A Special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

december 18, 2019

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 5:40 p.m., for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) meeting at the Eustis Women’s Club, Eustis, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Wendy Breeden, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Josh Blake. Other County staff present were: Jeff Cole, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Ron Russo, Deputy County Manager; John Molenda, Deputy County Manager; Fred Schneider, Public Works Director; Tim McClendon, Office of Planning and Zoning Director; and Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk. City of Eustis Commissioners present were: Michael Holland, Mayor; Karen LeHeup-Smith, Vice Mayor; Marie Aliberti; Robert Morin; and Emily Lee. Other City of Eustis staff present were: Ronald Neibert, City Manager; Cecelia Bonifay, attorney representing the City of Eustis; and Mary Montez, City Clerk.

welcome

Eustis City Mayor Michael Holland welcomed everyone to the meeting and mentioned that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) between the City of Eustis and Lake County. He thanked staff from both entities for all their work in preparing for this meeting, and thanked the County Commissioners for attending.

proposed isba discussion

Commr. Campione thanked the Eustis Commission for the opportunity to meet and discuss the ISBA, noting that up to this point there had only been staff communications with some possible misunderstandings of what the County desired for this ISBA. She stated that Commissioner Parks and she had been present for the beginning process of ISBAs and their implementation, and she opined that ISBAs had many issues and she did not feel that they were the best mechanism to utilize; therefore, she relayed that this was the reason for some of the County’s reluctance to move forward with them. She explained that the first ISBAs were intended to address a public safety issue in order to have fire and rescue services with the intention to have a closest unit response system so that the closest City or County rescue unit would respond whether it was for a city or county resident. She indicated that consideration of land use came later when there were some properties that Cities wanted to annex because they had been serving them for a long time with water and sewer but they were noncontiguous properties; furthermore, she recalled that in the City of Clermont area there were specific commercial parcels that made sense to become part of the City even though they were noncontiguous annexations and this was addressed within the ISBA for the City of Clermont. She said that each ISBA was slightly different and that they learned through the process that it was better to be more site specific, noting that they even identified specific parcels which were permitted to be annexed even though they were noncontiguous. She related that brought staff to this point today where the County did not have an ISBA with the Cities of Mount Dora and Eustis but the City of Eustis was desiring an ISBA. She reiterated that due to past situations and issues with other ISBAs, the County was approaching this potential ISBA with the City of Eustis very carefully and deliberatively since they had experienced some unintentional consequences of these former ISBAs. She shared that one of the consequences was that neighborhoods were surprised by the fact that they were being forced to annex simply because someone else had previously signed a utility agreement; additionally, she commented that another consequence was that a land use plan or change might come into the City and county residents would not have a voice at City meetings since they were not city residents. She indicated that many residents were upset with the County for entering into an agreement which allowed noncontiguous properties to be annexed into a city. She felt that there was a perception that the County Commissioners were trying to stand in the way of growth for the City of Eustis but reiterated that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) were simply attempting to represent both city and unincorporated residents’ interest and eliminate some of these unwanted consequences. She also mentioned that when this proposed ISBA was brought to the attention of the BCC several months prior, the BCC had asked for the East Crooked Lake property to be taken out of the equation since it was controversial due to the enclave issue. She explained that if an ISBA was done within the Joint Planning Area (JPA) it would fix that issue and the property would be able to come into the City of Eustis, but she relayed that was not what the unincorporated residents wanted. She recalled that the BCC was informed that this property would not be a part of the negotiation; however, she indicated that she had learned just before this meeting that this property was placed back into what was being proposed and discussed at this meeting. She registered a complaint that this was happening since the BCC came to this meeting with the understanding that East Crooked Lake would not be considered. She also specified that the BCC attempted to address the Pine Meadows property, and that the only concern with this property being annexed into the City of Eustis was a small piece of property which would be left behind as an enclave if it was annexed. She recapped that her suggestion during the BCC meeting was to address the Pine Meadows property and then continue to negotiate a larger ISBA that would consider the entire JPA or select specific parcels that developers wanted to bring into the city or residents who wanted to come into the city. She reiterated that this was what the BCC thought was going to happen at this meeting, and she questioned if the City was willing to address the Pine Meadows property, work on the larger ISBA, and not include the East Crooked Lake property.

Mr. Ronald Neibert, Eustis City Manager, responded that the circumstances at the time they were negotiating the responding resolution were very different then they are now. He commented that at that time, the initiating resolution as proposed by the County was requiring a case-by-case land use review by the County for every project that was being proposed for annexation into the City of Eustis, noting that at that time there was an active annexation as well as an active application for annexation to the City of Eustis. He stated that since that time, the initiating resolution passed by the County Commission did not represent a case-by-case review of projects and secondly, the East Crooked Lake applicants had withdrawn their application for land use from the County and they had withdrawn their annexation petition from the City so there was currently no active East Crooked Lake project. He remarked that the City at this time was desiring to have full rights of contiguous annexation with enclaves within the boundaries of its entire JPA, and to be allowed to review its own projects and applications as they are received, noting that there was no active application at this time.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification that if a project was included in the JPA and the ISBA then once that document was executed, then the applicant could refile and move forward. She commented that was what the BCC was attempting to prevent because the residents in the East Crooked Lake area seemed to agree that the one unit to one acre, which was the present zoning on that property, was appropriate for that property.

Mr. Neibert reiterated the desire for the BCC to trust that the Eustis Commission would listen to constituents and make good planning decisions for the city.

Commr. Campione opined that the City of Eustis was asking the BCC to negotiate away the rights of county constituents when residents in that area were asking the BCC to stand up for their rights and desired to have one unit per one acre in that area.

Eustis Commr. Robert Morin recalled that from previous meetings regarding the RedTail and Sorrento Springs subdivisions where residents specified that they did not want to be annexed, the City considered their desires and said that they would not annex. He expressed the desire for the City to be able to make those decisions and for the BCC to trust their judgement and to realize that they would take all concerns under consideration just as the BCC does with their public hearings. He indicated that the Eustis Commission had issues in the previous year in which they denied some developments because residents expressed opposition.

Commr. Breeden referenced page five of the document with the City’s proposal where it said “Eustis agrees to amend the Eustis Land Development Regulations to require that, for development applications received pursuant to the provisions of 3.a.ii above which generate substantial neighborhood opposition, the developer hold a community meeting to address concerns of the surrounding property owners; and to require the developer consider plan modifications to reduce those concerns,” noting that this language might be a start to addressing the concerns.

Commr. Campione thought that this language was a beginning and the type of language expected in a zoning case. She recalled attending a community meeting in this room regarding East Crooked Lake where she heard the residents’ concerns about items such as the width of the lakefront lots, the number of docks, if there would be an open boat dock, and etc. She felt that all parties could gather together and that these concerns could be worked through.

Eustis Commr. Morin noted that he was also at that meeting and that he believed it was a meeting for the applicant.

Commr. Campione indicated that the developer held that meeting and invited the residents. She thought that there were many items they agreed upon but the concerns came down to the details. She opined that it was very typical in land use cases to hear the developer say they would abide by the residents’ concerns; however, she believed it was never certain until it was in writing. She reiterated her suggestion to take out the East Crooked Lake property from this negotiation so that an ISBA with the City was not delayed, especially since having East Crooked Lake pulled out of this agreement was the premise that brought the BCC to this meeting. She also felt that the Pine Meadows property should be pulled out of the agreement.

Commr. Breeden opined that if East Crooked Lake was taken out and the two Commissions could reach an agreement, then Pine Meadows would not have to be a separate case.

Commr. Campione shared concerns that this would only work if all the issues could be addressed, noting that she had a list of items she would want addressed if she could redo all the ISBAs in the county.

Eustis Commr. Marie Aliberti asked if Commissioner Campione had a list for other cities.

Commr. Campione explained that ISBAs which were already completed could not be revisited unless the Cities were willing to renegotiate, which was another reason why she was cautious with ISBAs.

Commr. Breeden added that was the reason why the BCC had the determination language in this proposed ISBA with the City of Eustis and would have it for any future ISBAs as well.

Mayor Holland asked if Commissioner Campione wanted to pull East Crooked Lake out in order to discuss the rest of the ISBA, or did she prefer to cancel this meeting.

Mr. Neibert asked for time to consult with the City’s attorney.

Eustis Commr. Aliberti remarked that one issue was the annexation of Pine Meadows which she felt was agreeable to being annexed. She commented that East Crooked Lake did not have any annexation rights as they were in the county and she opined that they had more power than the actual property owner who wanted to annex or not annex. She felt there were too many people dictating what might happen with this piece of property such as the property owner, the County, the City with its rules and jurisdictions, and a group of property owners who have no rights to that property but want a say in what happens with the property.

Vice Mayor Karen LeHeup-Smith opined that the City’s rules would sufficiently regulate development, and she felt that the County was attempting to take away from the City its ability to make decisions on what it wants to build. She thought that many times people are concerned about density but mentioned that development should be consistent with its surroundings.

Commr. Breeden reemphasized the language on page five and suggested tweaking it to allow negotiation of the City with the developer.

Commr. Campione reiterated that East Crooked Lake had an enclave issue and could not currently annex by law into the City of Eustis since the Florida Statutes state that an enclave cannot be created and properties must be contiguous. She implied that one purpose of an ISBA was to waive these provisions by law which is why when negotiating ISBAs, each entity becomes involved. She reiterated that if the City chooses to have an ISBA then they have to allow the County to address its concerns so that the City and County can jointly plan together, noting that this was voluntary.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked how Pine Meadows could move forward as she thought it would also create an enclave.

Commr. Campione responded that it created a very small enclave and that an ISBA would allow the City and County to waive the Florida Statutory provision.

Commr. Breeden inquired if the provision could be waived except for East Crooked Lake.

Commr. Campione replied that it could be, was what the County had requested, and was what she felt the City had agreed to when they attended the BCC meeting. She remarked that if East Crooked Lake was left in the ISBA, then the City and County should agree to what the land use should be on that property and make that a part of the ISBA.

Eustis Commr. Morin asked for discussion to continue on the other issues and to defer East Crooked Lake at this point. He reiterated that he was present at the RedTail and Sorrento Springs development meetings and understood the issues; furthermore, he felt that the City would make efforts to ensure that both city and unincorporated residents’ concerns would be addressed.

Commr. Campione agreed that continuing discussions in an effort to move forward was important. She said that since Eustis Commr. Morin had mentioned RedTail, she thought it was important to also look at Grand Island and the west part of the City’s JPA where there were subdivisions with old utility agreements that developers had entered into through the years. She believed that since that area was a part of what the City wanted to annex, that it should be on the list of items to work through in order to make sure the residents are in agreement to be annexed.

Mr. Neibert indicated that none of the developer agreements that the City currently had could be annexed at this point even with the provisions of the ISBA as there was not enough contiguity, noting that the City had acquiesced to the County’s position that those properties not be annexed unless they became contiguous under normal terms. He reiterated that none of those properties could be annexed unless other properties were to annex first.

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, asked if Grand Island Estates was contiguous.

Mr. Neibert responded that it was not due to a piece of railroad property.

Commr. Campione commented that she thought the enclave was the issue preventing annexation, noting it was the area south of Biscayne Bluff.

Mr. Neibert confirmed that it was due to abandoned right-of-way railroad property which prevented contiguity.

Commr. Campione asked who owned the railroad right-of-way.

Mr. Neibert replied that it was simply railroad property.

Commr. Campione opined that would make the issue simpler as once it became contiguous and the railroad property was annexed, then the City could address if the residents felt the City had the right to annex.

Mr. Neibert specified that the concern with the ISBA related to the developer agreements was not an issue since there was no contiguity; furthermore, he reiterated that the City had acquiesced on that issue on the original agreement draft. He stated that the City agreed that at such point if they had contiguity and they could annex these properties, and if they established contiguity with these developments but it still created an enclave, then the City agreed that they would not force annex these developments unless there was normal contiguity for five years from the agreement.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify that he was saying that even if there was an enclave the City would wait five years to annex.

Mr. Neibert agreed that the City would wait five years to force annexing these developments once contiguity was established if it created an enclave; however, he said that in the absence of an enclave and if it met the normal statutory provisions then the City would be allowed to annex.

Commr. Campione added that the City could attempt to annex but that residents may resist.

Mr. Neibert reiterated that if they were to establish contiguity with an annexation that created an enclave, then they would agree not to exercise their rights to annex the development agreement properties for a period of five years from the date of the ISBA agreement.

Commr. Campione registered her opposition to the five year term as she did not think the County wanted to open the door to an annexation that would be forced upon someone even if there was a five year waiting period.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked if the City of Eustis was the only city that had developer agreements.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, attorney representing the City of Eustis, responded that it was not the only city. She added that pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court, the one item upheld over time was that municipalities did have the right to condition the provision of utilities to future annexation. She indicated that much of Lake County did that; furthermore, she stated that municipalities should be able to provide services to their residents since they were the ones providing utilities. She did not believe it had been stricken in other ISBAs that she was aware of.

Commr. Campione relayed that there was a Hernando County court case which said that if someone lived in a neighborhood where a developer had signed one of these agreements, that it is not considered a voluntary annexation, which would be allowable by law, for a lot owner who does not agree to be annexed. She remarked that in regards to what Ms. Bonifay was stating, it was fine if the Cities wanted to have these agreements with developers; however, she felt that what happens ultimately on whether a lot owner could challenge it was between the City and the lot owner and she did not feel that the County should be a part of the equation.

Ms. Bonifay questioned allowing it in other ISBAs and not this one.

Commr. Campione commented that she did not think that the County had any forced annexations in subdivisions as a result of the other ISBAs.

Mr. Neibert implied that there was one in the City of Clermont’s ISBA.

Commr. Parks noted that it was mostly commercial property.

Mr. Neibert stated that it was his understanding that there was a 131 lot subdivision which was forcibly annexed under the terms of the agreement.

Commr. Campione opined that should not have happened and was the reason why she did not want the County to make the same mistake again. She reiterated that these issues should be between the City and the subdivisions, and that the County should not be involved in a situation where someone is forced to be annexed.

Eustis Commr. Morin asked for more information regarding the City of Clermont ISBA.

Commr. Parks responded that the first ISBA was in 2009 and was between the City of Montverde, the City of Minneola and the County. He said that the Cities of Clermont and Groveland then had one with the County, noting that it included various commercial properties along State Road (SR) 50 with possibly a few residential areas.

Commr. Campione thought it was multi-family residents.

Eustis Mayor Holland then announced that the City had prepared a presentation which reflected what the City and the County had requested, and he said that they wanted to go through those points now and discuss them.

Commr. Campione noted that the BCC had only received the slideshow presentation a few hours ago and were still trying to digest all the information. She mentioned that she thought there were other considerations that should be negotiated beyond what was in the slideshow.

Ms. Bonifay directed participants to a copy of the slideshow within their packets in order to follow along as she went through the presentation, noting that it was created to show the County’s position and the corresponding City’s additional thoughts. She began by stating that the City had recommendations for additions to the whereas clauses and then shared what they were. She addressed the County’s statement on the ISBA regarding an Exhibit A which outlined the ISBA on a map, noting that the City requested for the entire JPA to be referenced in Exhibit A. She then talked about the County’s position in item three on page two which listed the four properties that the County had consented to their annexation by the City of Eustis.

Commr. Campione explained that these were the Pine Meadows properties, and that the County consented to allow these four properties to be annexed even though they created an enclave.

Ms. Bonifay continued by reading the County’s proposal which stated that the identified parcels were depicted in Exhibit B, as well as the City’s position regarding this.

Eustis Commr. Morin inquired if there should be feedback from the City and County regarding these points as they were presented, and Ms. Bonifay thought that would be helpful.

Commr. Campione commented on the City’s additional language proposed to be added that stated a public hearing be held prior to annexation where owners of properties within an enclave should be allowed to speak. She emphasized that the County’s concerns were that the property owners be given consideration and not just the opportunity to speak since allowing them to speak was already required by law.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith opined that the City Commission did listen to constituents as they are their neighbors and people they see on a regular basis. She asked for the County to allow them to do their job which she thought might help make the BCC’s workload easier. She opined that their Commission was feeling like the BCC did not trust them to do a good job, and she opined that the land design they had created would work well for their planning department.

Commr. Breeden expressed understanding for her viewpoint; however, she related that the BCC had experienced cases in other cities where they felt the interests of the county residents were not upheld.

Commr. Parks asked the BCC if they thought the City’s position on this one item regarding the language to allow residents to speak at a public hearing was a positive component for an ISBA.

Commr. Campione opined it was better than not having the language; additionally, she explained that it was not that the BCC did not trust the Eustis Commission to make good decisions but that it was about representing their county constituents, noting that sometimes what developers might say in a meeting did not always happen.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith responded that was why they had their planning department.

Commr. Campione opined that the City’s planning department was good; however, she felt the rules, such as the form-based code, were difficult to understand and navigate.

Commr. Parks commented that he appreciated what the City of Eustis was doing and that the BCC did want to work together with them. He recognized that the City of Eustis was not in the same position as some of the other Cities since they were one of the last Cities to propose an ISBA; furthermore, even though there were some issues with the City of Clermont and South Lake, he still believed in the concept of ISBAs.

Commr. Breeden committed that if the City of Mount Dora was interested in an ISBA, then she would treat it the same as whatever was agreed upon with the City of Eustis.

Eustis Commr. Emily Lee shared that she had never experienced citizens not being treated well, and that they were always allowed to speak and have a voice. She also mentioned that she felt that everything the County was proposing was negative and she wanted to have something good happen. She expressed a desire to have the City of Eustis treated fairly, to be given the opportunity to manage and make decisions, and she felt that they were committed to doing what was right.

Eustis Commr. Aliberti opined that this was what home rule was and that it was important to be able to initiate items for the City that were good. She understood that there were State regulations that had to be followed, but believed that an ISBA was one of the alternatives that the State allowed; furthermore, she mentioned that their Commission listened to anyone who wished to speak whether a city resident or not.

Commr. Campione suggested to add “and have their concerns addressed” to the end of the language proposed by the City on slide nine which ended with “an opportunity to comment publicly at such meeting.”

Commr. Sullivan recommended to also add “to the maximum extent possible” since there might be some items that could not be addressed. He said he was comfortable with this language because he thought this was required by Florida Statutes if the annexation created an enclave; furthermore, he believed this language was important since the Pine Meadows property created a small enclave.

Mayor Holland conveyed consensus from the group for this.

Commr. Parks shared that he had personally heard a City Council tell a county resident that they were not allowed to speak since they were not a city resident.

Eustis Commr. Morin opined that the Eustis Commission would not say that.

Commr. Campione reminded everyone that part of the reason to write language such as this might be for future commissions.

There was then discussion among the Commissioners that the suggestion was to replace the County’s section 3.a.ii of the proposed ISBA with the City’s section 3.a.ii to include the addition of the language suggested by Commissioners Campione and Sullivan. Mr. Cole conveyed his understanding of this and added that this would eliminate the County’s section 3.b. since the City’s proposal went directly into section 4 “Annexation of Right of Way.”

Commr. Campione wanted to clarify that Pine Meadow references were not being taken out but that this was simply for the global situation that if enclaves were created, then this would be the language that would apply. She suggested to leave the County language as it was but to add “and any other enclave,” and then insert the language just discussed and agreed upon as a roman numeral three.

Mr. Cole noted that if this suggestion was implemented, then essentially the City’s section 3.a.ii would become the County’s section 3.a.iii, and would leave the County’s section 3.a.ii.

Mr. Neibert relayed that the intent with the language was the City’s best effort to listen to the constituents; however, he clarified that their concern was to have the right to do contiguous annexations with enclaves throughout their JPA and not just specifically the Pine Meadows area.

Commr. Breeden opined that this suggestion would allow that for the City if it was added as section 3.a.iii.

Mr. Cole remarked that the proposed City’s section 3.a.ii would create a conflict with the County’s section 3.a.ii since the County’s was specific to the certain properties.

Ms. Bonifay suggested adding another point that would address any other properties which do not meet the Part I, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes Enclaves, to include the language about notices, public hearing, opportunity to comment, and to have concerns addressed to the greatest extend feasible.

Mr. Cole stated it depended on whether the BCC wanted to be specific to Pine Meadows.

Commr. Campione recommended at this point to keep the agreement which addressed Pine Meadows as well as a master agreement, and then if at the end of the negotiations the separate Pine Meadows was not needed because everything was addressed in the master agreement, then it could be eliminated. She thought that trying to merge the two was too confusing.

Mr. Neibert commented that there was not a need to reference Pine Meadows if the BCC gave the Eustis Commission the right to do the contiguous annexation with enclaves throughout the JPA.

Commr. Breeden clarified that what she thought Commissioner Campione was suggesting was that although there was language that seemed to be agreed upon, the whole agreement had not been addressed yet; therefore, they should wait until they went through everything to see if Pine Meadows still needed to have a separate agreement.

Ms. Bonifay continued with her slideshow presentation which was the County’s section 3.b., noting that she thought this might be inconsistent with what was just discussed.

Commr. Campione clarified that this language was in there because the County was proposing the Pine Meadows property separately as it was suggested at the BCC meeting, reiterating that the plan was to create a master agreement that would ultimately replace the Pine Meadows agreement.

Commr. Breeden recommended keeping this language on the Pine Meadows agreement, and said that if a master agreement was agreed upon, then the Pine Meadows one would not be needed.

Ms. Bonifay then continued with her presentation with the City’s proposal of section 3.a.iii. which stated that “the City shall postpone annexation of properties subject to existing annexation agreements which may become contiguous by virtue of a voluntary annexation under the provisions of 3.a.ii above, for a period of five years from the date of this agreement.”

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith inquired if the BCC was not in favor of the five year period.

Commr. Campione opined that the people involved in annexation should be invited to have input.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith suggested that they could be invited in now to have input.

Commr. Campione said that they could not currently because the property was not contiguous. She asked if property owners were fine with the possibility to be annexed in five years.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith opined it could be many people with many different feelings and she thought it would be easier to set something in writing.

Commr. Campione asked for the Eustis Commission to consider how they might feel if they were the people whose rights were being signed away.

Mr. Neibert commented that they would have the right to challenge it in court.

Commr. Campione thought that would be expensive and she did not believe it was right to place that burden on them. She expressed a desire to not have that in the agreement.

Mr. Neibert noted that the City was attempting to find some middle ground with a five year restriction.

Commr. Campione remarked that if the City was able to make it contiguous and not have an enclave, then they could keep moving forward with their annexation. She noted that her objection was to placing it in the agreement and making the County a part of it.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked if Commissioner Campione was asking for that section to be taken out, and Commissioner Campione responded that was what she would recommend.

Mr. Neibert stated that there were these two provisions: the provision that the City of Eustis had the right to annex it if it became contiguous under normal terms; and what the County was proposing under the original language was that if the City annexes in a parcel which creates an enclave and it becomes contiguous with one of the parcels that the City has with a developer agreement, then the County was saying that the City cannot utilize that contiguity to annex the new property into the city until the City gets regular contiguity. He added that the City understood the County’s concerns, but that the City felt that by entering into the agreement and delaying it for five years, the individuals would know that it was a possibility; furthermore, he reiterated that the City had no active applications for annexation for any parcels out in that area although he did not know if they might in the future or when it might happen. He said they were asking for the ability to be able to do that as a compromise by making it a five year delay.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked about the possibility of sending a letter to the subdivisions’ Homeowner Associations (HOAs) for every developer agreement to make sure they were aware of what was happening.

Mr. Neibert responded that each title policy and each abstract on the property provided within them references to the developers’ agreements and the requirement to annex; therefore, he opined that from a legal standpoint it was legally binding, legal notification, and constructive notification without being over constructive notification to the point that someone was handing individuals a specific form which said that purchasing this property would mean they were subject to annexation. He thought that no one did that but it was still legal and binding.

Mr. Cole opined that most would agree that when someone buys a house they would probably not be aware of everything that was in that document and would have attorneys present to look out for their best interest. He indicated that the concern was that current residents might not be aware of such agreements.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked what other cities did.

Commr. Parks asked if the properties in this location signed anything that identified that they knew they would potentially be annexed.

Commr. Campione replied that they would not have signed anything but would have received it in their title paperwork.

Mr. Neibert mentioned that he was not aware of any homeowner who signed that they were aware of any specific covenant in their abstract or HOA document.

Commr. Parks opined that no one wanted this type of situation to happen again.

Ms. Bonifay implied that with any subdivision there would be a master developer who negotiated with the local government to annex their property, to get it rezoned, and to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment; additionally, they would state that if the property was coming into a municipality and was not yet contiguous, they would have to sign an agreement in order to get water and sewer, noting that a letter from the municipality stating they would provide the water and sewer would be needed before the County would allow the developer to move forward.

Commr. Parks relayed that he understood what Ms. Bonifay was saying; however, he was attempting to place himself in the position of the person purchasing the house to make sure they were aware of potential annexation.

Ms. Bonfiay replied that they would be aware if they read their title paperwork.

Commr. Campione added that it depended on whether the individual understood the paperwork. She mentioned that there were cases in Hernando County where the court stated that unless individuals signed an application stating that they voluntarily annexed into a city, then the court would not contribute that knowledge to the person.

Commr. Parks felt that if the language was in the deed or covenant then it would be the individual’s responsibility to read it.

Commr. Campione suggested that in the future when cities have these agreements, that they require the developer to place that language in their covenants and restrictions. She felt that people would be more likely to read those documents.

Mr. Neibert indicated that the City informed the Sorrento Pines project that they would require them to file a separate covenant to annex and not place it within the developer’s agreement, noting that the City was willing to have a specific separate covenant to annex filed separately so that it would stand out in order to make sure there were no surprises. He added that the City was willing to require separate annexation to covenant documents for future development agreements.

Mr. Cole asked if notifying the existing residents would align with this approach.

Mr. Neibert said that after the passing of an agreement, the City would be happy to do that.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked if any other municipality in Lake County had addressed this.

Commr. Campione responded that with many of them the water and sewer was fairly compact and was not so far out.

Commr. Parks said that the City of Clermont has the annexation and utility provision happening at the same time.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked if the City of Leesburg had any areas similar to this.

Commr. Sullivan replied that the City of Leesburg had a number of communities utilizing their water and sewer but they did not require these communities to be part of the city.

Commr. Breeden suggested that upon implementation of the ISBA agreement, that the City notify those who were in the developer agreement area.

Mr. Neibert clarified that upon the execution of a valid agreement, the City would send notice to those developer agreements making them aware of the terms and conditions of the ISBA and that upon contiguity, that they may be required to annex into the City of Eustis.

Commr. Campione related that the letter could be sent right away to the subdivisions and did not have to wait for the ISBA.

Mr. Neibert felt there was nothing to notify them about until there was an agreement.

Mr. Cole inquired about possibly surveying the residents to obtain their input instead of notification if it was truly voluntary annexation.

Mr. Neibert thought that there could be different points of view on the voluntary issue, noting that it could be argued whether they were legally notified or not. He believed that the voluntary part came when they chose to buy a house or property with the question being as to whether the notification was fair, legal or adequate.

Mr. Cole expressed his belief that if you were a resident who wanted to be annexed then that was voluntary and if you did not, then that was not voluntary.

Commr. Campione reiterated her suggestion to take this section out of the agreement. She commented that when an area was contiguous and did not create an enclave, then the City of Eustis would address that area at that point and they could decide to put the residents on notice or ask for voluntary annexation; however, she felt that having it in the ISBA made the County a party to it and made it more difficult.

Eustis Commr. Morin stated that he agreed that it did not need to be in the agreement. He said that from his perspective, it was voluntary.

Mr. Neibert recommended that the Eustis Commission take this suggestion under advisement and to wait and see how the rest of the agreement matured.

Ms. Bonifay continued with the presentation regarding the annexation of right-of-way section which referenced Exhibit B in the document.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification that this was the parcel which connected the Pine Meadows property to County Road (CR) 44A.

Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct, and noted that the City was not in opposition to doing that but was asking to add the standard right-of-way annexation that was in the balance of the County’s ISBA agreements.

Ms. Bonifay continued with her presentation by reading the City’s annexation to right-of-way proposal.

Commr. Campione inquired why the City stated in this section that they would not accept maintenance if they annexed a road.

Mr. Neibert replied that the City had annexed Orange Avenue but it was still maintained by the County, noting that there were certain roads under County jurisdiction.

Commr. Sullivan said this issue was not specific to the City of Eustis. He relayed that the County’s rules and regulations address collector, major and arterial roads that they maintain, noting that the road mentioned was not either of these types of roads and it made sense for the City to have maintenance of this road.

Mr. Neibert asked if the classes of roads could be more specific under intent.

Commr. Sullivan indicated that he thought this was one specific road.

Mr. Neibert responded that was because the original agreement from the County was a Pine Meadows specific agreement; therefore, he said that the City crafted their document to address the concern about that one section of right-of-way, noting the City was agreeable on that, but that they also wanted to address the other right-of-ways as part of a master agreement in order to cover all right-of-ways within the JPA and ultimately throughout the entire boundary of the ISBA.

Commr. Sullivan mentioned he would accept that but felt that the County’s arterial and collector road language needed to then be added to this document.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Lake County Public Works Director, commented that the County could identify collector roadways which were separate from local roadways into the agreement.

Mr. Neibert clarified that as it read currently, it implied that the City would take over maintenance of everything, noting that maybe that was not the County’s intent and working through the proper language to be more specific might be helpful.

Commr. Sullivan noted that was what he was attempting to accomplish.

Ms. Bonifay clarified that there were two clauses and that the first clause was addressing the larger issue, and that Commissioner Sullivan was suggesting identifying which roads were County roads and which were City.

Mr. Neibert summarized that if the County was acceptable to the City’s broad language in addition to the specific right-of-way acceptance with specifying the classes of road, then they would have consensus at this point.

Commr. Campione recapped that the original language was for the Pine Meadows property and only addressed the small strip of road from CR 44A up to Pine Meadows; additionally, she said there was a provision about the Pine Meadows Golf Course Road going into the City of Eustis maintenance system. She asked if there was consensus if they were only addressing the Pine Meadows agreement.

Mr. Neibert commented that the intent of the Eustis Commission was to reach a master agreement at this meeting; therefore, he felt that if they addressed the master agreement issues then the Pine Meadows issues would resolve themselves.

Commr. Campione specified then that for the master issue, there would be a map to identify the major collector roads which would stay in the County maintenance system and then all other roads that would be annexed by the City of Eustis that were local roads would be subject to City maintenance.

Mr. Neibert agreed, noting that it would include the language just proposed with Commissioner Sullivan’s recommendations and was acceptable to the City.

Mr. Cole asked if the railroad south of Grand Island Estates was considered right-of-way.

Mr. Neibert replied that it was not since the title work said abandoned right-of-way. He clarified that since it said abandoned right-of-way it meant that they abandoned it for right-of-way purposes but they still maintained ownership.

Mr. Cole inquired if the City had talked to them about annexation, and Mr. Neibert said they had not.

Mr. Neibert said that the City did not have concerns with accepting Pine Meadows Road into the City’s maintenance system; however, he wanted to clarify the condition of bringing it up to city roadway standards and asked if the County had a timeframe or expectation regarding this since it would be an approximate $1.1 million project.

Commr. Breeden asked what City standards were and if they required curb and gutter, which she said were not County standards.

Mr. Neibert replied that the basic, minimum rural standard of the City’s standards was used in the estimation which would require a 24 foot road and not curb and gutter.

Mr. Cole asked if the City owned the road.

Mr. Neibert remarked that it was not a road but was platted as an easement and that the City owned the easement.

Mr. Cole specified that the County was not planning to bring it up to City standards since the County did not own it.

Mr. Neibert said he understood that. He indicated that the City had not considered bringing it up to any standard since there was not demand for it; additionally, it was not listed on any of their maintenance maps since there was not a clear understanding of whose road it was.

Mr. Cole commented that there is a difference between ownership and maintenance, noting that the County owns some roads that they do not maintain. He wanted to make sure there was agreement on the ownership of this road.

Mr. Neibert agreed and remarked that was referenced in the County’s request to accept the road as part of their maintenance system, noting that the City was willing to do that. He said their concern was that on a $1.1 million project, the language in the proposal stated that a third party was required to make those improvements and he was attempting to understand the County’s intent in terms of who would be paying for this and the timeframe.

Commr. Breeden thought that would be the developer.

Mr. Neibert relayed the City’s concern was that they did not have transportation concurrency so they could not require that. He added that their proposal was agreeing to make the improvements; however, given that the County would be collecting all the impact fees, then the City would be willing to do that upon a negotiated agreement of a cost-sharing between the parties, noting that if a developer could be included in that then the City was willing to do that.

Ms. Marsh explained that the background on this particular provision was that twice over the last year, the City had directed residents to the County for issues of that road. She added that County staff did research and realized it was deeded to the City of Eustis in 1978; therefore, they added this section to the proposal. She commented that the County did not have any legal ability to make improvements to the road since the County did not own it as it was deeded to the City; furthermore, for purposes of this agreement, the County was probably not concerned about how or when this road got improved but only that they did not want residents sent to the County to ask for improvements which put the County in the position to say they could not make improvements since they do not own it. She elaborated that impact fees could only be utilized on collector and arterial roads and that this road did not qualify as that type of road; therefore, impact fees could not be used on it.

Commr. Breeden suggested having this clause read “Eustis shall accept into its road maintenance system Pine Meadows Golf Course Road no later than three months from the effective date of this agreement.”

Mr. Neibert said that would be fine.

Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith inquired that if the City owned the road then why did any language have to be placed in the document.

Mr. Neibert responded that there was a difference between ownership and who has maintenance responsibility. He indicated that while the City owned it, no one was currently maintaining it because the City had an adopted road maintenance plan and this road was never adopted by the City as part of their maintenance plan. He stated that the City was agreeing to adopt it as part of their maintenance plan; additionally, the County was not going to dictate a specific level of improvement.

Mr. Cole clarified that the City was willing to use the language in section five from the County’s proposal.

Mr. Neibert said that was correct, except it would not include the last part of the sentence after the comment “three months from the effective date of this agreement,” noting that the last part of the sentence referenced providing improvements to bring it to city roadway standards.

Commr. Campione asked for the language to include a comment such as “best efforts to bring it up to roadway standards,” so that there was something to indicate an intention on the part of the City to get it done.

Mr. Neibert agreed to add some language that would address that.

Eustis Commr. Morin asked for clarification on where this section of road was located.

Mr. Neibert replied it was from CR 19 all the way to the new County park since that was the part that was only a dirt road.

recess and reassembly

Eustis City Mayor Holland called a recess at 7:22 pm for ten minutes.

ADJOURNMENT

Eustis City Mayor Holland commented that a good amount of work had been accomplished at this meeting even though there was still much to get done. He shared that Commissioner Campione had an urgent family matter that needed to be addressed; therefore, he said that they would need to adjourn this meeting and continue it after the first of the year. He thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.

.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK