A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
december 17, 2013
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 17, 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: Jimmy Conner, Chairman; Sean Parks, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Leslie Campione; 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; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Shannon Treen, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Reverend Karen Burris from the Morrison United Methodist Church gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Commr. Conner asked to add a proclamation regarding Martin Luther King Day to the County Manager’s Consent Agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to add the proclamation to the agenda.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she would be discussing a letter she wrote to the School Board regarding concurrency management under her report.
Mr. David Heath, County Manager, stated that there was an addendum regarding public transportation that would be added to the County Manager’s Consent Agenda.
presentation of gavel
Commr. Conner presented a ceremonial gavel to Commr. Campione and thanked her for her service as Chairman.
MINUTE APPROVAL
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the BCC Minutes of October 8, 2013 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
CLERK OF COURTS’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of the 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.
Lands Available List
Request to acknowledge receipt of property placed on the Lands Available List. Lake County has until February 17, 2014 to purchase property from the Lands Available List before it is available to the public.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Parks commented that he appreciated staff’s work on Tab 10, because it was a great example of public-private partnership for good economic growth.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 13, including the Martin Luther King Proclamation, Addendum No. 1-I.A.1., and Addendum No. 1-I.A.2., as follows:
Request for approval of Proclamation No. 2013-159 proclaiming January 20, 2014 as a day to celebrate the life and dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Community Services
Request for approval of the authorizing Resolution No. 2013-160 for continued issuance by the Orange County Housing Finance Authority of Homeowners Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Homeowner Subordinate Mortgage Revenue Bonds and/or Homeowner Revenue Bonds. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval of the FY 2012-2013 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. There is no fiscal impact.
Request for approval to apply to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) under the Section 5310 Capital Grant Program to purchase paratransit vehicles for use under the Transportation Disadvantaged Program (Lake County Connection for Fiscal Year 2014-2015). Also, approval of the supporting Resolution No. 2013-162, acceptance, and implementation of the grant award, and the procurement of the vehicles under the State’s bid list through the Transit Research Inspection Procurement (TRIP) Services Program. The fiscal impact is $662,733.00 (County Portion: $66,273.30/Grant Funding: $596,459.70) (Expense and Revenue).
Request for approval to submit the FDOT Section 5311 Grant Application for FY 2014-2015 to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Also, approval of the supporting Resolution No. 2013-163 and the acceptance and implementation of the grant award. The fiscal impact is $982,640.00 (County Portion: $491,320.00/Grant Funded: $491,320.00) (Expense and Revenue).
Information Technology
Request for approval and signature of revised Lake County Board of County Commissioners Policy LCC-30, Records Management Program, which establishes the BCC Records Storage Facility as the official Records Center.
Public Works
Request for authorization to release a letter of credit for performance in the amount of $495,000, accept a cash surety for maintenance in the amount of $34,004.80, execute a Developer's Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements Between Lake County and Ladd Development, Inc., accept a performance bond in the amount of $16,607.25, execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Sidewalk Improvements Between Lake County and KB Home Orlando LLC, and execute Resolution No. 2013-161 accepting the following roads into the County Road Maintenance System: Wishing Well Lane “Part” (County Road No. 0840K) and Weathers Loop (County Road No. 0840L). Highland Groves Phase II consists of 34 lots and is located off Oswalt Road, Southwest of Clermont in Section 13, Township 23 South, Range 25 East. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to accept a performance bond in the amount of $12,808.95 and execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Sidewalk Improvements between Lake County and KB Home Orlando LLC. Highland Groves Phase III consists of 22 lots and is located off Oswalt Road, Southwest of Clermont in Section 13, Township 23 South, Range 25 East. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Request for approval of contract 14-0604 to Estep Construction, Inc. (Apopka, FL) for a job order contract for road, drainage, and sidewalk construction project tasks up to $100,000.00, and execution of all implementing documentation by the Procurement Office. The fiscal impact for the next fiscal year is undetermined at this time. Approximately $678,000 was spent last year under the prior contract for the same services.
Request for authorization to apply for the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) Cooperative Stormwater Initiative Grant for Wolf Branch Sink Drainage Improvement project. The fiscal impact is $500,000.00 (Revenue). Commission District 4.
Request for authorization to advertise for bids for Special Assessment Project No. 103 – Granville Avenue located off SR-50 in Clermont within Section 26, Township 22S, Range 26E. The estimated cost of the project is $238,535.00 to be funded by County Transportation Trust Fund. The fiscal impact is $238,535.00 (County Share is $94,167.00; Property Owner Share is $144,368.00). Commission District 2.
Request for authorization to award CR 44 Widening and Resurfacing (CR 452 to CR 19A), Project No. 2014-01, Bid No. 14-0007, to Allstate Paving, Inc., in the amount of $322,453.00, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $322,453.00 from the Renewal Sales Tax Capital Projects – Infrastructure – Construction (Expense) fund. The fiscal impact is $322,453.00. Commission District 4.
Request for approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Amended Agreement with the City of Eustis. On November 7th, 2001, Lake County entered into an agreement with the City of Eustis for Traffic Signal Maintenance. The County is transferring ownership of the traffic signals at the following locations: SR 44 & CR 452, SR 19 & CR 44 and US 441 & David Walker Dr., to the City. The fiscal impact is $42,771.22 (Revenue). Commission District 4.
Request for approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Amended Agreement with the City of Leesburg. On November 7th, 2003, Lake County entered into an agreement with the City of Leesburg for Traffic Signal Maintenance. The County is transferring ownership of the traffic signals at the following locations: Thomas Av & CR 44A/ Griffin Rd, US 441 & CR 44/ Sleepy Hollow Rd. to the City. The fiscal impact is $98,650.10 (Revenue). Commission Districts 1 and 3.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda, Tab 14 as follows:
Request for approval to cancel the Mortgage and release the Note executed by James and Abranda Price on May 30, 2008 and recorded at O.R. Book 3637, Page 253, upon receipt of the $1,000 payment. Fiscal Impact: The original loan amount was $30,000; recovery will be $1,000.
public hearings
Vacation Petition 1201 – Clermont
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, explained that the Plat of Edgewater Beach was located east of Clermont on the county line and that there was no need for the public right-of-way to exist. He added that they had support from Orange County and that they had not received any letters of opposition; therefore, they were recommending approval to vacate.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sean Ellis, representing the applicant, stated that he concurred with staff’s recommendation and was available to answer any questions from the Board.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Vacation Petition 1201 to vacate a portion of Orange Avenue right of way in the Plats of Edgewater Beach (recorded in PB 9, Pg. 19 and PB 10, Pg. 44), located in the Clermont area, and approved Resolution No. 2013-164. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
ordinance regarding the green swamp
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER II, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT, PASSIVE RECREATION AND SMALL-SCALE SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL CAMP ACTIVITIES (APPLICABLE IN GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN ONLY); TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER VIII, ENTITLED "GREEN SWAMP"; IN ORDER TO ADD PROVISIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CHAPTER AND THE GREEN SWAMP BOUNDARY; PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA; LISTING THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES WITHIN THE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN; PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS ON MINING WITHIN THE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN; PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS, RIVER AND STREAM CROSSING, AND PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES; PROVIDING FOR UPLAND BUFFERS; PROVIDING FOR REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO NATURAL UPLAND PLANT COMMUNITIES ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE; PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL USES AND SPREADING OF WASTEWATER RESIDUALS; PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS FOR ROADS WITHIN THE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN, LOCATION OF SCHOOLS, AVIATION FACILITIES, AND SEPTIC TANK PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS RELATING TO SILVICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; 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, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-64 amending Land Development Regulations (LDR), Appendix E, Chapter II, entitled “Definitions” and repealing and replacing Chapter VIII, entitled “Green Swamp”. There is no fiscal impact.
ordinance regarding backyard chickens
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER II, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" TO CREATE A DEFINITION FOR CHICKEN COOP; AMENDING CHAPTER X, ENTITLED "ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES", SECTION 10.01.00, ENTITLED "RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND USES", CREATING SUBSECTION 10.01.06, ENTITLED "BACKYARD CHICKENS" TO ALLOW CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE AND CHICKEN COOPS AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHIN SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WITH CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; 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, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione asked if the chicken coops were allowed in the front yard.
Mr. Minkoff replied that the ordinance required the coops or enclosures to only be located in the back yard and not the front or side yard, and also must be 20 feet from the property line.
Commr. Campione asked if the deed restrictions for HOAs would take precedence over the County’s rules.
Mr. Minkoff replied that the deed restrictions would not take precedence over the County’s rules, but whichever one was more restrictive would apply.
Commr. Campione asked if this ordinance was only for unincorporated Lake County.
Mr. Minkoff answered “yes.”
Commr. Parks expressed his support for the ordinance, adding that it would allow opportunities for the community to become more self-sufficient and also emphasized grow local opportunities. He noted that it would be great for children as well, because raising chickens would teach them responsibility and would bring them back to an agricultural root.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she had a chicken coop with four chickens which provided more than enough eggs for her family, so most people would probably realize that five chickens would produce too many eggs. She opined that raising chickens was a great way for children to learn about caring for an animal and that the 20 foot setback from the property lines would create a good buffer. She added that they could revisit this if any problems arose.
Commr. Sullivan pointed out that he would not support this, explaining that he saw it as a code enforcement nightmare. He related that it would make sense for the cities to pass such an ordinance, but not for the County.
Commr. Conner asked if the residents would have to get a permit for the chicken coops.
Ms. Anita Griener, Chief Planner, answered that a permit would not be required.
Commr. Conner asked if the County would know where the coops were located and if they were in compliance.
Ms. Griener replied that they would not know where the coops were located and they would assume them to be in compliance until they were reported to Code Enforcement.
Commr. Conner asked if there would be enough Code Enforcement staff to adequately take care of potential violations, because he has received complaints that staff was not available to investigate particular issues when complaints were made.
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Community Safety and Compliance Director, responded that it was possible there would be additional complaints which would be difficult to follow-up on, but the Code Enforcement staff quickly investigated all complaints.
Commr. Conner asked if it would be helpful to have a notification process so that the County would know where the chicken coops were located.
Commr. Campione expressed that it was not necessary to know where they were located, because they were not a dangerous animal and it would cause more paperwork for staff.
Commr. Parks suggested evaluating this in a year to see if it had become an outrageous problem.
Mr. Sheahan noted that they had already planned on doing that.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-67 amending Land Development Regulations (LDR), Appendix E, Chapter X, entitled “Accessory and Temporary Structures and Uses,” Section 10.01.00, entitled, “Residential Accessory and Temporary Structures and Uses;” and to create Subsection 10.01.06, regarding “Backyard Chickens.” There is no fiscal impact.
Commr. Conner and Commr. Sullivan voted “no.”
ordinance regarding Nonconforming Development
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER I, "GENERAL PROVISIONS", SECTION 1.08.00, ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT", IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND ORDINANCES APPROVED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, WITH A WETLAND SETBACK OF LESS THAN 50 FEET, SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONFORMING; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; 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, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-68 amending Land Development Regulations (LDR), Appendix E, Chapter I, entitled “Nonconforming Development.” There is no fiscal impact.
ordinance regarding Natural Resource Protection
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER II, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "DESIGNATED SPECIES", DELETE THE DEFINITION FOR "FNAI (S2) RANKED NATURAL COMMUNITIES", AND ADD DEFINITIONS FOR "GEOTEXTILE CONTAINER", "ISOLATED WETLANDS", "RIPRAP", "SEAWALL", "UPLAND COMMUNITIES", "VEGETATED OPEN-CELL BLOCK", AND "WILDLIFE CORRIDOR;" AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER VI, ENTITLED "RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS", IN ORDER TO REDUCE DUPLICATIVE REGULATIONS AND MAINTAIN RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BY REPEALING SECTION 6.01.00, ENTITLED "WETLANDS PROTECTION", AND CREATING NEW SECTION 6.01.00, ENTITLED "PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND WATER BODIES"; REPEALING SECTION 6.02.00, ENTITLED "SHORELINE PROTECTION", AND CREATING NEW SECTION 6.02.00, TO BE ENTITLED "WELLFIELD PROTECTION"; REPEALING SECTION 6.03.00, ENTITLED "WELLFIELD PROTECTION", AND CREATING NEW SECTION 6.03.00, TO BE ENTITLED "DETERMINATION AND PROTECTION OF NATURAL UPLAND COMMUNITIES, HABITAT OF DESIGNATED SPECIES, AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS"; AND REPEALING SECTION 6.04.00, ENTITLED "NATURAL UPLAND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES, HABITAT OF DESIGNATED SPECIES"; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER XIV, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION", SECTION 14.00.08, ENTITLED "DEDICATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY", TO INCLUDE EASEMENTS AMONG THE DEDICATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRING SPECIFIC LEGAL CRITERIA TO BE MET PRIOR TO DEDICATION; AMENDING SECTION 14.15.00 ENTITLED "VARIANCES AND APPEALS", TO PROVIDE FOR VARIANCES TO THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE, MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, OR JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND LINE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; 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, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-69 amending Land Development Regulations (LDR), Appendix E, Chapter VI, concerning Natural Resource Protection. There is no fiscal impact.
ordinance regarding failing to Pay Impact Fees
Mr. Minkoff placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for its first and final reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 22-8, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED PAYMENT AND USE OF IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING LICENSED CONTRACTORS THE OPTION OF DEFERRING PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES UNTIL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES; CREATING SECTION 6-10, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED SUSPENSION FOR FAILURE TO PAY IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR THE SUSPENSION OF A LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S PERMITTING PRIVILEGES OR LOCAL LICENSE FOR FAILING TO PAY THE DEFERRED IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Carolyn Maimone, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter Homebuilders Association, thanked staff and the commissioners for taking this into consideration, adding that this would relieve a lot of the burden for many of the builders.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Conner opined that this was a perfect example of where County staff implemented the philosophy of the commission. He elaborated that it was also a great example of protecting the revenue source, but at the same time helping businesses.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Ordinance No. 2013-70 amending Section 22-8 of the Lake County Code, entitled "Payment and Use of Impact Fees," and creating Section 6-10 of the Lake County Code, entitled "Suspension for Failure to Pay Impact Fees.” There is no fiscal impact.
public hearings: rezonings
Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, stated that there were no rezonings to be heard that day and that the only item they were considering was a transmittal of a text amendment for Economic Development Overlay. She then showed on the monitor that the case had been properly advertised.
lpa #13/8-2T – economic development overlay district
Ms. King presented the case, stating that the proposed amendment would create an Economic Development Overlay District as a land use protocol to encourage economic development projects within certain existing future land use categories without having to undergo a future land use map amendment. She added that it would encourage and facilitate the location and expansion of economic development projects that offered job creation and high wages, which strengthened and diversified the state’s economy through an expedited permitting process and Comprehensive Plan amendment process. She indicated that it would establish policy provisions requiring a rezoning of the property in order to allow economic development overlay for industrial, manufacturing, and office uses if certain conditions were met. She related that prospective properties must be located entirely within the economic development overlay district and have access to an arterial or collector road or rail, a connection to central water and sewer, and infrastructure concurrent with development impacts. She noted that the properties could not exceed the applicable floor area ratio or the impervious surface ratio. She mentioned that the proposed overlay would be applicable with the Urban, Rural, and Rural Transition Future Land Use Categories, but the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, the proposed Wellness Way Sector Plan area, and the Wekiva Study area was not included. She pointed out that the proposed overlay was consistent with and furthered Goal IV-1 of the Economic Element entitled “Sustained Efforts for Economic Development Success.” She explained that staff recommended approval to create the district in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan by adding and amending objectives and policies and by adding the new economic development district map to the future land use map series. She remarked that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval by a 5-0 vote, and staff was requesting approval to transmit the ordinance to the Department of Economic Opportunity.
Commr. Parks asked if the overlay would affect the underlying zoning, specifically a planned unit development (PUD).
Ms. King replied that unless there was a straight zoning, an applicant would have already been through a PUD with a public hearing, so the cases would be considered on a case by case basis.
Commr. Campione asked if the question of compatibility and any mitigation would be addressed at the time of zoning for planned commercial or planned industrial.
Ms. King responded that all of the necessary studies would be required at that point.
Commr. Campione stated that one of the letters staff received in opposition to the request mentioned that the overlay district would open up the door for big box stores and malls and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Robert Chandler, Economic Development and Tourism Director, answered that the overlay was restricted to certain economic development criteria, such as high wage industries, so most retail would not be eligible. He added that this type of development had been very limited in Lake County and it would not open up the doors for big box stores. He noted that this was beneficial, because it would decrease the timeline from 180 days to 45 days.
Commr. Parks commented that this would only apply to about 5,000 to 6,000 acres in Lake County.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Helen McCormick, a resident of Sorrento, requested that the item be removed from the agenda, because it could have unintended consequences that could result in the opposite of the County’s goal of economic growth. She also asked that they remove the rural category if the Board chose to approve this, because that was the area where the most damage could be done.
Mr. Scott Taylor, a resident of Sorrento, asked for a continuance of this for further review. He pointed out that the County had borrowed $35 million years ago for public land preservation, and that would be challenged by this. He stated that he was not against economic growth and opportunity for the County, but the Comp Plan allowed for many economic opportunities already, and it did not make sense to remove the protections from rural and rural transition areas. He related that the overlay district could cause confusion and legal challenges, because it was very vague. He indicated that the overlay district did not meet the requirements of the enabling legislation regarding protecting the state’s environment and that the overlay district would work well in the three urban areas, but not in rural or rural transition areas.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he was comfortable with the overlay district and that safeguards were in there that would address Mr. Taylor’s concerns.
Commr. Sullivan commented that this was a way to help economic development, and there were protections in it for Lake County. He added that most of the areas would probably never reach the targeted capacity, specifying that the average small business in the state employed 12 people.
Commr. Campione addressed the public lands concern, noting that the overlay district would not affect those lands, because there was a conservation easement on them and the use would not fit in this category. She added that the Board would not be inclined to rezone property adjacent to those areas if a request came in unless it was beneficial to that public land use. She related that non-residential future land uses were very limited in the County and that there were a lot of safeguards to make sure this type of use was placed in the appropriate location.
Commr. Parks expressed that he supported the overlay, because it was one way of actively pursuing jobs that raised the average wage and that there were safeguards in place.
Commr. Conner stated that Mr. Taylor’s concerns were legitimate; however, they were not doing a massive rezoning and protections were in place.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved LPA #13/8-2T, the Economic Development Overlay District, which was a request to establish an Economic Development Overlay District for incorporation into the Future Land Use Element of the 2030 Lake County Comprehensive Plan consisting of economic objectives, implementation policies and an overlay district map.
COUNTY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
Community Safety and Compliance
permitted parking ordinance
Mr. Sheahan gave a presentation discussing a proposed ordinance to adopt specific standards for vehicle parking within residential and agriculture zoning districts. He explained that the current County Code had no limitations on the number of vehicles, registered or unregistered, that could be parked on residential or agriculture properties and that the lack of standards had resulted in complaints from citizens claiming that properties with many vehicles created an unsightly and unsafe condition, thus reducing property values and quality of life. He stated that they surveyed adjacent counties and found that Pasco, Volusia, and Polk Counties required setbacks for recreational vehicles, boats and some trailers without a specific limit on the number, and Sumter County limited the number to one non-registered vehicle per property. He indicated that the proposed standards would establish minimum criteria to protect neighborhoods and communities from the impacts of large numbers of vehicles being stored outside in yards and fields. He added that the standards would not limit the number of vehicles within a garage or enclosed building, but would limit the number of operable, but unlicensed and unregistered vehicles to three and that all vehicles parked outside must be operable. He pointed out that the ordinance would provide a grace period until August 1, 2014 if adopted in January, and the enforcement would begin with a courtesy notice and a request for voluntary compliance. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Board would review the ordinance next if staff received approval to advertise, and then it would go before the BCC for adoption. He then asked for approval to advertise the permitted parking ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a resident of Tavares who writes a blog called FiscalRangers.com, pointed out that he was surprised when he found out that citizens in residential communities in Lake County could park on the lawns and the right-of-ways, and this could deter individuals from the north or other large cities from moving there. He noted that other counties have restrictions and suggested that the Board incorporate the same restriction in either this ordinance or a different one.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Campione commented that she has had a constituent call her about this issue for the last three years, and creating this ordinance would actually reduce Code Enforcement staff’s time.
Commr. Sullivan stated that he agreed with that, adding that this ordinance would be a good way to clean up the properties that would be devalued because of the lack of enforcement in the area.
Commr. Conner opined that three vehicles were possibly too many, but it was a step in the right direction.
Commr. Campione asked if they wanted to discuss the issue that Mr. Jochim raised and to see if staff could research what other jurisdictions were doing.
Commr. Conner replied that they could have staff bring back some information.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to advertise an ordinance related to the parking of vehicles within residential and agriculture zoning districts with specific conditions concerning their operability and licensing status.
county manager
presentation on the lake county trails
Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, stated that he, along with Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Parks and Trails Division Manager, would be giving a presentation with an update on the multi-use paved trails that were maintained by the County. He explained that the multi-use paved trails were designed for bicycles and pedestrians and constructed with new roads or as separate facilities to provide an economic benefit, promote healthy lifestyles, and sustain property values. He added that Federal LAP grants and Sales Tax was used to fund new trail construction and that the Parks and Trails MSTU was used for repair and maintenance. He noted that the cities also built trails with federal grants. He pointed out that the total capital investment in trails since 2000 was $9,367,000 and that those funds built 18.6 miles of trail, of which 15 miles were maintained by Lake County. He indicated that the main focus of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was cross state trails, and he showed on a map the various trails that were considered a priority to them, which consisted of trails located in the Heart of Florida Loop and the Cross Florida Trail. He related that the Lake County Trails Master Plan was approved in 2008, and he showed the various trails in the Central, East, and South Lake region that already existed, were being planned, or were being studied. He explained the process for identifying trails for priority and funding, which included placing them on the Master Plan first and then working through the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Public Resources and Public Works Departments to prioritize for federal funding. He added that a Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) would then be performed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the LSMPO, or Lake County by utilizing federal funds through FDOT, and funding for the design, right-of-way, and construction would be programmed for federal funds through the LSMPO and also by Lake County on the Transportation Construction Program. He mentioned that the design details and final construction details were coordinated by Public Resources and Public Works, with a final walk-through by both departments at construction completion. He noted that the Public Works Construction and Design Division would give direction to the Parks and Trails Division for proper maintenance and repair methods of the trails.
Mr. Schneider discussed the trail priorities in Lake County, noting that the Wekiva Trail, which ran from Mount Dora to the Wekiva River; the Wekiva Parkway Trail, which ran from CR 46A in Mount Plymouth to Kelly Park; and the South Lake Trail, which ran from Silver Eagle Drive through Groveland and Mascotte to the Van Fleet Trail Head, were all identified on the LSMPO Local Priority Projects List. He mentioned that the Lake Apopka Loop was not on the LSMPO’s list, but it had been discussed as being a priority for Lake County. He stated that the design for the Wekiva Trail and the Wekiva Parkway Trail was funded for Fiscal Year 2015 and 2016, but there were still 11 miles, which totaled $14.3 million, that was not funded for right-of-way and construction. He related that nine miles of the South Lake Trail already existed and that Phase IIIA was currently under construction. He added that there were still 10.9 miles, which totaled $14.85 million, that was not funded for design, right-of-way, and construction. He explained that the Lake Apopka Loop consisted of multiple trails such as the Sugar Loaf Mountain Trail, the Green Mountain Scenic Trail, and the North Hancock Road Trail. He noted that there were 13 miles of that trail system, which totaled $13.5 million, that was not funded for design, right-of-way, and construction. He mentioned that the total estimated cost to construct the remaining priority trail system was $42.65 million and that the County did not have a designated funding source to construct new multi-use trails. He specified that the cost to construct a paved trail was typically $84 per linear foot for the pathway only, and that did not include boardwalks, bridges, walls, and tunnels. He added that the right-of-way costs were highly variable depending on residential or commercial values.
Mr. Bonilla discussed the maintenance of the 15 miles of paved trails that the County maintained, which consisted of 12.62 miles of asphalt and 2.38 miles of concrete trails. He noted that routine maintenance was performed by a combination of contractors and in-house staff, and the annual cost for maintenance varied by the type of trail, but they currently spent $26,400 per mile annually on paved trails. He indicated that trails should be resurfaced approximately every eight to ten years in order to maintain a smooth surface and that resurfacing typically cost $300,000 per mile depending on the existing conditions. He related that capital repairs included engineering structures such as gravity walls, safety railings, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements; and resurfacing improvements included horizontal alignment and vertical profile improvements, along with utility relocations and adjustments. He mentioned that over the past 13 years there had been a significant investment in the construction of trails; however, they still needed to bridge the funding gap between new construction and routine maintenance by establishing a dedicated funding source to address capital repairs and a trail resurfacing program. He pointed out that the current unmet capital repairs and resurfacing needs totaled $1,350,000, and the ten year FY 2015 to 2024 resurfacing needs totaled $3,900,000. He showed pictures of repairs needed at various trails and mentioned that not performing capital repairs and resurfacing in a timely fashion could result in closing certain trail segments due to unsafe conditions. He stated that there had been no dedicated funding source allocated in their budget for capital repairs and resurfacing and that they had only been able to perform the minimum level of service with the budget reductions over the last few years. He noted that the trail system served all of the citizens and visitors of Lake County, but the funding for trail maintenance came out of the MSTU.
Mr. Schneider concluded the presentation, pointing out that the demand and need for trails created a situation where cost exceeded state and local agency abilities for funding, and prioritizing projects in coordination with the LSMPO, towns and cities was necessary for efficient cost implementation. He noted that a total funding of $42.7 million was needed to construct the priority trail program, every new mile of paved trail would add $26,400 to the annual cost of maintenance, and the priority trails identified had a total combined length of 34.9 miles of new pavement, which would cost an additional $921,360 per year for maintenance.
Commr. Parks commented that it was disappointing to hear the number of structural repairs needed on the South Lake Trail, but he noted that the rest of the planned segment would not have those issues.
Commr. Sullivan expressed his concern about not having funds for maintenance of the current and planned trails and noted that he would like to see what the MSTU would need to be in order to maintain the trails.
Commr. Cadwell opined that the only thing worse than not having trails was having bad trails. He mentioned that the MSTU was barely covering the parks and trails maintenance and that they needed to find a way to fund this if they planned to keep using parks and trails as the cornerstone of tourism. He added that he was in favor of having a countywide MSTU and for narrowing the MSTU down to just parks, recreation, and libraries.
Commr. Campione stated that she would be interested in looking at Seminole County’s trail system since trails were such an integral part of their ecotourism and an amenity for their residents. She related that it would be good to have a discussion about a countywide MSTU and possibly creating a trail district for the communities who were interested. She also agreed that they did not want trails that were dangerous and non-functioning.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced at 10:32 a.m. that there would be a 20-minute break.
county manager’s departmental business (cont’d)
growth management
commercial design standards
Ms. Amye King, Growth Management Director, gave a presentation on the proposed commercial design standards that would amend the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). She explained that the Comprehensive Plan required that design standards be created and incorporated into the LDRs to ensure that the development was compatible with adjacent properties and required design guidelines within regional office, regional commercial, traditional neighborhoods, rural future land use series, Ferndale, Mount Plymouth-Sorrento, Green Swamp, and the Wekiva River Protection Area. She noted that the design standards must include building style, design and scale, exterior building materials, roof design and construction, building size and placement, site furnishings, fences and entrance features, and size and location of services areas. She indicated that the proposed ordinance would establish minimum commercial design criteria within specified areas; add related definitions; require submission of drawings, pictures and other documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with commercial design criteria; and provide minimum criteria to achieve aesthetic standards and flexibility in achieving them. She pointed out that the proposed design standards guidelines included color and texture changes, roof slopes, exterior materials and color, building lighting, mechanical equipment, site design, and fences. She described some examples of the standards, specifying that the façade color must be neutral or earth tone; the predominate exterior building materials must be quality materials such as stucco or textured concrete; lighting fixtures must minimize glare and overhead sky glow; roof-mounted mechanical equipment must be shielded from view; buildings that faced a public street must have one customer entrance; fences must be made of wood, metal, masonry, vinyl/plastic or a combination of those; and non-coated chain-link fences may be installed providing that the proposed landscaping would screen the fence from the view of the road. She related that the standards also included allowing for an alternative design solution as long as the design met the intent and purpose of the ordinance and that plans signed and sealed by an architect, including renderings and elevations that demonstrated compliance could be submitted. She informed the Board that a brochure was created which described the design standards and provided photo examples and that those would be handed out at Development Review meetings and also accessible on the fifth floor of the Administration Building. She then asked for approval to advertise the ordinance for the January 28, 2014 public hearing.
Commr. Campione asked for clarification on the alternative design solution.
Ms. King clarified that staff would take an alternative design into consideration if the architect believed it met the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Minkoff elaborated that the architect must certify the design, but it was ultimately the County Manager’s decision as to whether or not it met the intent of the Code.
Commr. Campione opined that that was a good way to allow for some flexibility.
Commr. Sullivan asked whether staff coordinated with the development community on this ordinance.
Ms. King answered “yes,” adding that many changes were made to the ordinance after speaking with the Homebuilder’s Association and commercial contractors.
Commr. Cadwell expressed that this ordinance would protect traditional neighborhoods and that those neighborhoods deserved the right to have those types of standards. He added that this was a good step forward, and he appreciated staff’s work on it and Commr. Campione for bringing it forward.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to advertise a public hearing for Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendments relating to Design Standards for the January 28th BCC meeting. There is no fiscal impact.
public works
covanta contract amendment
Mr. Stivender gave a presentation on the Covanta contract amendment as well as the revised terms and conditions with the Covanta Waste Disposal Agreement and the additional 90 day waste and ash disposal agreement. He pointed out that the Covanta Disposal Agreement would expire on June 30, 2014, the franchise hauler agreements would expire on September 30, 2014, and staff negotiated with Covanta to ensure a smooth transition.
Mr. Minkoff continued the presentation, stating that they had three agreements for approval, with the first one being an amendment to the existing contract. He explained the revisions to that contract, which included extending the billing to ensure County electric revenues were received, extending the closeout period to 60 days, resolving all proration issues at the end of the contract term, providing for a final inventory assessment on June 30, 2014, and providing Covanta Lake access to the scale house to assist with the transition. He related that the other two contracts were for waste agreements effective from July 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014 that specified that Lake County would deliver unincorporated County waste to Covanta at $27.50 per ton and the County would accept the ash from Covanta at $27.50 per ton.
Mr. Stivender concluded the presentation, stating that the disposal costs were estimated at the maximum amounts of 18,000 tons for the unincorporated waste and 9,660 tons for the ash. He noted that the contract amendment would provide for an orderly closeout, and the County waste deliveries through September 30, 2014 would assist Covanta with the transition of becoming a merchant facility. He added that there was no financial or operational impact to current franchised haulers, and the landfilling ash would preserve the landfill air space. He then asked for approval to execute the agreements once finalized.
Commr. Cadwell asked if they had the capacity to accommodate the ash.
Mr. Stivender replied “yes,” adding that it would actually save the County time and effort by using Covanta those three months rather than doing it themselves.
Mr. Minkoff noted that the agreement provided that the County’s obligation to accept the ash would end if they ran out of capacity.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph Treshler, a representative of Covanta, expressed his gratitude to the Board and to staff for their efforts in finalizing the agreements and stated that he hoped to continue working with the County on other waste issues and to stay a viable and active part of the business community.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the terms and conditions of the Waste Disposal Agreement and the 90 day agreement for waste disposal with Covanta Lake Inc., and authorized the Chairman to sign the agreements once finalized. The estimated fiscal impact is $229,350 (Expense).
public works
solid waste education outreach campaign/special assessment
Mr. Skip McCall, Solid Waste Division Manager, discussed the Solid Waste Education Outreach Campaign and pointed out that they procured Global 5 Communications as their education outreach consultant and that they, along with staff, would be working together to develop a comprehensive campaign to educate the residents of Lake County about the changes associated with the new residential curbside collection program which would be implemented in October 2014. He added that Phase I was from January through March, and Phase II was from April through September. He explained that Phase I would consist of 25 advertised meetings with nine community meetings and 16 town hall meetings. He noted that the community meetings would be for the 55 and over communities to discuss whether or not they wanted the new carts or trash bags and once a week versus twice a week trash collection. He indicated that the town hall meetings would also discuss once a week versus twice a week trash collection, the preferred sizes of the trash and recycling carts, and would educate residents on the benefits of volume reduction through single stream recycling. He related that employees could also be utilized to disseminate information throughout the communities. He mentioned that the meetings would be structured like an open house forum with informational material, and the communities and HOAs could determine their desired level of service during the meetings. He added that staff, the education outreach consultant, and the haulers would be at all meetings to answer any questions. He noted that the meetings would be held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for the 55 and over communities and between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. for the town hall meetings and that staff would report their findings back to the Board on April 8, 2014. He indicated that during Phase II they would continue educating the residents on the preferred curbside collection program and the benefits of volume reduction through single stream recycling, and would continue surveying the residents for preferred cart sizes. He added that they would schedule follow-up meetings if requested by any of the communities.
Mr. Steve Koontz, Fiscal and Administrative Services Director, discussed the Solid Waste Assessment and explained that the request for proposal (RFP) divided the County into three distinct service areas which had their own set of proposals for collection services. He noted that the pricing for each area was slightly different due to population, housing density, and the coverage area. He then showed a chart depicting the assessment for the three areas for once a week and twice a week collection and pointed out that the twice a week collection assessment could be lower if adopted by a community. He related that they currently charged a countywide rate of $184, and the weighted average of the new rates was $176. He indicated that there was legal precedent stating that the actual cost should be charged for the service provided; therefore, the Solid Waste Assessment should reflect the cost for each area. He stated that there were two options for the assessment, which was to either charge the actual cost for each individual area or to “buy down” the assessment so that the countywide rate equaled the lowest area rate of $168. He mentioned that it would cost $613,000 per year for the buy down for the once a week rate and $830,000 per year for the twice a week rate out of either the reserves or the general fund. He added that they currently had a healthy reserves balance, but the general fund would be required in future years to pay for the buy down. He noted that they had been working toward having a break-even enterprise so that the Solid Waste Assessment would pay for the collection and disposal.
Mr. Stivender stated that staff was requesting that the Board move forward with implementing the Education Outreach Campaign and to charge the actual cost for each individual service area.
Commr. Parks asked about the neighborhood outreach for the south district in particular.
Mr. Stivender responded that they planned on contacting neighborhoods with 50 lots or more and the total number of HOAs was 136. He added that they had made contact with about 60 percent of those HOAs.
Commr. Parks asked for clarification on the legal precedent that was mentioned.
Mr. Minkoff explained that they could not assess someone more than what their share of the cost was, adding that it would not be legally correct to charge a district more than what it would cost to provide them the service. He noted that it was possible they could run into a challenge if they did that which would be difficult to defend.
Commr. Campione asked if the Board would make the final decision about whether the HOAs would have once a week or twice a week collection, even if they voted for twice a week.
Mr. Stivender answered that the Board would have the final say.
Commr. Campione suggested changing the name of the program from Education Outreach Campaign to Information Outreach since the County would be providing the residents information rather than actually educating them.
Commr. Conner stated that he agreed with that change.
The Board reached a consensus to change the name of the program.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to move forward with the Information Outreach program and approved to charge the actual cost of the Solid Waste Assessment for each individual service area.
public works
two cent local option fuel tax
Mr. Stivender gave a presentation regarding the advertising of an ordinance to extend the first and second cents of the Local Option Fuel Tax, which was used for transportation expenditures, and explained that Florida Statute 336.025 described transportation expenditures as public transportation operations and maintenance; roadway and right-of-way maintenance, equipment, and drainage; street lighting installation and maintenance; traffic signs, engineering, signalization and pavement markings; bridge maintenance and operation; and debt service and transportation capital expenditures of roads and sidewalks. He noted that the tax funded the operations of the Public Works Department, including items such as pothole repair, mowing, tree trimming, striping, signal and sign maintenance, and drainage improvements for the 1,393 road miles, 27 bridges, and 372 traffic control devices. He reported that in 2012 there were 2,450 work orders, with 710 of them for pothole patching. He related that over 118 clay miles were graded every two weeks, over 1,000 road miles were mowed every five weeks, 25 sidewalk miles were mowed every three weeks, 199 guardrails were maintained, and 1,720 signs were inspected every 15 months. He indicated that the Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) recommended renewing each of the existing two cent revenue sources for an additional 30-year term using an adjusted distribution formula with the municipalities. He noted that the six cent Local Option Fuel Tax was on every gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold in the county, and it was originally levied in two-cent increments in 1984, 1985, and 1986. He added that each two-cent allocation expired at the end of August in 2014, 2015, and 2016 and that the renewal was authorized by a majority vote of the Board from January 1 to June 1 of the year of expiration. He showed a chart depicting the distribution of the tax with the cities and the County and pointed out that the average percentage of the entire six cent allocation for the County was 66.38 percent for $5,172,435, and the cities’ portion was 33.62 percent for $2,619,724. He recapped that on May 7 the Board directed staff to negotiate with the cities while still maintaining the current County share at 66.38 percent, which would generate about $1,802,438 for the first two cents. He explained that their next steps were to hold a public hearing in January 2014 to renew the first two cents of the Local Option Fuel Tax, which would be effective September 1, 2014, and to continue to negotiate with the cities to maintain the County share at 66.38 percent. He mentioned that the default formula by Statute was 68.89 percent and was based on the transportation expenditures if there was no agreement with the majority of the population by June 1. He then asked for approval to advertise an ordinance to extend the first and second cents of the Local Option Fuel Tax for a period of 29 years and four months so that the expiration date of December 31, 2014 conformed to the changes made to the Florida Statute.
Commr. Cadwell asked if they were going to try to contract out the mowing again.
Ms. Lori Conway, Road Operations Division Manager, replied that staff had held a roundtable with all of their vendors to try to figure out how they could better solicit that service, and they planned on going out with a new RFP soon.
Commr. Campione asked if they had to reach an agreement with every city.
Mr. Stivender replied that they had to reach an agreement with the majority of the population cities.
Mr. Heath added that there would be winners and losers under every scenario depending on which criteria they used.
Mr. Stivender mentioned that there were four winners and 10 losers in the scenario that benefitted the County the most. He noted that moving forward that day was letting the cities know that the County was giving them an opportunity to negotiate and come up with an agreement; otherwise the percentage would be based on transportation expenditures.
Commr. Sullivan commented that some cities were always going to complain, but cooperation with the cities was important.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to advertise an Ordinance to re-impose the one-cent and two-cent local option fuel tax pursuant to Section 336.025, Florida Statutes. The re-imposition shall be for a period of twenty-nine (29) years and four (4) months commencing September 1, 2014 and continuing through December 31, 2043. The ordinance also repeals Section 13-26, Lake County Code, entitled Two-Cent Tax as the section is outdated, and amends Section 13-29, Lake County Code, to make it consistent with the re-imposition of the local option tax.
other business
appointments
Enterprise Zone Development Agency
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Skott Jensen as the Law Enforcement Agency representative to the Enterprise Zone Development Agency to serve the remainder of an unexpired term ending June 12, 2014 and an additional one-year term ending June 12, 2015.
Elder Affairs Coordinating Council
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. George Wanberg for District 1; Ms. Colleen Kollmann and Ms. Sue Miller for District 3; Mr. Ray Newman and Ms. Kathy Haviland for District 5; and Ms. Linda McFadden and Ms. Carol Clendinen as At-Large Members to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council to serve two-year terms beginning January 31, 2014.
Lake-Sumter MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Scot Hartle for District 1 to the Lake-Sumter MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee to serve a two-year term beginning January 1, 2014.
Commr. Conner mentioned that they had not received any applications for Districts 3 and 5 and that Ms. Machelle Koonce, who resides in District 2, had applied to the committee and asked where they should place her.
Mr. Heath replied that they could place her in District 3 or they could readvertise for that District.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Machelle Koonce for District 3 to the Lake-Sumter MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee to serve a two-year term beginning January 1, 2014.
Library Advisory Board
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board appointed Ms. Jane O’Connor as the Howey-in-the-Hills Member to the Library Advisory Board to serve an unexpired term ending February 28, 2016.
reports – county manager
Speaker from the department of revenue
Mr. Heath reported that Mr. Andrew Collins from the Department of Revenue would be speaking at the January 14, 2014 BCC meeting when they would be having a kickoff of the budget process and discussing the economic forecast.
Property in Mount plymouth
Mr. Heath indicated that Mr. Tim Bailey, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, had sold his property and offered to dedicate a house on his property to the County. He noted that they would like to move the house adjacent to Station 39 in Mt. Plymouth since the current building was old and doing so would also allow for an EMS station. He added that they were currently receiving bids on that and planned to bring that back at the January 14, 2014 BCC meeting.
Helena Run property
Mr. Heath mentioned that the Board had expressed interest at the previous BCC meeting about finding funding to purchase the Helena Run property and he asked if they could apply for a grant without a match from the Water Authority.
The Board reached a consensus to apply for the grant.
City of Groveland automatic aid agreement
Mr. Heath noted that the City of Groveland had approved the automatic aid agreement with the County, which meant that the closest units would respond to an EMS or fire incident regardless of whether the incident was in the city or the County. He added that it was approved within the Groveland ISBA for the next 20 years.
reports – commissioner sullivan – district 1
position as commissioner
Commr. Sullivan thanked the staff and the Commissioners for orienting him in his new job as a Commissioner.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER conner – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 3
Dade’s Battle of 1835
Commr. Conner passed out a flyer regarding Dade’s Battle of 1835, which was being held on January 4 and 5, 2014 at the Dade Battlefield Historic State Park in Bushnell.
events attended
Commr. Conner reported attending various events recently, such as the Metro Orlando EDC Branding event, the Tavares Christmas parade, the LifeStream annual board meeting, the EDC Chairman’s Christmas reception, the Clerk’s Christmas party, and the Meet and Greet for the new City Manager of Leesburg.
County’s Christmas luncheon
Commr. Conner reminded everyone about the County’s Christmas luncheon on Thursday, December 19.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER campione – DISTRICT 4
Letter to school board
Commr. Campione handed out a letter she had written to the Chairman of the School Board regarding the Educational Concurrency Review Committee meeting, which pointed out the different items the Board proposed for the School Board’s consideration.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the letter completely clarified the Board’s simple and easy requests.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
_________________________________
jimmy conner, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK