applicant, Michael Boutros, and he specified that the property consists of about 9.6 acres located in the Clermont JPA (Joint Planning Area) just north of SR 50. He reported that the current zoning of the property is R-1 with a future land use of urban low density allowing up to 4 units per acre, and he related that the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-1 to Medium Suburban Residential (R-4), which is consistent with the maximum density allowed in the land use category. He added that the applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat application together with the rezoning application for the property which indicates a desire to develop a total of 21 units, which would be less than the maximum density for the property, and he mentioned that the water and sewer for the property would be provided by the City of Clermont, because it is in the utility service area. He commented that the project would have a slight impact on schools and would result in the high school being slightly over capacity due to this development, and the project would also have some traffic impacts on CR 455 which would be addressed through the platting process. He related that concerns about this project have primarily centered around alleged inconsistency with the neighborhood immediately to the northwest, Arrowhead Subdivision, and transportation impacts on CR 455, and he noted that Public Works has recommended that a turn lane be placed on CR 455 to service the subdivision to address the trips from that development. He explained that the applicant is asking for R-4 zoning rather than R-3 zoning because the R-3 zoning in the joint LDR’s with Clermont requires 100 feet of frontage on the lot along with a 13,000 square-foot minimum size, which would make it difficult to achieve the 21 lots desired by the applicant without having to get a variance from the City of Clermont.
Commr. Campione asked what the average width of the lots would be.
Mr. Sheahan responded that it was 85 feet, and he pointed out that the surrounding area is heavily urbanized, with another subdivision already approved in the vicinity of 2.1 units per acre.
Commr. Campione indicated that she believed 85 feet would be compatible with the area.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this rezoning case, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he drove through that area to get a feel for the neighborhood, and he believed that this subdivision would be similar to the surrounding subdivisions in that area.
Commr. Parks commented that his biggest concern is the impact to the educational facilities and asked to condition this on school concurrency.
Mr. Sheahan assured him that concurrency was a requirement in the Code.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-60, for rezoning of Victoria Estates at Clermont, PH#19-13-2, which was a request to rezone the property from Rural Residential to Medium Suburban Residential.
PRESENTATION REGARDING WELLNESS WAY SECTOR PLAN
Mr. Sheahan, who is the project manager for the Wellness Way Sector Plan in South Lake County, related that the purpose of this presentation is to bring the Board up to date on what has been proposed by their consultant, Littlejohn Engineering Associates, who has met with several stakeholders and the public. He mentioned that they have worked with their partner, the City of Clermont, to revise the policies of this plan to meet the vision of both the City and the County, which are closely aligned in many regards, and he assured the Board that they have been working very closely with the property owners to ensure that everyone will benefit equally from this plan with a successful outcome for the citizens of Lake County in its endeavor to create jobs and diversify their employment base.
Ms. Carey Hayo, Senior Planner with Littlejohn Engineering and project manager for the sector plan, assured the Board that they are aware that it is of critical importance to the County to move this process along and that they have met all of the deadlines they have committed to, and she highly commended the County staff who they are working with on the Wellness Way Sector Plan.
Mr. Barry Wilcox, Planner with Littlejohn Engineering, stated that the sector plan process was first approved by the legislature in 1998 as a demonstration project as an option to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which was very project centric for a specific development program; however, the sector plan process is a two-step process which starts with a long-term planning component. He explained that there were major changes made to the sector plan legislation in 2011 resulting in it moving from being a demonstration project to a full-fledged entitlement program throughout the state, including changes to the minimum size from 5,000 to 15,000 acres. He related that some of the goals of the sector planning process are to promote long-term planning for an area beyond the scope of the future land use map (FLUM), do some intensive data analysis, and mitigate regional impacts, as well as for the purposes of conservation, agricultural preservation, and protection of regional resources. He added that the emphasis in the sector plan is on creating some sort of urban form there and deciding where the more and less intensive uses should go based on data analysis. He reported that they are currently working on the long-term master plan, which is the first step in the sector plan process and which requires a few key components per state statute, the first of which is the framework map which takes the form of the FLUM, noting that he provided both a map that is similar to the FLUM with slightly different uses and a framework map which shows highway corridors, trail connections, and potential areas of conservation. He assured the Board that the water supplies and resources were taken into consideration as they laid out the map, goals, objections, and policies; and he added that other things taken into account include regional public facilities and regionally significant natural resources, since statute requires a regional perspective.
Mr. Wilcox explained that this first step in the plan should have enough specificity to guide their second step in the process, which was the detailed specific area plan, but still contain flexibility; and the second step will be similar to a typical DRI which gets into a land development detailed level such as setbacks, heights of buildings, and specific uses. He related that with the change in legislation, the long-term master plan now becomes the Comp Plan amendment, but those are contingent upon adoption of the detailed specific area plan which becomes rezoning, taking one step out of the process. He commented that during the kick off meeting in Chambers with staff and key stakeholders, they discerned that the number one concern and focus was strongly job creation, and they wanted to make sure that they had an appropriate and broad range of uses to create more mixed use communities and a multi-modal transportation system. He mentioned that they wanted to emphasize the protection of agriculture while not infringing on encumbered development rights, and he emphasized that no one in the sector plan is getting less entitlements than they currently have, with everyone actually getting a significant increase overall in entitlements. He added that they brought in some specific people on their team to address financial feasibility and economics, and they built as much flexibility into the plan as they possibly could. He pointed out that they have designated an equal amount of employment-creating uses in the sector plan as the Heathrow sector plan.
Ms. Hayo emphasized that they had researched all areas pertaining to the plan before forming their goals, objectives and policies in their FLUM, and she showed a slide which gave employment statistics for the entire Orlando metropolitan statistical area (MSA) showing that 20,000 residents were leaving Lake County for work every day and stated that she would like to change that model to keep those people within the county. She specified that 735,000 jobs were expected in the MSA through their planning horizon of 2040, and the top industry sectors are professional and business services including research, corporate headquarters, and medical related industries; educational and health services; transportation, trade and utilities; leisure and hospitality; and construction and other industrial uses. She opined that the regional county gross product is going to grow three times to $27 billion by 2040. She related that there were currently 82,000 jobs in Lake County, and they expect to have 84,000 additional new jobs by 2040 for a total of 166,000 jobs throughout the county, with Lake County’s percentage growth rate expected to exceed that of the overall MSA. She presented a map which showed the existing land use as almost all rural and a future land use map showing the county as primarily rural with some higher intensities along Hwy 27, and she pointed out that the future land use designations in the South Lake area are not necessarily consistent and compatible with what is directly across the line in Orange County with Horizon West. She mentioned that the 429 will influence the potential for the development in the future of Wellness Way, and she commented that the southern part of the sector plan area has the more environmentally-sensitive areas, although there generally is not a lot of area to date that is designated conservation in the sector plan area. She added that the area has wetlands and an abundance of lakes in the way of resources and that there are no parks or recreational opportunities, other than Lake Louisa, which was a significant asset in the center of the Wellness Way area. She also mentioned that Conserv II is a major land use in the middle of the sector plan consisting of about 2800 acres, which is a significant area of recharge, and they took into consideration that it provides reuse water for agriculture uses as well as a potential source in the future for alternative water sources for the sector plan area.
Ms. Hayo listed the public workshops that they held, starting with a very well-attended workshop in July at the Clermont Community Center where they gave attendees the opportunity to draw maps showing their vision of the Wellness Way Sector Plan using five land uses, which showed common themes of key priorities consisting of good transportation reconnectivity, multi-modal options, bike trails, flexible land use, and economic development; however, she pointed out that economic development was not necessarily as important to residents as it is to the Board. She related that they had an intensive day of stakeholder interviews in August, which was also well-attended, and there was also a Transportation Summit that was held in June with every transportation agency in the region in attendance in order to get an idea of what a reasonable transportation system would be for the area before moving on to land use planning. She added that in addition, they have had a lot of conference calls and conversations with stakeholders and others to receive input on the sector plan and have been as transparent and available as possible.
Ms. Hayo explained that the framework map was required by statute in preparing a sector plan and needed to contain at least four land uses, which were agriculture, conservation, sub-urban, and urban use, as well as minimum and maximum densities and intensities for those land uses and a hierarchy of place or urban form showing the nodes of development and how they relate to each other. She also mentioned that they need to include a place that is walkable in those nodes which could support a multi-modal transportation system in the future. She stated that the framework map has been incorporated into the data and analysis and was used as more of an instructional and planning tool rather than be adopted, and she specified some of the details that were in the map, commenting that it was important to have a balanced community and a mix of uses. She illustrated the Future Land Use Map that the Board will adopt showing five land uses, which were Rural Reserve, Mixed-Use Sub-Urban, Mixed-Use Urban, Employment, and Conservation, as well as the gross acres and percentage of those uses, with Rural Reserve including Conserv II remaining the highest acreage and the next highest percentage of 25 percent being dedicated to Mixed-Use Sub-Urban. She specified that 5800 acres are considered to be environmentally sensitive, including flood plains, lakes, and wetlands; and she mentioned that there was also information showing the maximums and minimums of those intensities and densities for each land use. She pointed out that the key nodes that were circled on the map of the town, village, and neighborhood centers allowed for higher densities and intensities if there are central utilities; and she showed data specifying the percentage of residential and nonresidential land uses within each of the mixes. She commented that in the past a Comp Plan had to be based on an assumption that an urban designated area had to develop the maximum intensity and density allowed, which she opined would often result in unreasonable outcomes regarding roads and utilities; however, she pointed out that the requirements of the sector plan were allowed to be more justifiable. She noted that they were giving the County the framework, land use allocations, and the policies to allow for an additional 91,000 jobs.
Mr. John Jones, Sr. Planner with Littlejohn with 20 years of experience as an economic planner who has consulted with local governments throughout Florida to develop economic development plans for cities and counties to attract and retain businesses that were target industries, addressed the Board regarding land use allocations and how they arrive at them. He explained that the land use allocations are designed to give the County the most competitive opportunity to capture the anticipated development opportunities in the future and provide a range of potential sites and locations for residential and nonresidential. He related that the allocations were based on space need requirements for each sector, provided a range of sites based on the existing and anticipated infrastructure improvements within the Wellness Way Sector Plan area, would encourage mixed use development, and would be compatible with environmental constraints of the existing uses. He stated that they also looked at existing development trends in order to allocate space needs for future development, and he commented that ideally the County wants a higher intensity for efficiencies in providing services and reducing sprawl. He opined that the appropriate land use allocation amount to give the County the best opportunity to capture the anticipated economic growth is going to be between the high amount and the low amount for employment centers, and they proposed 2,250 acres for employment centers, 2,800 acres for mixed use Sub-Urban, and 953 for mixed use urban, noting that they have approximately 6,000 acres that could accommodate employment and job creation out of 16,000 acres, which provide a range of sites and locations for developers to choose from to maximize the County’s opportunity to capture the new development and growth within the sector plan area. He clarified that employment centers are primary industries, which are businesses that bring new money to the area in the form of wages and add value to the community outside of retail. He mentioned that a hierarchy of place was one of the requirements of the sector planning statutes showing that they were creating areas that people would want to live and raise a family as well as employment areas.
Ms. Hayo explained that they are required to address hierarchy of place through the FLUM as well as in their goals, objectives and policies, and they see the most concentration of growth where there is a full range and mix of uses from residential to employment. She listed and described the nodes, which were the natural systems of conservation and open space networks containing the lowest land density, rural village center, town center, village center, neighborhood center, and the workplace center which might have corporate headquarters and things of that sort. She specified that she envisioned a town center around Trout Lake with higher density attached housing which would be a very walkable community and contain mixed land uses with some employment, shopping opportunities, restaurants, and offices. She stated that the workplace center would also contain mixed uses such as restaurants, hotels, and residences, but with more of an emphasis on employment. She mentioned that they had followed the structure of the County’s existing Future Land Use Element and included typical uses that would be found in each of the land use categories.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced at 10:45 a.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
wellness way sector plan presentaton (cont’d)
Mr. Jones recapped that the underpinning themes for the sector plan area are economic development, job creation, and stewardship of Lake County’s environmental assets and resources, and he recommended a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per one housing unit for the entire sector plan area which seeks to develop housing near jobs in order reduce sprawl, traffic, and pollution. He specified that they used the census block groups that correlate most closely to the Wellness Way Sector Plan boundaries as a baseline to calculate the jobs to housing ratio, which shows that there are currently .53 jobs available for one housing unit for this area. He explained that each DSAP (detailed specific area plan) is going to be evaluated for their ability to incrementally improve the jobs-to-housing ratio for the Wellness Way area towards the goal of keeping that ratio at or above 1.5 for the entire sector plan area over a 30-year period by reserving the space to accommodate the job-creating development in the future. He added that the goal is an aspirational goal and could be surpassed in order to have the housing in close proximity to the jobs that are created.
Ms. Hayo clarified that they were not proposing a linkage concept requiring that there had to be job-creating development concurrent with residential development in the same area.
Mr. Jones elaborated that the proposed policies give the County the opportunity to deny the development or to identify other mitigating factors that would allow it to approve the development if it does not achieve the jobs to housing incremental improvement for a targeted industry that the Board wanted to have in that area.
Mr. Barry Wilcox added that this was to set aside adequate land preserved for job-creating uses, and one of the first steps in processing a DSAP per the goals, objectives, and policies is to do a DSAP boundary determination analysis which would require a basic jobs to housing analysis and would give a developer a chance to partner with another developer that could help with the goal of creating job-creating uses if that was lacking in their initial plans.
Mr. Brent Lacy, Senior Transportation Planner with Littlejohn, stated that he was primarily responsible for the development of the framework transportation network, and he emphasized that they are not presenting exact alignments or specific locations for each one of those roadways, but they are based on some solid standard transportation planning principles and take into consideration specific goals and objectives that were assigned as it relates to transportation. He commented that it could be too burdensome to finance a transportation network if it was too heavily influenced by residential, and he mentioned that they were planning for a highly interconnected, multi-modal network. He noted that since Lake County has a long-range transportation plan and planned improvements that are financially feasible that are funded based on anticipated revenue, they had taken those into consideration as well as the input of the transportation agency partners, and they also received input from stakeholders about their expectations of the type and elements of the roadway to help come up with the vision of the network. He stated that they designed a base network that for all practical purposes provided a number of east-west connections between 27 and each of the interchange areas that are already identified and built on 429, and he commented that the rest of the alignment work was based on avoidance of impacts to the natural environment. He noted that they also intend to reduce vehicular miles traveled, minimize the length of the trips, and reduce the number of trips generated, as well as creating a multi-modal plan that provides for bicycle and transit modes, which will require a certain level of density to create a need and demand for that. He presented a slide that showed the changes that occur within the network representing a type of typical section. He summarized that they have developed a system that with a few exceptions for roadway segments had capacity built into the network to satisfy the traffic demand, which has been reviewed by County staff, and he noted that they have built into the system some parallel north-south routes with the future extension of Hancock and Hartle Roads to try and provide internal capacity to relieve 27 and allay some of the concerns of FDOT concerning that roadway.
Mr. Bob Nabors, an attorney with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, explained that his task for this project was to figure out how to pay for the infrastructure for the DSAPs and sector plan, which was one of the difficulties in a project like this that was primarily rural in nature, within the boundaries of the land use as development occurs for the regional transportation spine. He pointed out that the handout contained a narrative of the concept and a schematic that shows how it would work through a public-private partnership with the land owners using the credit of their land to generate funds and the governmental entities sharing some of the revenue generated by that land use to soften the investment risk of the land owner. He related that they would have to come up with a financial plan for the infrastructure within each DSAP that would be part of the integrated system. He specified that the private share would be through assessments against the land in incremental payments on the tax statement, which would be used for the credit for the issuance of bonds, and the proceeds of those bonds would be used for construction of the regional infrastructure needed for the DSAP. He further explained that the amount assessed every year is the amount needed that year to pay the debt service on a bond plus the cost of collection on the tax bill, which is a lien against that land, and the bonds are retired over time. He related that the second part of the partnership is that the County agrees to share with the land owners some of the increment of profit that occurs from development in the DSAP going forward which will buy down some of their assessment. He stated that the County could create a mobility fee for those land owners within the DSAP that did not want to participate in that way to allocate the cost of transportation among all the land uses and give a credit on that impact fee to those that pay the assessment. He explained that another option would be for the County to create an entity for each DSAP district by ordinance that would have the power to issue the assessments or the mobility fee if necessary, issue the bond, and do some maintenance if necessary. He illustrated three different scenarios arbitrarily using three geo-mapping areas and which made certain assumptions as to what land uses would occur in those areas.
Mr. Lacy elaborated that the above-referenced scenarios are conceptual, hypothetical, and based on some generalized assumptions of how much roadway network and right of way would be necessary to serve each of the different DSAP’s, and he mentioned that he worked closely with Mr. Nabors and provided him with the data he used in those scenarios.
Mr. Nabors noted that the allocation would probably be based on trips rather than acreage, but the analysis on that would be done when a DSAP consisting of at least 1000 acres was ready to be done; however, he opined that the numbers would predispose that everyone will participate, but they would have to make sure that everyone pays their fair share if that is not the case in order to reduce the assessment that the others committed to earlier. He also pointed out that the DSAPs will be much more specific than the overall sector plan and will be market driven.
Commr. Cadwell commented that they had to have some realistic expectation that the market will move these property owners forward.
Mr. Nabors responded that they would have to have a creation of the dependent district and a more specific economic analysis of the cost to the landowners at the point of finalizing the DSAP, and he noted that there has to be an interconnected, meaningful transportation network.
Commr. Cadwell added that a lot of things need to move at the same time.
Ms. Hayo noted that there are other sections and objectives that they have addressed in their goals, objectives, and policies such as land use and built environment, environmental resources and open space, the provision of public facilities, intergovernmental coordination for transportation and water and sewer services, and implementation using DSAPs as the next step. She mentioned that they have provided for the ability to create smaller than 1000-acre DSAP’s under certain criteria per the Board’s approval, which was allowed under state statute. She listed the three steps for the creation of DSAP’s, which were to identify boundaries and size and bringing that to the Board for approval, conception of the preliminary DSAP and getting input on that from the public, and then preparation of a final DSAP for approval from the Board; also, they outlined the process to change an approved DSAP. She mentioned that they had a number of letters and requests of existing landowners in the area that have approved PUD’s, but she pointed out that they had a policy that clearly exempts an existing PUD with current entitlements from being part of the sector plan as long as they follow their existing PUD plan; however, if they wish to abandon that plan and become part of the Wellness Way land use, then they need to go through a Comp Plan amendment.
Commr. Cadwell asked what would happen if they take additional time than what was originally scheduled for the process.
Mr. Sheahan stated that the scope of work on the contract is scheduled to finish up on November 19, and they would have to have a modification of the contract if they wanted to extend that, with the impacts of that to be brought back to the Board. He listed the dates of the workshops and hearings that are scheduled for the next steps in this process, beginning with a joint workshop in Clermont on October 29, and he mentioned that the transmittal hearing of November 19 has not been advertised yet and was still awaiting Board direction.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Geoffrey McNeill of AGMCI Consulting, a resident of Winter Park, stated that he consults with the property owners in the sector area and pointed out that the plan will change if the assumptions change. He asked the Board to slow down the process to work with their consultants and staff in order to reflect on the important issues regarding this plan, since the policies that will affect the DSAP in the future are critically important. He opined that the first key point was flexibility, but if they adopt the future land use of the long-term master plan map, they were adopting that as a Comp Plan that the DSAP would be based on, which he opined would not provide flexibility. He commented that he has worked on several sector plans throughout Florida, and he suggested that they look at the urban pattern to make sure it is what the Board really wants and try to create the ability and incentive to bring jobs into residential areas or vice versa rather than just land use that they might not be able to fill, since they do not know what the developer or land owner would set aside. He also noted that the area will end up having multiple PUD’s, zoning codes, and property owners.
Mr. Jim Hall, a representative of VHB Miller Sellen of Orlando, commented that the consultants did a thorough job and picked up on the correct and major points regarding economic development and incorporating some type of open space system. He mentioned that he was not sure if the 1.5 jobs-to-housing ratio, which he believed to be high, is aspirational or a target, but he believed that ratio is potentially achievable as they continue to define the districts that have been defined and described. He indicated that he ran the numbers for the 1,000 acres in the Trout Lake area owned by two property owners for maximum residential and minimum FAR and came up with a 1.2 jobs-to-housing ratio; however, the 2800 units were all apartments or townhomes resulting in a very high density for those sites and did not make any market sense, so he changed it to five units an acre for the urban district and three units an acre for the sub-urban district, which resulted in a 2.8 ratio. He related that the last scenario he ran had an FAR of 2.1, which is about 10,000 feet an acre for one and two-story buildings. He commented that he agreed with the previous speaker’s comments about flexibility, and he opined that complexity is inevitably coming once they start working on the details of each DSAP and plan, which would make it difficult to keep it simple.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Tavares and writer of a blog regarding local fiscal issues called fiscalrangers.com, expressed a concern as a taxpayer advocate about the mention of the importance of walkability, bicycle trails, and mass transit and who would be paying for that infrastructure, as well as the fact that only 17 percent of the land is expected to be used for work centers, with a lot of the land being used for high-density residential. He opined that none of the government entities should be involved in any kind of guarantee which would result in taxpayers paying for the failure of any of these systems. He also expressed concern regarding property rights and the possibility of a property owner losing a lot of property value, and he opined that there should be a way to compensate property owners that are locked out of it.
Commr. Campione pointed out that this would be completely different than Agenda 21 in California, since it involves land owners sitting down with elected officials and the planners in order to come up with something that everyone agrees with and is market driven, rather than planners dictating what the property owners could do with their land. She also noted that this would put limits on government risks and opined that this is the way this is supposed to be done.
Mr. Ken Kupp, a developer and resident of Orlando, commented that the success of this sector plan would contribute to what they were trying to accomplish on 429. He opined that people who are looking to relocate and generate jobs will take into consideration whether there are substantial executive and middle-level housing in place close to where they will build the offices or industrial plants, good infrastructure, and good schools that are not over capacity; and he suggested that they encourage early residential development followed by retail and schools. He also opined that they had to build 23,000 square feet for every acre of land for the FAR, which drives them to a structured parking scenario, and he related that they need to develop a product which is competitive. He commented that Lake Mary is an example of a success story to be emulated with a tremendous residential stock followed by great retail which clustered their commercial opportunities along I-4, and then the County got behind a tremendous marketing program with incentives. He concluded that he would love to see Lake County make this sector plan work.
Mr. Jim Karr, South Lake Crossings land owner, commended the County for doing a lot of work on this plan in a short amount of time and involving a lot of groups in the process; however, he expressed concern with the FAR’s, minimum densities, and the minimum land use categories that are designated. He further explained that he was concerned that the densities that will have to be built to accommodate the designated land use is very high and would limit the ability to do a mixed-use project, and he would like to further explore that issue and how it would affect the market. He opined that more work on this sector plan needed to be done, and he requested that the County wait 60 or 90 days before the transmittal hearing.
Commr. Cadwell asked what will transpire at the workshop that is scheduled with the City of Clermont on October 29.
Commr. Parks noted that Clermont was a large partner in this plan, and they should give the City enough time to consider all the information that has been presented since it will affect Clermont considerably. He also believed there would be a delay in scheduling the transmittal hearing.
Commr. Campione commented that the County should work on refining the sector plan and addressing some of the issues and concerns before they meet with Clermont.
Commr. Conner suggested that the consultants make the same presentation to the Clermont City Council before meeting with the Board, which he believes would be the most time-efficient way to proceed.
Commr. Cadwell commented that Clermont has to hear this presentation before the two entities could have a meaningful conversation.
Mr. Jim Hitt, Clermont Economic Development Director, related that the City Council was planning on hearing a condensed version of the power point presentation but would have the full write-up and the presentation in print form for review. He noted that the City Council was interested in hearing the input from the Board as well as the comments that have already been brought up from the property owners and interested parties at the October 29th meeting.
Commr. Sullivan clarified that he believed that the Board was not ready to move on the timeline that is set forth and wanted to put more flexibility into this program so that it could move forward and make sure they were ready for the DSAP’s to move forward. He stated that he supports the decision to delay the transmittal and put another 60 to 90-day schedule together.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the consultants had mentioned that their timeline is a lot shorter than what is normally done for this process, and he opined that this very condensed timeframe for such a large plan could have a negative effect on the sector plan.
Mr. Heath summarized that there was consensus from the Board to postpone the joint meeting with Clermont until after the City Council has heard the presentation from the consultants, continue the timeline for the transmittal for 90 days, and bring it back to the Board on January 28. He added that they would also get comments, objections, and concerns in writing.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the consultants would have to present the Board with a price to continue this process, since their original contract did not include a postponement of the timeline, and he suggested that they contact the stakeholders to find out at what level everyone wants to participate.
Commr. Campione opined that they were just going to tweak and make minor changes to the plan, such as adjusting some numbers, rather than plan on making major changes.
Commr. Parks stressed the importance of planning in order for good quality of life changes to be made, and he commented that the jobs-housing ratio was not a problem for him, since he believed the consultants made it clear that that goal was only aspirational and a metric that shows their progress in moving away from a housing-dependent economy. He expressed a belief that the predictability of having a plan in place will also make the County more competitive, and he stated that the DSAP is generally a good idea, since it avoids piecemeal growth. He commented that water resources needed to be clearly mentioned in the goals, specifically that irrigation use in the area be supplied by an alternative water supply rather than groundwater and possibly including a Water Star requirement, and he also mentioned that another major goal he would like to see included was to protect the topography.
Commr. Campione commented that this plan would need to be market driven to be successful, but excessive planning might not allow that to happen. She also expressed concern about some of the high densities that seemed to be unrealistic, although she thought that would be fine if the market drives the urbanism-type design in those types of areas. She also related that more flexibility on the first map that goes with the sector plan would allow for flexibility on the DSAP’s and would help with some of the objections.
Ms. Hayo stated that they should be looking at whether everyone is comfortable with the minimum densities.
Commr. Campione pointed out that there were a lot of wetlands that would be creating green space and nice aesthetics to a subdivision design, and there will be some natural features that will enhance the area aesthetically as well.
Commr. Parks pointed out that Conserv II consists of 2400 acres in Lake County but is owned by multiple Orange County agencies that are using it to benefit their utilities, and Lake County gets no economic benefit or water credit from that at this point.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 90-day postponement of the timeline and the rescheduling of the joint meeting with Clermont, with the presentation to Clermont to remain on October 29.
county manager’s departmental business
2013 transit development plan major update
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Director of Community Services, explained that the purpose of this presentation is to seek approval of the 2013 major update of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) and to provide an update to the Board on the progress of reinstating Lynx Route 55 service. She noted that Transit Development Plans are required by FDOT as a condition of receiving funding, with a major update of this plan required every five years, and Lake County contracts with Lake-Sumter MPO to prepare the TDP and required updates.
Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter MPO, pointed out that this TDP is essentially a needs plan and is very different from their road plan that is required by law to be cost feasible. He emphasized that anything they anticipate that they actually intend to implement over the next five years has to be in this development plan first before they make any actual operational changes to bus service. He stated that he was remaining optimistic that the FTA would rule that the County as a small transit provider could use the 5307 federal dollars to be able to work with Lynx to provide operation-maintenance dollars for both Routes 55 and 204. He requested that the Board include the fact that Routes 55 and 204 would be added back into the plan with a different level of service when they take action to approve the TDP major update, so that they could make that amendment before they send the final documents before December 31 to both DOT and the FTA.
Ms. Caroline Ferris, Senior Transportation Planner with TranSystems, showed an overview on the screen of the TDP process, which she explained is a working and planning document similar to the County’s long-range transportation plan, though the specific details such as alignments are not included and are subject to local processes and approvals. She mentioned that this plan is a matter of priorities, with the County deciding which service should or could be funded first. She showed an overview of the four routes making up the current LakeXpress service, and she pointed out that ridership on all four routes is consistently increasing, especially Route 1 between Lady Lake and Eustis via US Hwy 441. She presented a chart illustrating the demographic growth that has occurred in the area and the increased demand for transit service, especially in the communities of Clermont, Minneola, Groveland and Mascotte, and she noted that Lake County’s projected long-term demographic pattern is basically an intensification of the existing pattern of continued growth and demand for transit service. She related that some of the needs that they identified through a public participation process, such as to increase the visibility for the existing transit services, enhance the maintenance capabilities, and develop additional ITS infrastructure, were documented and detailed in the TDP document; and she added that some of the comments they received from the MPO committee hearings were that students and LCS employees should be able to use the LakeXpress service and that the purchase of bio-diesel fuel through local vendors would be important.
Ms. Ferris stated that part of the TDP requirement is to identify goals relating to transit, and she displayed goals that were modified from the 2008 process to reflect the implementation of the fixed-route system. She indicated that some of the service alternatives considered that were based on those goals and needs were to continue existing services, restructure some of the routes, and add evening and weekend service; and some of the new routes examined were the Clermont-Minneola circulator, Clermont to Disney World, and Leesburg to Brownwood. She presented a ten-year implementation plan which would give the Board the ability to prioritize the services which are more important to them and their constituents. She stated that one of the goals was to add weekend service to all the routes by 2017, which would provide LakeXpress customers with greater access to employment and recreational opportunities around Lake County, and she added that changes for the second five-year period from 2019 to 2023 of the planning horizon could include the addition of evening service, doubling of frequency on all routes, and the Clermont-Minneola Circulator. She displayed a financial summary for the first and second five-year timeframe and mentioned that a local dedicated funding source of some type would be needed to fund any options above and over their allocation. She explained that the next steps would be for the Board to approve the 2013 Transit Development Plan Major Update and to forward the document to the FTA by December 31.
Mr. Fish added that as a final step, the MPO would be working with County staff to do outreach in South Lake regarding Lynx Routes 55 and 204 to make sure the public is fully informed about what is happening.
Commr. Parks commented that initially his priorities are to get Routes 55 and 204 running as quickly as possible.
Ms. Keedy clarified that Lynx Route 55 ended September 15, and the Board authorized the use of $25,000 from the 5307 funds to restart service if and when they receive authorization to use those funds. She reported that they solicited a number of proposals from a number of agencies, including the current transit provider, Ride Right, and although they do not have a determination from the FTA yet about the use of those funds, they have a conference call scheduled with them on Thursday which she hopes will result in a determination. She added that they also requested some legislative assistance if needed to seek that determination. She mentioned that they have requested some additional information from Ride Right in order to adequately prepare all of the proposals, and Polk County offered to expand their Lynx Route 427 into Lake County on a limited basis. She related that they have received a proposal from Lynx with three options to provide service for Route 55 riders, but they are in the process of evaluating that proposal and have requested some additional information from them; however, she opined that none of the three options offered adequate service within that $25,000 authorization. She indicated that preliminary review indicates that the 5307 allocation should be adequate to fund both Lynx routes at the reduced level of service and to begin implementation of the SR 50 fixed-route service. She mentioned that the next steps would be for staff to complete the analysis of the proposals once they get all of the information back, and she anticipated presenting the options to the Board at the next BCC Meeting on November 5.
Commr. Campione commented that if the 5307 funds could be used, she would prefer the option of going with a reduced medium service with a one-hour lead time for Route 55.
Commr. Cadwell asked whether that option would reestablish that route to the extent that it would be serviceable enough to allow the riders to get to work.
Ms. Keedy responded that she believed it would allow the riders to get to work, and she specified that it would reinstate half of the 32 original trips.
Commr. Parks commented that the timing of the service is a critical question in order to serve the riders adequately enough, but the good news is that there would not be a fare increase with this plan, although the riders indicated that they were willing to pay more.
Commr. Conner asked why there was a fare increase on Route 204 but not Route 55.
Ms. Keedy responded that they were different systems and elaborated that Route 204 is an express route that they pay Lynx to develop while Route 55 was an established route with established fares.
Mr. Heath clarified that the Board would authorize him to sign a contract with LYNX guaranteeing $95,000 of the 5307 money for Route 55 with the hopes that with the fare box their costs will net $60,822.
Commr. Conner asked how using the 5307 funds for Routes 55 and 204 would impact the future plans for Route 5 to service the Clermont-Groveland-Mascotte area.
Mr. Fish responded that Lake County is currently in a unique situation by receiving federal transit funds for three different urbanized areas, one of which is for Leesburg, Eustis and Tavares; the second one for the Villages; and the final one for the Orlando urbanized area. He explained that they could do everything they discussed today with the funding they receive for those areas, since it is all put into one funding source.
Commr. Parks commented that the cities are going to have to step up to fill in any gaps in funding in the future.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the request for the County Manager to enter into an agreement with LYNX to reinstate Route 55 with the aforementioned reduced level of service of one-hour headways from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. upon confirmation of 5307 funds from the federal government.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 2013 Transit Development Plan Major Update, adding Route 55 and 204 back into the plan.
alternative times for collection of impact fees
Ms. King recapped that the Board has authorized reinstatement of school and transportation impact fees effective January 13, 2014 and had directed staff to look at surrounding counties and their time of collection, including at Certificate of Occupancy (CO) and closing. She noted that currently the County Code requires collection of impact fees at the building permit stage with two exceptions, which were for low income housing and for commercial and industrial projects on a case by case basis. She mentioned that concurrency requires collection of half of the impact fees at the time of the plat or site plan as a reservation of capacity. She displayed a graph showing that five of the eleven counties currently collect impact fees at the CO, specifying that Citrus, St. Johns, and Volusia Counties have options other than CO or at the time of the permit. She related that staff was recommending to the Board to defer commercial-industrial to CO and leave residential due at permit, but other options would be to defer all impact fees to CO or to leave the policy as it currently is to defer to CO on request. She listed the pros and cons of each option, stating that the pros for deferring all impact fees to CO would be that the developer is able to hold onto the money longer and that it may encourage speculative buildings, and the cons would be a higher administrative cost, enforcement difficulties, and delays in funding to capital projects and improvements. She stated that issues of prepayment certificates and special assessment fees larger than $25,000 will be brought back to the Board in December, since staff still has a considerable amount of research to do on those issues, and they were requesting approval to advertise the ordinance that defers impact fees for non-residential uses to the issuance of the CO, with the final public hearing on November 19.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that residents moving into homes are able to set the power meter before the CO to test whether the power is working in the house, but if the person moves in at that point, the County will need to go to court for an injunction to remove them from the home.
Mr. Stivender added that those situations were very challenging for the County.
Commr. Campione commented that she was in favor of the recommendation to defer impact fees for non-residential properties but to leave the residential the way it currently is. She opined that it was a good way to help the businesses hold onto their money longer and was a good pro-business policy.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for collection of industrial and commercial impact fees to be deferred to the time of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) and to bring back the advertisement of the ordinance for November 5, with the public hearing on November 19.
presentation regarding construction of sidewalks in county
Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, noted that sidewalks have become an issue in Lake County lately due to school bussing and whether the infrastructure is there for students to walk to school, and he indicated that this presentation on sidewalks will require no action by the Board. He reviewed some background information regarding sidewalks, mentioning that they are constructed with road projects, most residential subdivisions, commercial site plans in urban areas, and as individual projects. He related that sidewalk repair and maintenance is funded by gas and sales tax revenue, and new sidewalks are funded by federal LAP grants and sales tax. He specified that the County is currently responsible for 274 total linear road miles of sidewalk. He explained that the Public Right of Way ADA Transition Plan requires that they investigate and identify critical areas where sidewalk retrofits must be made for ADA compliance, develop procedures to bring the system into compliance, specifically look at curb ramps as the highest priority, identify funding, and implement a schedule. He related that staff investigated and evaluated sidewalks in every subdivision built before 2000 as well as 31 subdivisions built between 2000 and 2005 and completed the ADA Transition Plan in December of 2012, which looked at the cost of fixing existing sidewalks and curb ramps that no longer were in ADA compliance. He summarized that they had about $16 million in sidewalk repairs and $3 million in curb ramp repairs for the unincorporated areas, which they have slowly been working on over time.
Mr. Schneider related that they typically have to address maintenance of sidewalks after about 10 years due to cracks and trip hazards, curb ramps and slopes which are not to standard, and damage from heavy vehicles; and other sidewalk maintenance needs are restriping crosswalks, signage maintenance, and mowing. He pointed out that new federal rules require that all curb ramps have to be brought to compliance during resurfacing projects, and the maintenance they are now doing has diverted their available funds from new sidewalks. He pointed out that a suit was filed on a trip and fall due to a destroyed sidewalk along Abrams Road that was caused by roots from large trees growing underneath the sidewalk, and he suggested that they plant trees eight feet from the sidewalk in the future instead of four feet and to choose the right kind of tree to be planted there, since live oak tree roots can damage a sidewalk from 15 feet away. He added that root barriers, gravel underneath the sidewalk, and making the sidewalk thicker in some locations are other ways to prevent future problems. He illustrated some examples of sidewalk maintenance reconstruction and repair, including a retrofit project that was on the MPO’s Back to School Safety Study list as a priority between Minneola Elementary, Grassy Lake Elementary, and Lake Minneola High School to fix the significant slopes at the crosswalk of about 300 feet of sidewalk at a cost of almost $24,000. He noted that Lake County has spent and is planning to spend in the future about $500,000 per year for sidewalk repairs and retrofits per their ADA Transition Plan. He pointed out that the County currently does not have a designated funding source to construct new sidewalks, which costs a minimum of $31 per linear foot, and new sidewalk construction will eventually add to the annual maintenance cost in the future. He indicated that another issue is acquiring right of way to build new sidewalks, and they wanted to prioritize the funding to connections to schools, parks, and public facilities, which would fall in with the ADA Transition Plan. He mentioned that the LSMPO has almost completed their Safe Access to School Transportation Study which has developed transportation master plans for each school in the study area, including recommendations for sidewalks for each school and a matrix for prioritization of those, and this plan also identifies that it would cost $29.6 million countywide to fill in the missing gaps, with almost $14 million of that for the unincorporated parts of the county. He specified that the School Board’s top priorities for sidewalk needs are Johns Lake Road, N. Hancock-Turkey Farm Road, and the Eudora Road-CR Old 441 intersection, and he gave some details regarding those projects.
Commr. Campione asked about whether there will be a sidewalk constructed on Turkey Farm Road for students that walk in that direction.
Mr. Schneider responded that they were planning to take the vast majority of traffic off of Turkey Farm Road and move it to North Hancock Road by disabling motorists from turning left to go north at that location as well as turning Turkey Farm Road into a local road that only serves the community there, doing a signal warrant on the intersection of Turkey Farm and Old 50 to change it to a flash signal with a push button pedestrian crosswalk, and creating a slower speed limit there. He then went on to explain the process for identifying sidewalks for priority funding which begins with the 20-year Long Range Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan, and he noted that they also receive comments and suggestions; look at the sidewalk location; study and evaluate the sidewalks; prioritize through working with the MPO, cities, and School Board; and going forward with funding for the PD&E, right of way, and construction. He showed a list of the projects currently in the Lake County Transportation Construction Program 2014-2018 which lists the 2014 projects such as N. Hancock Road-CR 50 to the Turnpike Exchange, CR 44 near the fairgrounds in Eustis, and CR 50-Washington Street in Minneola, noting that most are road projects that have sidewalks associated with them. He also mentioned that the Lake-Sumter MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program with FDOT funding over a five-year timeframe identified four sidewalks, two of which will come before the Board for approval as a LAP (Local Agency Program) project, which were Thomas Avenue associated with Carver Middle School and Abrams Road associated with Eustis Elementary and Middle Schools, and the other two projects identified were Orange Avenue near Eustis Middle School and CR 25 near The Villages Elementary School in Lady Lake. He presented the Board with a funding analysis for the previous ten years showing that the Board has spent a total $3.4 million in expenditures on sidewalks. He reported that the need for the 20-year retrofit for their maintenance for the Back to School Safety Plan is a little over $34 million or $1.7 million annually, but only $13.5 million is expected to be available in funding over that timeframe, leaving an unfunded amount of $20.7 million or $1.036 million annually. He concluded that the demand and need for sidewalks far exceeds state and local agency abilities for funding, which makes it necessary for them to prioritize in coordination with other local governmental agencies based on highest to lowest need.
Mr. Bill Mathias, a member of the School Board, indicated that the School Board was currently bussing students whose walk to school has been identified as a safety hazard, and he commented that the Board entered into an agreement with the School Board to bus those students which was never formalized, but they are in the process of trying to formalize that agreement. He opined that $9,000 was a reasonable price to provide safety for those students, since they did not have the money to build sidewalks at this time. He encouraged the School Board and the County to work together, and he requested for the School Board to have an impact on how things are prioritized. He reported that the agreement the School Board made with the families of some students to continue bussing expires in December.
Commr. Campione opined that there was some confusion regarding the issues brought up in the letter from the School Board that there was an understanding on the part of the School Board during the discussion at the meeting they had at Minneola High School that the Board had committed to pay the cost of bussing until the sidewalks were built, but she was not sure if that was the understanding of the Board as well.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he remembered they had talked about that as a possible option in the future, but the Board had never taken any action about that issue.
Mr. Heath pointed out that page 3 of the Minutes from that work session state, “(School Board Member) Ms. Stivender mentioned that they did implement a temporary solution of bussing the students and noted that they did not get reimbursed from the state for the expense. She opined that the Board and the School Board should work together to create a funding mechanism since it would cost about $7,200 each year for the busses.” He added that Mr. Darren Gray, former County Manger, indicated at that time that Mr. Stivender would bring back a five-year work program, and he specified that the School Board’s letter references an invoice for $9,442 which is attached to the letter.
Commr. Conner commented that he was surprised to see that letter, because he had no recollection of the Board making a commitment described in it.
Commr. Parks stated that he believed they made some type of commitment for transportation along with some discussion about how that would be a lot less expensive than constructing sidewalks at this time, although he does not think they specified an amount.
Mr. Mathias commented that it seemed reasonable to him that that Board would help offset some of the costs of providing buses if there is not a safe passage of sidewalks.
Commr. Conner opined that although he is in favor of cooperation, he does not believe that bussing students to school is the County Commission’s responsibility. He also commented that he did not think they should design their sidewalk program entirely around the elimination of courtesy bussing.
Commr. Cadwell expressed a concern about setting a precedent that would make them partners in providing transportation for students when there are unsafe conditions because of past decisions by the Board or the School Board.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the aforementioned plans for Hancock Road would help with this situation. She stated that the key is to distinguish this set of facts from other situations, and she commented that she was open to finding an adequate solution.
Mr. Mathias noted that there are state statutes that identify responsibilities which state that it was the municipality’s responsibility to transport students within two miles, although the School Board is willing to help. He added that it would be a mistake to make this a loggerhead issue and stated that they could work through this together.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that they have discussion with the School Board about how they came up with the cost for the buses and what they plan on requesting in December.
Mr. Minkoff suggested that they try to tie in the right of way to any agreement, since the School Board normally makes the County pay the right of way for the sidewalks they build for the schools, such as the large amount they just paid the School Board for the right of way to build the road in front of the school on SR 466.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved that the County Manager contact the School Superintendent to discuss documentation of any agreement between the School Board and the County to pay for bussing until the sidewalks were built, documentation of how the School Board came up with the amount that they were requesting from the County, the School Board’s right of way acquisition policy, and what the School Board intends to do or request after the termination of the agreement with some of the families in December regarding courtesy bussing.
solid waste business plan
Mr. Stivender explained that this presentation was part of their continuing update regarding the new solid waste system as they continue to develop it, and they would also evaluate the uses for the special assessment, the collection alternatives, and the associated costs for twice a week collection. He recapped that the Solid Waste Alternative Task Force committee held meetings from May 2010 through July 2011 to evaluate solid waste collection and disposal options and came up with 22 recommendations, which were presented to the Board in February 2012, and the Board gave approval to go ahead with the RFP’s for collection and disposal in February 2013, which was awarded in August 2013.
Mr. Skip McCall, Solid Waste Division Manager, related that the new collection system was approved as a “1-1-1” for once a week trash collection with options for a second day a week collection, as well as once a week single-stream recycling and yard waste collection, and he noted that the bulk collection will remain the same as the existing contract. He mentioned that the County will continue to operate all six of their Convenience Centers and displayed a map on the overhead which outlined where those centers are located relative to the service areas. He elaborated that those Convenience Centers accepted a variety of different types of trash, such as solid waste, recycling, bulk items, scrap metal, tires, hazardous waste, and e-waste; and they experienced about 95,000 visits annually, 62 percent from city residents. He explained that one trash cart and one recycling cart will be provided to residents at no cost, and the haulers will be required to maintain the carts. He displayed a 95-gallon cart, which is the largest-capacity cart that they offer; a 35-gallon cart, which was the smallest; and a 65-gallon cart. He related that residents will have the option to choose the capacity of their container one time during the first six months of the contract, and he specified that residents who want to use two 35-gallon containers would have to pay for the extra cart but would not pay extra for the collection service. He suggested that old or unwanted garbage cans could be used to containerize yard waste or could be discarded with the trash. He explained that the haulers will survey residents to identify the cart sizes prior to the carts being delivered, which will be incorporated into the education campaign. He related that the single stream recycling using the provided recycling carts would encourage participation and enable residents to recycle more commodities, and he pointed out that he has seen between 20 and 30 percent increase in recycling volumes, which would also result in volume reduction of solid waste and a disposal cost savings to the County. He noted that yard waste collection will be unlimited as it currently is, and he emphasized that residents will no longer be required to tie or bundle their yard waste under the new contract and could place it at the curb loose or in plastic or biodegradable bags. He explained that it will be required for haulers to collect the bulk items within 72 hours, with some of the small bulk items collected on the same day as trash collection, since it will be more efficient to do so, and residents could also schedule a pick up at their option.
Mr. McCall related that County staff met with the haulers after the contracts were executed to address issues that had been previously raised, such as having additional bags outside of the carts, holiday collection, the over-55 communities, and second day trash collection. He reported that the haulers agreed to continue picking up trash bags outside of the trash cart for the first 90 days of the contract; however, the haulers will notify and educate residents on volume reduction and recycling if additional bags continue to be placed outside the cart. Also, he added that the haulers will collect an unlimited amount of trash and rubbish items for six weeks out of the year during the six holidays recognized in the contact, which were New Year, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. He noted that after hearing concerns from residents of over 55 communities and meeting with the haulers to discuss those issues, the haulers have agreed to continue picking up the bags, non-issued receptacles, and the 18-gallon recycling bins at no additional cost in those communities identified on a case by case basis, but that service will be required to be consistent throughout that community.
Commr. Conner commented that he hoped that they would encourage over-55 communities to recycle more, and he remarked that the new carts were easier to pull and push and did not take up any more floor space than the old containers.
Commr. Campione pointed out that they would go out to each community and facilitate community meetings to discuss the different options, and she believed that the Commissioners should each go to those meetings which are held in their districts.
Mr. McCall displayed a list of nine registered over-55 communities in descending order by number of units, although he noted that this was not an exhaustive list, as well as a map showing where those communities were located. He related that the contract allows for second-day trash collection by either district, community, or service area, but there will be an additional cost associated with that service. He also noted that the County does not need the commercial waste volume anymore to meet a minimum guarantee in the new contract, and each of the 1,100 commercial entities will now be able to negotiate their own deal for a commercial account with any hauler that is properly licensed and approved by the County effective October 1, 2014. He opined that this will likely result in lower trash collection commercial rates, create a competitive market, and promote economic development.
Mr. Steve Koontz, Director of Fiscal and Administrative Services, displayed a chart showing the cost of collection and disposal for the current system, which comes out to $135 for each household per year for collection, $51 for disposal, and $7 for administrative costs, for a total per household of approximately $193 using conservative numbers. He pointed out that since the solid waste assessment was $184, the County has been subsidizing these services somewhat with the general fund. He then displayed a similar chart for the cost of collection and disposal under the new contract for a “1-1-1” system, which he calculated at $147 for collection, $22 for disposal, and $7 for administrative costs, for a total of $176 per household annually. He related that they went through two exercises during the RFP process after they had awarded the bids to get rates for a second garbage pickup day and displayed a chart showing an increase of about $25 to $53 dollars per year for that service as well as the cost range of those services. He showed a bar chart illustrating what the city residents were paying on an annual basis for collection and disposal for each municipality, which showed that the County has a much lower rate than Clermont, Groveland, and Eustis but falls in the middle of the range of municipal rates in general. He commented that the County’s solid waste system is unique, since it provides countywide services, and he stated that the other components of their solid waste system were administrative costs; household hazardous waste collection, including drop-off events throughout the community; convenience centers; and the landfill operations, including long-term closure costs that will have to be funded for 30 years after closure of the cells. He opined that these countywide services should not be funded by the solid waste assessment, although historically there has been a subsidy from the general fund to the solid waste fund in the amount of between $3 million and $3.5 million for a number of years, but they will address this in future budgets after the Board decides what level of service they want to provide with these operations.
Mr. Stivender summarized that the “1-1-1” will result in a reduction to the special assessment, and he pointed out that the haulers have addressed all of the concerns that have been brought up, including pricing for the second-day trash collection. He commented that it was a positive thing that many residents use the County’s hazardous waste collection program to get those materials out of the system. He opined that he was pleased about how they were moving forward regarding solid waste, including getting the education programs in place.
Commr. Campione asked how it will be decided what kind of collection each over-55 community will receive.
Mr. Stivender responded that usually it will be through a letter from the HOA based on the decision made in that community. He went on to explain that staff also planned to survey residents through the outreach program to determine if twice a week trash collection is desired, and they hope to bring back information to the Board in March 2014 about what kind of education and outreach program they will be putting together.
Commr. Campione commented that she believed they had to get started with the outreach program early so that they could get input from “snowbirds” who were only here part of the year.
Commr. Conner commented that he does not see any reason for anyone to be upset about the new solid waste contracts, since all the concerns have been addressed, and he added that they have plenty of time to work out any issues and educate the residents since the new service will not go into effect until October, 2014.
Commr. Campione stated that she appreciated the fact that they had options and that staff had been able to get together with the haulers to talk about getting them to pick up bulk items on the regular collection days as well as working out other types of issues with them.
Commr. Parks commented that he appreciated the time staff spent on this and working out all of the issues, especially the twice per week collection.
Commr. Campione asked if they would be able to go back to twice a week collection if they decide that once a week collection was not working out after about six months.
Mr. Stivender stated that he believed they could work that out each year.
Commr. Conner thanked the haulers for their cooperation and for being user friendly during this process and remarked that he believed that the rates for a second day pickup were minimal. He also opined that the RFP was written to be able to give individual communities choices, and he believed they have achieved their goals.
Mr. Kenneth Aicardi, a resident of Leesburg and President of Pennbrooke Fairways Homeowners Association, stated that the presentation has answered all of the questions that he had, and he requested that a Commissioner come to a special meeting of their association to discuss all of those changes with their residents.
Commr. Cadwell assured him that they will do that.
Mr. Stivender pointed out that a lot of work by staff has been put into this presentation and getting all of the questions answered, and he noted that the haulers will be at the community meetings also, since they want to have good relationships with everyone.
Commr. Parks volunteered to outreach to subdivisions in his district.
contract for aso fees for medical plan
Mr. Robert Anderson, Human Resources Director, stated that he would be providing the Board with an update on the current status of the County’s Administrative Services Only (ASO) contract for their medical plan and to request action on future contract options. He displayed a pie chart showing the cost for the medical plan which showed that the claims costs were by far the largest portion of the cost of their plan at 90 percent and that the ASO fees made up between six and seven percent. He reported that there were approximately 1150 employee participants in their plan membership and 2600 total plan members, including the Board of County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections, Property Appraiser, Clerk of Courts, Tax Collector, and EMS. He recapped that the County is self-insured for medical benefits and pays claims out of their own fund, and the ASO fees are for administration of the plan for services such as access to the vendor’s provider network, processing and adjudication of claims, and the pharmacy program. He also mentioned that the ASO fees are currently paid on a per month basis, and the current contract with Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Florida (Florida Blue) will expire on September 30, 2014. He noted that the current ASO fees are $47.25 per employee per month with a total annual cost of $652,000. He displayed a chart illustrating the history of the ASO fees during the eight years of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield contract, and he pointed out that generally the fees have declined over the age of the contract. He related that Blue Cross contacted the County and proposed to extend the contract for either two or four years, lower the ASO fees, and include additional wellness contributions which could be spent any way the County wishes. He indicated that he has been intensely negotiating with Blue Cross while maintaining the option of issuing an RFP. He reported that the three options were to issue an RFP or to renew the current contract with Florida Blue for an additional two or three year period.
Mr. Anderson explained that since their current contract was eight years old, it did not contain a lot of provisions found in more modern contracts, primarily discount guarantees for network claims, pharmacy rebate guarantees, and service delivery fees; however, he would include those parameters if they chose to issue an RFP, which would also show them if they were getting the best deal on ASO fees. He pointed out that the cost of doing an RFP was $10,000, and changing the network would also result in disruption of services and possible changes in doctors. He went over Option 2 of a two-year contract extension, which would reduce the fees from $47.25 PEPM to $43.50 for the current year and the first year of the renewal and give them a total wellness contribution of $125,000, resulting in a total savings of $280,250. He then explained that Option 3 for a three-year extension would mean a reduction in ASO fees to $41.99 for this year and the first year of the renewal and to $43.25 for the second and third year of the renewal and a total of $225,000 for a wellness contribution for a total savings of almost $498,000. He commented that besides the savings noted above, other benefits to extending the contract would be inclusion of guarantees that they do not currently have, less disruption of services, the fact that most employees are satisfied with BCBS, and no additional fee for run-out claims following expiration of the contract. He stated that the negative aspect of options 2 and 3 would be the loss of the opportunity to discover whether better ASO rates exist. He recommended Option 3 to extend the contract for an additional three years and noted that BCBS has been effective in their claim management, which is critical to controlling costs; Florida Blue has an extensive network in Lake County; and participants are satisfied with the current provider. He requested that the Board authorize the County Manager to renew the current contract with amendments with Florida Blue for an additional three years through September 30, 2017.
Commr. Cadwell commented that staff has done an excellent job researching this issue, which has resulted in negotiation of a good deal. He opined that changing medical plans would cause a lot of angst and that he did not believe they would be able to negotiate a better deal in this volatile market.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the staff recommendation of Option 3, which is the approval to extend the current ASO contract to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida through September 30, 2017 and the approval to authorize the County Manager to renew the current contract with amendments with Florida Blue for an additional three years. The fiscal impact for the 3-year contract extension is estimated to be $1,755,774.00 and an estimated total savings of $497,964.00 over the current ASO fee for FY 2014.
appointments to affordable housing advisory committee
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution No. 2013-123 reappointing the following members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to serve two-year terms ending November 30, 2015: Mr. George Rada, District 4, as a resident who is a representative of those areas of labor engaged in home building in connection with affordable housing; Mr. Robert Mack, District 2, as a resident who is actively engaged as a for-profit provider of affordable housing; Mr. Stephen T. Smith, District 2, as a resident who is actively engaged as a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing; Ms. Phyllis Dallinga, District 4, as a resident that is a concerned citizen for affordable housing; and Mr. Greg Beliveau, District 3, as a resident who represents employers in Lake County.
reports – commissioner sullivan – district 1
purple heart medal month proclamation
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation No. 2013-124 identifying October as Purple Heart Medal Month in Lake County, to be presented at the November BCC Meeting.
Commr. Sullivan related that some County employees participated in the Leesburg Chamber breakfast on Thursday, October 17, to discuss economic development and what the City of Leesburg and the County were doing in that regard.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER conner – vice-CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3
letter from ms. stegall
Commr. Conner mentioned that he received a letter from Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, commending the County’s Facilities Department staff, and he commented that he is very thankful for the good job that their staff does.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER campione – CHAIRMAN & DISTRICT 4
national business women’s week proclamation
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Proclamation No. 2013-121 proclaiming October 21-25, 2013 as National Business Women’s Week in Lake County.
discussion of endorsement of transactional fees
Commr. Campione stated that she wanted to discuss the resolution passed by the School Board regarding endorsement of legislation that would allow additional transactional fees to be imposed in lieu of impact fees, noting that the concern is for the County to decide whether to indicate their support for the concept before the legislative delegation will be working on their bills. She pointed out that they do not have the details yet and that the concept itself will not obligate the County to go in that direction.
Commr. Cadwell commented that he will not be able to support that today, since he is not yet comfortable with the concept, and he had concerns about the County losing some of their home rule ability. He also opined that wasting this type of political energy is not going to help them generate enough transportation and education funding without doubling the current fee.
Commr. Parks asked if that was because they would have to choose one or the other.
Commr. Cadwell responded that was a big part of it, and he did not understand why they would have to give up something they currently have to get something else.
Commr. Conner stated that he supported the concept in regard to educational impact fees but not for transportation impact fees, since they had not studied that alternative that much, although he believes that the success of this legislation being approved is a steep uphill climb.
Commr. Campione responded that that was a good point, since they have not really delved into a comparison of what each kind of fee would bring in, and she commented that it could be detrimental to what they were doing in South Lake. She related that she would support the change for education with an elimination of the reference to transportation.
Commr. Sullivan commented that the transactional fees on education make sense to him and that the school system has to have a better way of doing business than they have now.
Commr. Cadwell opined that the legislature needs to dedicate more money to public education, but this would give the legislature another way out of doing that.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution No. 2013-125 to endorse legislation in favor of the option of doc stamps or a fee on real estate transactions as an alternative to impact fees on a county-by-county basis as a way to fund schools, but striking the transportation component of the resolution.
Commr. Cadwell voted “no.”
use of hickory point park by volleyball association
Commr. Campione related that the City of Leesburg turned down the opportunity to get a Volleyball Association project to come to their city, and she suggested that they could utilize part of the Hickory Point property for the volleyball courts needed for that project if the Water Authority would be agreeable to that. She elaborated that there have been issues in regard to maintenance of the Hickory Point soccer fields and ADA access, and this might be an opportunity to ask the Water Authority whether the County could take over the maintenance of the soccer fields and those volleyball areas, and they would work out issues with regard to parking and additional restrooms with them in order to accommodate those. She noted that there was a limited window of opportunity for them to do this, since the Volleyball Association would choose another location, and opined that the economic benefit to the area would be tremendous.
Commr. Conner expressed concern about whether the County had the staff to take over the maintenance of the large area of that complex.
Commr. Campione pointed out that she was talking only about maintenance of the soccer fields and not the whole park and that it would only be a continuation of the arrangement that they already have with Mr. Mike Stone from Hickory Point Park for the maintenance.
Commr. Conner commented that if the Volleyball Association wanted TDC money, they needed to go through the application process that the TDC has set up.
Mr. Chandler explained that this is very conceptual in nature at this point, and they would still need to run it through the TDC process as well. He related that this would be something the County would be sponsoring and would be set up similar to the relationship they currently had with soccer. He commented that championship-caliber volleyball at Hickory Point would result in an economic engine in the area.
Mr. Minkoff explained that the Water Authority’s special act does not allow it to directly be involved in any recreation that is not water-based, so the first step would be to ask them to give the County some or all of that park and make it a County facility to give them more latitude on what they could do with that facility.
Commr. Cadwell related that they have approached the Water Authority unofficially several times in the past, and he opined that that park would be better served and could be marketed better if it was under the County system. He also commented that there could be a way to entice the Volleyball Association without the TDC money.
Commr. Sullivan commented that he believed that was the kind of industry and tourism that they were trying to bring to the county, and he supported helping the Volleyball Association bring tournaments to Lake County using Hickory Point Park.
Commr. Campione suggested that Commr. Cadwell explore this idea in further discussion with Mr. Chandler, the Tourist Development Council, the Water Authority, and Mike Stone.
Commr. Cadwell responded that he would be glad to be the point person on this, and he mentioned that he had a meeting set up Monday, October 28, with Mike Stone.
Commr. Conner stated that he supported the concept, but he did not want to make an indirect financial commitment for TDC dollars without a fair process. He also expressed concern about having to hire more park employees.
Mr. Chandler assured him that those organizations would maintain the fields, and there would be no long-term costs for maintenance to the County. He also mentioned that some of the TDC members had encouraged him to go in that direction.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.
leslie campione, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK