Columbia County Board of County Commissioners

Transcription

1 Columbia County Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 19, 2007 TIME: 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: School Board Administration Building TYPE: Regularly Scheduled Meeting =============================================================== In Attendance: Commissioner Ronald Williams Dist. 1 Commissioner Stephen Bailey Dist. 4 Commissioner Dewey Weaver Dist. 2 Commissioner Elizabeth Porter Dist. 5 Commissioner George Skinner Dist. 3 Others in Attendance: County Manager Dale Williams Deputy Clerk Sandy Markham County Attorney Marlin Feagle Administrative Secretary Penny Stanley Chairwoman Porter called the meeting to order. Commissioner Bailey opened with prayer. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America followed. Building & Zoning Department by Ms. Connie Scott Regular Land Use Amendments (2nd Hearing for Adoption): (1) CPA 0146 DDC-1031, LLC, LJC-1031, LLC, and JAW-1031, LLC District 3 Request to change the land use classification from Residential, Low Density (Less than or equal to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial. The 40 acre tract is located on CR 252B across from Deer Creek Subdivision, in Section 3, Township 4 South, Range 16 East. The foregoing has been reviewed by DCA and found to be in compliance. The public hearing opened and closed without input. MOTION by Commissioner Skinner to approve. Second by Commissioner Weaver. The motion carried unanimously. (2) CPA 0161 Mike and Vicki Harrell District 3 Request to change the land use classification from Commercial Highway Interchange and Residential Low Density, to Commercial. The acre tract is located at the corner of U.S. Hwy. 90 and Brown Road, in Section 33, Township 3 South, Range 16 East. The foregoing has been reviewed by DCA and found to be in compliance. The public hearing opened and closed without input. The public hearing opened and closed without input. MOTION by Commissioner Skinner to approve. Second by Commissioner Bailey. The motion carried unanimously. Text Amendment to Comprehensive Plan (2 nd hearing for adoption) Everyone offering testimony at the public hearing was placed under oath by Deputy Clerk Sandy Markham. (1) CPA 06-1 Board of County Commissioners changing all principal arterial roadway

2 Segments with a C level of service standard to a D Level of service standard on U.S. and State Roads. This amendment would affect 20 roadways. Nine of the roads are classified as urban, one road classified as rural developed, and ten roads classified as rural. This application has been reviewed by DCA and is found to be in compliance. The purpose of this amendment is to develop a strategy to deal with the Proportionate Fair Share Bill mandated by Senate Bill 360. The public hearing opened. Citizen Stewart Lilker asked that the record reflect that prior to the meeting he filed copies of the following relating to 06-1 with the Clerk of Courts: Board of County Commissioner minutes from and , and the Planning & Zoning minutes. Those documents are attached to the original minutes. Mr. Lilker pointed out that the workshop minutes reflect there was only a brief opening discussion among the commissioners regarding Proportionate Fair Share. Mr. Lilker read from the Planning and Zoning Minutes of November 13, 2006, stressing the membership s concerns and objections to CPA and pointing out the unanimous motion to recommend denial of CPA to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lilker provided a partial verbatim transcript of that particular portion of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and stated while under oath that the transcription was done by him and is a true and accurate representation of the November 13, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. He noted for the record that the concerns and comments made by former member Jim Pueshell (now deceased) were very knowledgeable and that Mr. Pueshell worked for the Department of Transportation for many years. Mr. Lilker concluded by saying that members of the Board of County Commissioners who elect to vote in favor of CPA 06-01, after the thorough and thoughtful deliberations of the Planning and Zoning Board, Will distinguish themselves as being foursquare in the pockets of the developers. The taxpayers in this county pay their fair share. Will this Board please tell me why the developers don t have to? The Chair asked Attorney Feagle, Was it not stated during the workshop that we were required to pass this by the state? Attorney Feagle responded, I think it was approved by the state. I don t think the state required us to pass it. He explained that if CPA is not passed and the level of service on the roads remains where they are that development will be significantly impaired, particularly on the West side of the county. Attorney Feagle said he believes something may have been said to the effect that the Board would be required to pass it [CPA 06-01] if they want development to continue. Mr. Lilker responded Attorney Feagle s statement was not true. He said, Because according to proportionate fair share, if the Board doesn t approve these amount of trips that the developers have to pay their proportionate fair share; and that s what Senate Bill 360 was about. The minutes and transcription provided are attached to the original minutes. Citizen Barbara Lemley said that she fully concurred with Mr. Lilker. She said that she is adamantly opposed to anything that would require septics and believes growth should be halted until issues involving water and sewer have been resolved. She said the real estate market has slowed and vacant homes are plentiful. She encouraged a moratorium on new development. The public hearing closed. MOTION by Commissioner Williams to adopt text amendment CPA Second by

3 Commissioner Weaver. Discussion: Commissioner Williams recalled during the workshop there were comments from the Planning and Zoning Board, and that all members of Planning and Zoning were invited to attend the workshop and discuss the reasons for their recommendation to deny, but only one member showed. Commissioner Williams disagreed with comments made opposing CPA Commissioner Weaver recalled it was recommended CPA be passed by the Board of County Commissioners. The commissioner said, Fair share is fair share for improvements for that particular section that s impacted by the road. It doesn t pay the whole cost. People who live here now have to make up the difference. It s a very small portion of the cost if I recall correctly. By doing this, it does give the county more time. If we do not do this it s a tremendous financial impact on this county to come up with the funds to do those upgrades, and by doing this it does buy some time. Commissioner Bailey said his understanding is the same as Commissioner Williams. He said that his understanding is that CPA doesn t have anything to do with septic systems and that the amendment deals with roads. Small Scale Amendments: (1) CPA 0167 Rubicon Investment, LLC Dist 3 The request is to change the land use classification from Residential, Low Density (less than or equal to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Residential, Medium Density (Less than or equal to 8 dwelling units per acres. The property 8.20 acres in size and is located in Columbia County in Section 25, Township 3 South, Range 17 East. The general location of the property is off of NW Gwen Lake Avenue and NW Maitland Terrace in the area of Animal Shelter. The property boarders the railroad and is in the NE corner of the intersection of Brady Circle. The public hearing opened. Citizen Stewart Lilker spoke in opposition due to the lack of impact fees. He pointed out the density change is from 16 units to 64 units. If the Board were to pass the school impact fees at the amount the school system recommended, this development would generate $217,600 for the county from the pockets of the developers and the purchaser of the home. Mr. Lilker said that to approve this amendment while there are no impact fees in place will only put a financial burden on the backs of the citizens instead of the developers. He concluded by reiterating that the developers and those reaping the benefits of the development are not paying their fair share in this county. Citizen Barbara Lemley asked what type sewer systems would be in place. The Chair responded it would have city water and sewer. Ms. Lemley opposed the amendment and asked that impact fees be put into place taking the financial burden off of the general public and placing it on the developers. The Chair said, And just to clarify, we are currently in the process of writing and eventually approving, I m sure, impact fees.

4 Citizen Duane Thomas spoke in favor and expressed the requested zoning is consistent with the density zoning of adjacent property. The public hearing closed. MOTION by Commissioner Skinner to approve. Second by Commissioner Weaver. The motion carried unanimously. (2) CPA 0169 Columbia County Housing and Development Corp. District 5 The request is to change from Commercial to Residential, Low Density (Less than or equal to 2 dwelling units per acre). The property is.20 acre and is located in Columbia County in Section 8, Township 4 South, Range 17 East, off of SW Maryland Avenue. A home will be built on this site. The budget will be overseen by the Columbia County Housing and Development Corp, utilizing the skills of the Columbia High School Construction Department. The public hearing opened and closed without input. MOTION by Commissioner Weaver to approve. Second by Commissioner Williams. (2) CPA 0171 CEE-BAS, Inc. District 5 The request is to change the classification from Residential, Low Density (less than or equal to 2 dwelling units per acre) to Commercial. This.39 acres was part of a 10 acre parcel that was changed in This small parcel was left out in error. The property is located in Columbia County in Section 7, Township 4 South, Range 17 East, on SR 47 across from SW Michigan Street. The public hearing opened and closed without input. MOTION by Commissioner Williams to approve. Second by Commissioner Skinner. Zoning Amendment (1) Z 0464 Agents Chad Williams and Charlie Sparks for Susan Driggers District 3 The request is to change the zoning from Residential, Single Family Mobile Home-2 (RSF/MH-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) for property located in Columbia County lying in Section 27, Township 3 South, Range 16 East, off of Turner Road. The lots will be developed into 79 lots ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to ½ acre. The Development will be known as Turner Oaks. Curb and gutter will be required. Ms. Scott advised that at one point there was a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board that this be approved with a strong recommendation being made for a package treatment plant since the property is located on the fringe of the Ichetucknee Basin, but it was determined that a package treatment plant would be too costly for only 79 lots and that the 79 lots would not be a detriment to the basin. Eutaw Utilities has made two recommendations regarding water being supplied to the subdivision. One is the County will run a waterline from Hwy. 90 to the Turner Road Development, and then purchase water at an intergovernmental rate from the City of Lake City. The second choice would be to install a community water system for the subdivision.

5 The public hearing opened. Citizen Barbara Lemley stated she spoke in opposition to this at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and she remains in opposition. She opposes any additional nitrates around the basin and does not believe the cost of the package plant should be an issue. She urged the Board to vote in opposition. Citizen Stewart Lilker questioned who the agents were. Agent Barry Joye offered for clarification that the project is being put together by himself, Charlie Sparks and a number of other people in an effort to produce lots for affordable housing in Lake City. Ms. Scott clarified the applicant is Susan Driggers and that the agent is Chad Williams and Charlie Sparks. Ms. Scott said that normally, the Building and Zoning indicates the engineer as agent since they are generally the person who makes the presentation or is available for questions at the Building and Zoning meetings. Mr. Lilker reiterated that the June 25, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board minutes reflect a unanimous decision to highly recommend a package plant for this development, and that a package plant could be required by the Board. He asked exactly who it was that made the decision that the package plant was too expensive. The Chair responded it is the engineers determination supported by County Staff. Mr. Lilker asked if anyone knew the price of the package plant that was too expensive. The Chair responded she did not know the cost. Mr. Lilker pointed out if school impact fees alone were put into place by the Board of County Commissioners this development would generate $286,000 from the developer and that the Developers are not paying their fair share. Mr. Lilker asked that the Board not approve the foregoing until there is a package plant with sewers and not until impact fees are in place. Commissioner Weaver reminded everyone that a study has proven the number one leading cause of nitrates is agriculture, then rainfall, and thirdly septic systems. Mr. Lilker responded, We have to do what we can do, to clean up what we can. Study have show that sewer treatment and package plants keep the aquifer from getting polluted a lot more that if the stuff is just dumped right in there. Citizen Barbara Lemley asked what the plans were to resurface Turner Road. Commissioner Skinner replied that Turner Road has been approved for resurfacing and the money has been set aside in this year s budget. The public hearing closed. MOTION by Commissioner Skinner to approve Z With the sewer being serviced by individual septic tanks, and the developer having the option of one of the two suggestions made by Eutaw for water. Curb and gutter will be a requirement. Second by Commissioner Weaver. Regarding septic tanks, Commissioner Williams said there would be a public hearing in the near future to adopt a regulation ordinance. Part of the ordinance will follow state statute. The ordinance will lay out a time table for county residents to hook into the public utility system. He said the ordinance will require septic tanks to be abandoned. (2) Z 0466 Price Creek, LLC District 4 Agents Bailey, Bishop & Lane are requesting a change from Rural Residential to Planned Residential Development for property located in Section 2, Township 4 South, Range

6 17 East in Columbia County. The 33 acres are located on the East side of Price Creek Road (CR 245) approximately ¼ mile South of SR 100. The lot sizes will range in size from ¼ acre to 1.61 acres. The Planning and Zoning Department recommended denial due to drainage and environmental issues with proposed septic tanks. The developer is willing to put in a package treatment plant. The developer will have the same two choices on water supply as Z The property will be part of a development that will include property that listed in Z Curb and gutter will be required. (2) Z 0467 Price Creek, LLC District 4 Agents Bailey, Bishop & Lane are requesting a change from Rural Residential to Planned Residential Development for property located in Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 17 East in Columbia County. This parcel is slightly South of the parcel described in Z The acres will be divided into lots ranging in size from ¼ acre to 2.32 acres. The public hearing opened on Z 0466 and Z From questions asked by Citizen Barbara Lemley, it was learned Z 0466 would bring 142 additional residences to the county. It is unknown at this time what the price range of the homes will be. The law does not allow decisions to be based on zoning requests for proposed subdivisions. No plat or any details of price or square footage relating to the development are known at this time. She opposed Z 0466 and Z 0467 without impact fees and without package treatment plants being in place. Citizen Julia Tabor expressed concern for the traffic this will create on the already crowded Price Creek Road. Citizen Stewart Lilker spoke in opposition Z He point out the school s impact fee study was done in mid 2006, but impact fees still have not been implemented by the County. According to Mr. Lilker if impact fees had been in place, Z 0466 alone would have generated in excess of $500,000 for the County s budget. He asked that both be denied until the county fulfills its promise to put impact fees in place. Mr. Lilker reviewed the January 25, 2007 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the debate on whether package treatment plants are allowed. He said, I think it s time that we all got on the same page and started reading the minutes accurate minutes, instead of this hokum that we get when we come to these meetings [Board of County Commissioners] when nobody reads the minutes and everybody says something else. Mr. Lilker stated he opposes 0467 for the same reasons as stated in He commended the developer in requesting a sewage treatment plant. Mr. Lilker said he doesn t know how the Board of County Commissioners could not be considered disingenuous when a package plant is too expensive for one development, but not another. He concluded that the issues relating to denial for the Planning and Zoning Board were not due to a lack of a comprehensive utility plan, but instead was due to issues relating to sewage impact and stormwater runoff. Citizen Denise Bowes said she is in agreement as long as the county will require the package treatment plant over individual septic tanks. She expressed concern about the congestion on Price Creek and hoped Commissioner Bailey has plans for relieving the congestion.

7 Citizen Mark Tuttle is concerned with the dam/dike located on the property. He reminded the commission that during the 2004 hurricanes that same dam overran and flooded Price Creek and washed out two bridges and two roads. He asked where the water would go with 146 new homes going in and what would be done to protect the existing homes from being flooded. Mr. Tuttle also pointed out children of these homes would be assigned to Eastside School, which is now at capacity. He asked if there are plans to build another elementary school. Commissioner Williams responded the commissioners have no idea what the schools plans are relating to building new schools. Concerns with water will take place under the permit process and all concerns will be addressed. Commissioner Bailey said he spoke with the developer and the water and dike issue will be addressed. The public hearing closed. MOTION by Commissioner Bailey to approve. Second by Commissioner Williams. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Bailey to approve Z 0466 with the stipulation that curb and gutter, and a package plant is required. Also the developer will be required to purchase the water through the County at a wholesale rate or purchase a community well for the development. Second by Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams responded to comments made by Mr. Lilker that two years ago the Florida Legislature was going to place impact fees on an even keel throughout the state of Florida. The Board was advised by counsel not to attempt imposing impact fees until the legislature had an opportunity to make needed changes. The Legislature did not address impact fees in session that year and they are not going to address impact fees in this year s session. Special counsel has been hired to put together a formula for implementing impact fees. Commissioner Williams said that impact fees would be implemented before a shovel of dirt is turned for the zoning changes being discussed in the current meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Bailey to approve Z 0467 with the same stipulations as Z Second by Commissioner Williams. Z 0468 Anthony Mikulic and Carmen Mikulic District 2 Commissioner Weaver Petition to change the zoning from Agricultural-3 to Commercial, Neighborhood for property located in Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 15 East in Columbia County. More particularly described as 4.01 acres located on SR 247 in Lot 1 of Pine Wind Estates, Unit No.1. The intended use of the property is for a store/restaurant. The Planning and Zoning Department denied the request due to the fact that several neighbors spoke out in opposition and pointed out that the parcel is a part of the platted subdivision with deed restrictions that prohibit commercial business. The public hearing opened. Speaking in opposition after being sworn: Citizen Michael Opalewski said when he purchased, the selling features of the subdivion was not only price and location, but he like the deed restrictions that prohibited businesses from

8 locating in the subdivision. Mr. Opalewski advised owners of lots one through six do not live on those lots, because they were purchase for business development. Citizen Carl Lutz expressed his reasons for opposing was the same as Mr. Opalewski s. He added there is no need for this business as there are 5 convenient stores in the immediate area. He expressed opening the door for this business would open many other doors for similar businesses. He was also concerned that if the proposed business fails what new business would open in its place. Citizen Sam Duncan spoke in opposition adding he recently built a home in this subdivision for the same reasons as Mr. Opalewski. He asked that the Board not approve a store or restaurant being placed at the entrance of their beautiful subdivision. He stated the location historically has and will continue to have traffic safety issues. Citizen Regina Daniels said as a single mom, she struggled to put herself through nursing school and searched hard and long to find property that would be perfect for her to raise her children and to build her home. She said she purchased in the neighborhood to get away from the traffic and the constant soliciting. She explained her children catch the bus at the end of the already dangerous road and that a restaurant would only increase the traffic at the end of the road. Ms. Daniels said that she is not in a position to where she could sell out and buy another nice home due to escalated housing costs. Finally she expressed concern with restaurant waste. She came back later in the meeting and agreed the area was a bit far out, but that most had purchased in the area so they would not be bothered by commercial growth. Speaking in Favor after being sworn: Citizen/Applicant Carmen Mikulic thanked the Planning and Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners for the courtesy and time. Attorney Joel Foreman [for Ms. Mikulic] acknowledged the subdivision is subject to deed restrictions. Ms. Mikulic has collected almost 50 signatures of support; twenty-three of those signatures are from within the subdivision. The remaining signatures are from the surrounding area. Mr. Foreman said this would give them the needed votes necessary, together with the signature of the developer to have these deed restrictions lifted on this parcel of property. There are two commercial enterprises presently operating in the subdivision. Attorney Foreman said one is a nursery and the other is a machine/mechanic shop. He said to the extent the deed restrictions were an issue with Planning and Zoning that he does not think the scope of the issue was properly addressed by Ms. Mikulic. He said the deed restrictions are a barrier, but are not something that cannot be overcome. He also believes Ms. Mikulic is on the cusp of qualifying for a special exception for Agricultural 3 zoning. He compared Ms. Mikulic s proposed operation to that of Milton s Grocery Store in the Deep Creek area, except that the food would be strictly carry out. The change will not adversely affect property values in Attorney Foreman s opinion. Commissioner Weaver pointed out the nursery mentioned falls within Ag 3 Zoning, and it would be up to the lot owners of the subdivision to enforce their deed restrictions. As roads got more congested the roads began to breakdown. The County has just become aware of the mechanic operation and is investigating the matter through Code Enforcement. Attorney Foreman clarified for Commissioner Williams that that the signatures of 2/3 of the property owners within the subdivision, together with a signature from the developer is all that would be needed to lift the deed restrictions.

9 The deed restrictions automatically renew on January 01, 2008, unless the majority of the property owners vote to change the restrictions. Speaking in Favor: Citizen Louis Mulz, who is the brother of Ms. Mikulic spoke in favor. He does not believe there are any traffic safety issues with locating the business in the proposed area. Further, since there are other nearby businesses and it would not be out of character for the neighborhood. Citizen Susan Sloan, who is also a realtor, lives in the general area and would enjoy the convenience of the Country Store. Speaking in practical terms, she said it would be very difficult to sell the property, which faces a major highway, to someone for building a home. She stated she was also speaking in favor for a neighbor who actually lives in Pine Wind Subdivision part-time [no name provided]. Citizen Michael Wolf said he owns the lot next door (lot 2) and finds the idea of a country store/restaurant a fantastic idea. He said there is a need and it should be expected that all land facing major highways will eventually become commercial at some point. Citizen Sandra Wolf who owns lot 2 as investment property, and lives approximately 2 blocks from the proposed site. She said all of lot owners 1-6 did not purchase with the idea of establishing businesses. She said the country store/restaurant has a nicer appearance than many of the area s houses and would provide a needed family atmosphere. Citizen Jody Hope, a mother of six who lives 12 miles from the city limits would find it very convenient to have a country restaurant/store in the area, especially since the store plans to offer lower prices on staples than the convenient stores. She shared a promotional picture with the commissioners. Impartial Input: Citizen Barbara Lemley was not opposed to the store, but pointed out it would not be fair to those residents who bought in the subdivision with deed restrictions to let the store go in. Citizen Penny Sauls a resident in the area said when she first bought in the area one had to build in that area on 5 acre lots and now residents are building on one acre lots. She stressed with growth comes change and growing pains. Applicant Carmen Mikulic addressed some of the concerns. She said she would never have purchased the property had she known there were deed restrictions. According to FDOT the business will not impede the flow of traffic. The store s structure will be conducive to the rural look in the area. The public hearing closed. Attorney Feagle explained that it is typical in deed restrictions that a 2/3 vote may change deed restrictions. Deed restrictions generally have an expiration date after years unless renewed by those who have purchased lots in the area, or at least have a provision for amendment. Paragraph 11 of the residential deed restrictions discussed tonight is typical wording found in contracts. Even though the applicant was not aware of the deed restrictions,

10 she is still bound by them like everyone else. The restrictions may be amended, waived or done away with by 2/3 vote of the owners, plus the developer has certain rights. He explained that if a lot owner has 3 lots, the lot owner generally will have three votes. Typically, even though the county does not enforce deed restrictions, it also does not change zoning when they are contrary to deed restrictions. The ability to change those deed restrictions will occur in January MOTION by Commissioner Weaver to recommend denial until all lot owners have met regarding possibly changing deed restrictions. He said stressed the property owners should be well informed as to what they are voting for when eliminating the deed restrictions. Second by Commissioner Skinner. Attorney Feagle noted the motion to deny would mean the applicants will need to start over with the Planning and Zoning Board, who will then make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney Foreman said that he could notify land owners and have a meeting regarding the deed restrictions within 60 days. The motion and second was withdrawn. There is no homeowners association. Therefore, each of the individual lot owners will have to be notified of the meeting to address deed restrictions MOTION by Commissioner Weaver to table for six weeks. Second by Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Weaver said he is not inclined to vote in favor of the application, because there is a history of people who ve purchased in that subdivision with the understanding that the community was restricted. Commissioner Williams said the decision to change the restrictions should be left up to the lot owners. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval (1) SD 0222 Cypress Lake Business Park District 3 The acres are located on West U.S. Hwy. 90 across from Brown Road. The commercial development will consist of 28 lots. The lots will range in size from ½ acre to 3 acres. The road will be private and not to be maintained by the County. There are curb and gutter requirements. The Building and Zoning Department recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the caveat that DOT approve the proposed entrance. MOTION by Commissioner Skinner to approve. Second by Commissioner Williams. CONSENT AGENDA (1) Invoice John C. Hipp Construction Equipment Company County Road 138 Project $578, (2) Invoice Donald F. Lee & Associates, Inc. County Road 246 $1, (3) Invoice Donald F. Lee & Associates, Inc. Engineering Services - $7, (4) Invoice Donald F. Lee & Associate, Inc. Parkerwood Subdivision - $3,387.50

11 (5) Invoice Donald F. Lee & Associates, Inc. Bascom Norris Drive - $1, (6) Invoice Adopt A Shore Quarterly Report Reimbursement Request - $3, (7) Invoice Florida Association of Counties County Pre-emption Issue - $4, (8) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore S&P 500 Index Fund Proxy Card (9) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore Mid Cap Market Index Fund Proxy Card (10) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore Nationwide Fund Proxy Card (11) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore International Index Fund (12) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore Investor Destinations Moderately Aggressive Fund Proxy Card (13) Gartmore Mutual Funds Gartmore Investor Destinations Moderate Fund Proxy Card (14) Indigent Burial Dees-Parrish Family Funeral Home Clyde Cantrell, Deceased - $ (15) Human Resource Columbia County Fire Department Pay Grades (16) Human Resource Position Description Assistant County Manager (17) Columbia County Emergency Medical Services Refund Request United Healthcare - $58.30 (18) Florida Department of Transportation Small County Road Assistance Program (FY ) Candidate Projects Priority 1: County Road 131 from US 41 to County Road Miles Priority 2: Old Ichetucknee Road from County Road 238 to County Road Miles (19) External Budget Amendment - Purchasing - BA# General Furniture for IT Department and Human Resource - $3, (20) Agreement - Ortivus Technical Support Contract Emergency Medical Services Billing Software - Renewal of Technical Support $3, (21) Bid Award to Low Bidder - EQ Florida, Inc. - Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Waste - Bid No E (22) Bid Award - Pritchett Trucking ($5.90 per ton) and Suwannee American Cement ($5.94 per ton) - Limerock - Bid No. 2oo7-H (23) Bid Award to Low Bidder - Gil Manufacturing - ULV Approved Adulticide Bid No D - $14.00 per gallon (24) Agreement for Communication Services - Fort White Branch Library Annual Agreement for Internet Services - $ (25) Quote Award - Target Project -Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. - $247, Construction of Retention Pond (26) Cost Proposal - Bailey Bishop & Lane, Inc. - Cal-Tech Testing, Inc. and Florida Fill & Grade, Inc. - Drilling of Test Borings Across Wetlands and Swamp Using Floating Mats to Access Drilling Locations Giles and Cole Properties - Bascom Norris Drive - $171, (27) Minute Approval - Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting - March 1, 2007 MOTION by Commissioner Williams to approve the Consent Agenda. Second by Commissioner Weaver. There was a public call for clarification on items #25, and 26. PUBLIC HEARING DATES Columbia County Utility Ordinance MOTION by Commissioner Williams to set a public hearing for May 03, Second by Commissioner Bailey.

12 Easement Closure - Nilesh and Rupal Patel s request to close a utility easement in the Southern Oaks Country Club area. MOTION by Commissioner Williams to set public hearing for May 17, Second by Commissioner Skinner. BURN BAN Division of Forestry Representative Keith Osteen said that according to the National Weather Service the county can expect to see below normal rain falls for the remainder of April. Normal rainfalls should be returning for the remainder of the summer months, which should begin early June. The June rains will not reverse the drought, but will help improve wildfire conditions. There have been 17 fires since January 01, 2007 the Division of Forestry has responded to. Only 8 of those were escaped debris fires. Columbia could be experiencing fires like those in the Waycross, Georgia in a week or two. Over the past week the county has received approximately an inch of rain, which has offered considerable help. Mr. Osteen said that currently the county is not experiencing extremely critical conditions, but conditions should be monitored closely. Authorizations for burn permits are now being issued on a day-to-day basis and are limited. If the County elects to implement a burn ban they were asked to give the Division of Forestry authorization to issue permits for pile burns with economical impact. If the Division of Forestry sees where a burn ban needs to be implemented they will contact the County for a special meeting to address the issue. When the County paved Crackling and Sugarcane, it did not pave the 250 feet to the East [it was not clear what the 250 feet was east of]. The Commissioner said, I have a problem with 4 wheelers, motorcycles, 4 wheel drive trucks and you name it that is destroying a property owners that owns 5 acres in there that I haven t been able to get a hold of yet that lives down in South Florida. He asked that until the little grassy section of the road can be paved, that the County have installed a section of guardrail to protect the county property. MOTION to place a guardrail on the county property. Second by Commissioner Weaver. Signage will be put out prior to the guardrail being put into place. PUBLIC COMMENT: Citizen Stewart Lilker responded to Commissioner Williams comments regarding impact fees that counsel had advised the county to wait to implement impact fees. Mr. Lilker would like to know if there is any type of document on file where they county was advised to wait. He said he would put the request for information in writing. Mr. Lilker said the law is clear on impact fees and many counties in Florida have implemented impact fees. He said he could not understand why Columbia County has chosen not to put impact fee into place. He read the following clip from the May 18, 2006 minutes: Commissioner Skinner asked staff to provide a status on the impact fee study. County Manager Williams replied that a progress meeting is scheduled for next Thursday. "We're still on schedule; therefore if the Board desires to do so, impact fees could still be implemented and in force by October 01, 2006, which was the Board's original goal and desired implementation date. The issue has to be considered in two arenas, one is compliance with SB 360, which alludes to the concurrency aspect for schools as Mr. Lilker alluded to. The other is the needs of the county itself. One is mandatory and the other is whether or not the Board wishes to do it and believes it's in the public's interest."

13 Mr. Lilker asked, why impact fees have not yet been implemented when the County Manager has told them that the fees could be put into place when it is in the public s best interest. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. P. DeWitt Cason Board of County Commission Clerk of Circuit Court