A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
July 13, 2021
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, Deputy County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and remarked that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. Scott Crabb, who was a Network Engineer in the Office of Public Safety Support, and had been with the County since July 2020. He said that Mr. Crabb served in the United States (U.S.) Army from March 1998 until March 2001. He commented that Mr. Crabb completed Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Knox, Kentucky and served as a Bradley and Recovery Mechanic with the 1st Cavalry Division, and then was assigned to the 1st Battalion - 12th Regiment, Headquarters Company at Ft. Hood, Texas. He remarked that while serving a tour in Bosnia, Mr. Crabb received the Military Expeditionary and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) medals, and had the opportunity to meet the citizens of Bosnia while serving as a driver for the NATO Civil Affairs. He then thanked Mr. Crabb for his service to this country and to the citizens of Lake County.
Pastor Michael Watkins, with
Friendship CME Church in the City of Tavares, then gave the invocation and Mr. Crabb
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
virtual meeting instructions
Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through a Zoom Webinar for members of the public who were unable to attend in person but wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to speak during the Citizen Question and Comment Period of the meeting could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 on their phones to virtually raise their hand and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would then identify the person or their phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and allow the citizen to speak for their three minute timeframe. He added that anyone wishing to provide written comments could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments presented before 5:00 p.m. the previous day were shared with the Commission prior to this meeting, and that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.
Agenda update
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Deputy County Manager, requested to pull Tab 22, which regarded an annexation agreement for the City of Eustis, to be moved to the August 10, 2021 agenda. She stated that Tabs 33 and 34 were added to the consent agenda and that Tab 35 was a presentation.
Commr. Parks requested that Tabs 24, 25 and 26 be moved to before Tab 22, then for the Board to address Tab 22, which regarded the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), and then to address Tab 28, which regarded alternatives on septic tanks and distributed waste technologies. He added that the presentation of a proclamation would follow the employee awards.
employee awards
Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that she would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County, the quarterly award winners, and a special recognition, as follows:
FIFTEEN YEARS
Mario Chatman, Hazardous Waste Technician
Public Works Department
QUARTERLY AWARDS
EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER
Christina Shelton, Facilities Contract Specialist
Office of Facilities Management
Ms. Nelson stated that Ms. Christina Shelton, Facilities Contract Specialist with the Office of Facilities Management, was the employee of the quarter. She mentioned that Ms. Shelton had taken the lead in assisting the Office of Fire Rescue with the completion of facility repairs to fire stations across the county. She commented that Ms. Shelton provided expedient service to resolve critical repairs, including several roof and well repairs, and said that the County was pleased to recognize her as employee of the quarter for her outstanding work and customer service.
SUPERVISOR OF THE QUARTER
Terry Scott, Construction Inspection Supervisor
Office of Engineering
Ms. Nelson stated that Mr. Terry Scott, Construction Inspection Supervisor with the Office of Engineering, was the recipient of the supervisor of the quarter award having been nominated by his co-workers. She commented that Mr. Scott worked extensively with his team to bid, inspect, and complete several large road and stormwater projects during the quarter, and that he was also responsible for the oversight of numerous commercial sight inspections. She mentioned that his team members were very appreciative of his leadership and positive attitude, and then congratulated Mr. Scott for his leadership and dedication.
T.E.A.M. OF THE QUARTER
LOGISTICS & COUNTY STAGING
AREA SUPPORT TEAM
Office of Public Safety Support
Brad Keough, Installation & Maintenance Technician
Scott Crabb, Technical Systems Engineer
Michael Goodwin, Installation & Maintenance Technician
Susan Hopewell, Systems Support Technician
Anthony Moore, Technical Systems Coordinator
Larry Martin, Database 9-1-1 Specialist
Catherine McNew, Database 9-1-1 Specialist
Trey Smedley, Systems Administrator
Nikki Wright, Systems Database Coordinator
Office of Emergency Management
Tommy Carpenter, Emergency Management Director
Megan Milanese, Emergency Management Deputy Director
Derek Smith, Emergency Management Associate
Ms. Nelson stated that the T.E.A.M of the Quarter was the Logistics & County Staging area Support Team, which consisted of several employees from the Office of Public Safety Support as well as the Office of Emergency Management, for their work in providing support and supplies to the vaccination sites across the county including the Groveland, Lake Sumter State College and Lake Square Mall locations. She commented that this team worked together to ensure that the locations were sufficiently stocked with supplies such as hand sanitizer, tables, chairs, food, water, and other necessities required to conduct operations each week. She mentioned that during the time period the vaccination sites were in operation, this effort required constant coordination with vendors, suppliers and other on-site staff members, and that team members worked behind the scenes to go above and beyond in providing support for Lake County residents. She introduced Mr. Jerry Smith, Director of the Office of Emergency Management, who was going to do a presentation for special recognition, in which the Lake-Sumter Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution had selected one of Lake County’s paramedics as their Paramedic of the Year.
Mr. Smith commented that the individual was not able to attend, and that this would be rescheduled for a future presentation.
tab 3: proclamation recognizing eustis lady panthers
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2021-101 recognizing the Eustis High School Lady Panthers Softball Team for winning the FHSAA Class 4A State Championship.
Commr. Campione commented that this was a very special honor because she had been a Lady Panther, and was able to give this proclamation on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to the Eustis High School Lady Panthers Softball Team. She then read and presented Proclamation 2021-101 recognizing the Eustis High School Lady Panthers Softball Team for winning the FHSAA Class 4A State Championship.
Ms. Brittany Beall, Head Coach of the Eustis High School Lady Panthers Softball Team, thanked the Board.
Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for them coming to the meeting during the summer while going to camps and getting ready for the next season. She commented that the County was proud of them and the hard work it took to win this championship, and she thanked the parents, faculty, staff, teachers, and coaches.
Commr. Parks offered his congratulations.
covid update – delta variant
Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) in Lake County, said that his organization continued to perform contact tracing, and that their teams continued to reach out to the community. He mentioned that in the previous week, they had over 400 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, including 100 cases in just one day, which may have been due to the delta variant. He opined that the United Kingdom (UK) variant had become the dominant variant, and that people most likely saw that the delta variant would become the next dominant variant, noting that the more contagious variants had more opportunities to survive. He relayed that they were continuing to monitor the variants, and that they had detected 13 delta variant cases in Lake County, adding that the vaccines looked to be effective toward this variant. He relayed that 57 percent of Lake County’s population was vaccinated, and that the FDOH was still working with individuals and conducting several events per week to make it more convenient; additionally, he said that they were encouraging people who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine to discuss it with their doctors. He added that they were trying to make receiving the vaccine as convenient as possible, and that they would offer it in the fall. He hoped that they would not see any continued increase, but noted that there was still 43 percent of the population unvaccinated, opining that many of them could have had COVID-19 recently. He opined that Lake County was getting to the point where new cases were starting to slow down, but that there were still some new variants that were more contagious. He concluded that they were still available for vaccinations and testing at their three sites in the Cities of Leesburg, Umatilla and Clermont, and that they would come out to any event to make it as convenient as possible.
Commr. Blake asked how long the immunity was lasting from a natural infection and if those who had already had the infection were resistant to the delta variant.
Mr. Kissler commented that there was some lasting immunity, and that very few individuals were becoming infected a second time. He stated that it was recommended for those who previously had COVID-19 to get vaccinated because the vaccine gave a more measured immune response, adding that natural immunity was dependent on the amount of the infection and other factors. He opined that if someone had the infection, they probably would not get it again, but that they should get vaccinated to be sure.
Commr. Shields inquired about emergency use for vaccines.
Mr. Kissler said that the emergency use was for individuals 12 and older, and he hoped that it would be for 12 and under in the fall. He stated that the application was done to take it from emergency use to federal use, but that it had not gone through the process, which could be a couple of months. He added that he wanted to thank the Board for recognizing the Eustis High School Lady Panthers Softball Team.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of December 21, 2020 (Special Meeting), January 26, 2021 (Special Meeting), and March 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting).
commisisoners board and committee updates
Commr. Parks explained that this was a new tradition that was started, and that at the first meeting of every month each Commissioner would provide an update about the various committees and advisory boards they served on. He added that there was a lot more going on in County government than what was addressed in a regular BCC meeting, adding that this was an opportunity to give a brief report on some of the committees to inform and inspire others to become involved if there was an interest to serve in County government.
Commr. Shields reported on the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meetings which would be held monthly. He stated that one of the issues was how to communicate to the public what the committee was doing to help with elder affairs.
Commr. Parks replied that the answer was to work with the Office of Communications, adding that if there was a particular message that the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council would like to present, or if they wanted participation with something that was going on, the Office of Communications could put something together.
Commr. Shields commented that an ongoing mechanism was needed to reach people who needed the services of elder affairs.
Commr. Parks mentioned that something regular would be productive and helpful, such as a monthly message put out by the Office of Communications.
Commr. Shields proposed having a page on the website for that purpose.
Commr. Campione reported that the Early Learning Coalition of Lake County updated their personnel policies and discussed business budget issues. She remarked that she was not able to attend the Wekiva River Basin Commission meeting, but that the County sent an email to the chairman questioning unauthorized borrow pits in the Wekiva River Basin and east Lake County. She commented that they gave an update on the White Water Farms, Inc. case where the County had an active injunction case against the property owner and operator. She remarked that a motion to dismiss had been filed, but that no hearing date had been set, adding that there did not appear to be any hauling from the property, which would result in litigation. She stated that in regards to the Walkabout Ranch Road property on County Road (CR) 437, the property owner notified Lake County that all hauling had finished, and that they were in the process of grading the property in accordance with the approved mass grading plans filed with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), adding that there was still a pending injunction case against the property owner even though no action had occurred. She said that in regards to the Lake County Fish Farms, LLC property on State Road (SR) 44, the County had entered into a settlement agreement with the property owner the previous year allowing them to haul up to 750,000 cubic yards in exchange for reclamation activities that were supposed to take place concurrently, adding that they were currently in compliance with the settlement agreement. She stated that she attended a meeting of the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) as a liaison for the Lake Joanna Water Quality Project, and that with the help of Mr. Nick McRay, a staff member of the Lake County Public Works Department, she made a presentation about the baffle box situation. She commented that updates were given on an easement received from the Russell family, a grant from the SJRWMD, and also on the discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) about utilizing the property that was adjacent to CR 44B, which was the same as SR 44. She said that she hoped to work something out with the FDOT that would allow the County to use a portion of their property to put a baffle box there for water and to put a second one closer to the lake. She stated that the LCWA agreed to fund the second baffle box with a $250,000 allocation, adding that it was significant. She expressed appreciation to the LCWA and noted that staff was working out the details for that FDOT property, opining that those could be in place by February or March 2022.
Commr. Blake reported that in a meeting with the Children’s Services Council, there was a presentation from LifeStream Behavioral Center that showed some of the strategies utilized when dealing with young children, such as play therapies. He stated that they annually made recommendations for grants through the Children’s Services Council, which was the main function of that entity; furthermore, he commented that throughout the year, all members of the board were required to go out and visit the various entities that funding was given to, and then return and report on those sites. He then stated that in a recent Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting, they approved the 2021 list of priority projects, which included the list FDOT used to allocate funding for some of the transportation priorities in Lake County and Sumter County, noting that it was a two-county entity.
Commr. Smith reported that in the Florida Association of Counties’ (FAC) annual conference held two weeks prior, they received a new president.
Commr. Parks commented that Commissioner Smith had been appointed to the Board of Directors of the FAC. He then reported that he had attended the annual meeting of the Lake County Historical Society two weeks ago, which was involved with preserving the history, and he encouraged the Board to be involved and to reach out as much as possible to get more people involved in the historical society and the museum. He stated that, as Lake County was one of the fastest growing counties in the state, the benefit of the historical society was to hold onto and preserve the uniqueness, adding that if they did not do that, Lake County could become lost in the growth of people who came from other places and were unaware of the unique history in Lake County. He stated that he had a video of Ms. Nilda Comas, a famous sculptress, who had just finished the Ms. Mary McLeod Bethune statue that would be presented in the National Statuary Hall in Washington, D.C. representing the State of Florida. He noted that each state was represented by two statues, and that Mr. John B. Gorrie, who invented air conditioning, was the other honoree representing the State of Florida. He stated that Lake County had sent Ms. Nilda Comas and a contingency, which included Mr. Carey Baker and Mr. Ray Powers and other members from the historical society, to Italy where they visited the cave where the marble came from to sculpt the statue. He said that the cave dated back to the Renaissance period and was believed to be the same marble Michelangelo’s statue of David was carved from. He related that the historical society had discussed bringing a unique, smaller version of that statue to Lake County. He then played the video of Ms. Nilda Comas in Italy. He said that he would try to get more pictures of the statue of Ms. Mary McLeod Bethune, noting that it was very beautiful. He thanked Ms. Betsy Farnsworth for providing the video, and he thanked the members of the historical society who were there.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Cristi Susewitt, a resident of Lake County, mentioned a County budget goal to facilitate and coordinate the delivery of services to those in need. She remarked that in the 1960s, the County had tracked an indigent care list, and that the BCC had approved monthly stipends to move individuals toward self-sufficiency. She added that this stopped being done in 1989, and that We Care of Lake County was formed in 1994. She said that in 2016, the majority of North Lake residents voted to fund indigent healthcare through their property taxes until 2026. She explained that the tax supported the primary, dental and mental health care for those experiencing poverty, and she expressed appreciation for this. She mentioned that the North Lake County Hospital District (NLCHD) was audited and conducted performance reviews, noting that almost 13,000 patients were served and their highest per-patient cost was given to the mental health facility. She commented that the NLCHD currently functioned within the limits of the intended legislation, noting that 53 percent of patients, representing over 6,700 visits, were served outside of a hospital. She asked the BCC to consider holding a referendum vote to pass a 0.5 percent indigent care sales surtax, and to create an indigent care council to oversee the sales surtax funds and report to Commissioners.
Ms. Erica Esterson, a kindergarten teacher, stated that she thought the County was going to have a workshop regarding the Lake County Animal Shelter on the current day; however, it had been moved to the August 10, 2021 BCC meeting, and that she would not be able to attend on that day. She read a statement from Ms. Lisa Holland Martinez which relayed concerns about a response from the animal shelter regarding kittens which required medical attention. She then read a letter from Ms. Sandra Delaney with similar concerns. She stated that she trapped and released cats, and got them spayed or neutered, and she relayed that other individuals had told her that they had tried to receive help from the animal shelter but could not get it. She opined that there was inconsistent implementation of Lake County policies, and that they needed a citizen’s oversight committee to address concerns.
Commr. Parks said that he appreciated her remarks, and he opined that the workshop was moved to the August 10, 2021 BCC meeting because of a very heavy BCC meeting agenda for the current meeting.
Ms. Barker agreed with Commissioner Parks, and commented that the presentation would be extended out until August 2021.
Ms. Cheryl Brown, a volunteer for Hoffmeyer Animal Rescue, read a letter from Ms. Vonda Kay, also with Hoffmeyer Animal Rescue, indicating a desire to work in partnership with the County and other rescues to save as many animals as possible. She then opined that there was a significant issue with overpopulation, illness, and injuries of cats in the county, and she expressed concerns that there seemed to be no real help other than private sources. She said that she was concerned about the cost to surrender kittens, and she opined that the shelter should be measured by how many animals they saved, rather than live release. She commented that there needed to be a meeting or workshop that involved all of the population.
Ms. Marsh stated that the presentation was going to be on August 10, 2021, and that the public was welcome to attend. She commented that the shelter had numerous kittens, and that they took in 60 animals the day before, noting that the majority of them were kittens. She indicated that the animal shelter had taken in 40 animals on the previous Monday, adding that as of the previous Friday, the animal shelter had 25 kittens in the adoption room and 15 in the back that had just been spayed or neutered and were being moved into the adoption room. She said that part of the issue was that there was an insufficient number of fosters, and that these kittens were in every room of the shelter, adding that they were in the training room, the director’s offices, and the spare offices. She opined that the kittens were coming in nonstop partly because spay and neuter surgeries were on hold last year, and that there was a tremendous amount of stray community cats who were not fixed last year, not just in Lake County, but also across the country because everybody was frozen in that respect. She pointed out that, even though there were specific stories, there was a large number of kittens that were not being treated because there was only so much that the shelter and the shelter staff could do on a daily basis; furthermore, she noted that the shelter staff was working overtime and coming in on the weekends and that there were only so many people available to take care of the kittens. She reiterated that the presentation would be given on August 10, 2021 and that the public was welcome to attend.
Commr. Parks remarked that if there was a way for Ms. Esterson to participate virtually, she could provide some input on that day, adding that an email or a video clip could also be sent and that the Board wanted her to be able to participate. He said that he would make sure to get the word out about the workshop to everyone who wanted to participate and to everybody who was involved, including the stake holders and all those organizations who were helping. He commented that he appreciated them, and he remarked that what they were doing was challenging.
Ms. Brown opined that her organization had 300-400 kittens in foster with about 10 people fostering. She said that she had been fostering 21 kittens fostering in her home continually since February 2021, and pointed out that she paid for all of their food, litter, and medical care.
Commr. Campione commented that she appreciated all they did and all the volunteer time that was involved, adding that it was a challenging task on many levels, and that she knew it was heartbreaking, especially when they were putting their hearts into what they were doing. She stated that when there were comments before about the situation with cats and kittens, she had looked into some of the policies, and knowing that it was important to see things in context, she relayed that since January 2021, the Lake County Animal Shelter had taken in 1,700 cats.
Ms. Brown remarked that the Hoffmeyer Animal Rescue had taken in over 2,000 cats.
Commr. Campione commented that it was important that they did their part and that there was only so much that could be done. She opined that the goal of the workshop was to bring everybody together and communicate so that by knowing the whole story, everyone could be more empathetic to the situation. She commented that the Lake County Animal Shelter partnered with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) in the field as a separate entity, and that when the animal shelter received a call, it was dispatched to the LCSO to make decisions in the field. She noted that if there were issues with how decisions were being made or the criteria that was being used, those were the kinds of things that needed to be addressed to make sure consistsant criteria was used. She stated that she appreciated the comments that were read earlier about being on the same team and working towards the same mission. She commented that it was fine to raise concerns and bring them to light, but that it was important to have the same information.
Ms. Brown stated that a particularly sick cat was not reported to Lake County Animal Control. She said that she had them check their records to verify that the call was not sent from the Lake County Animal Shelter to Lake County Animal Control, and she expressed concern for the person who had called being disconnected after being told to get her own trap.
Ms. Esterson commented that she was the one who helped with the sick cat on her own time with her own trap, and that it was very emotional.
Commr. Parks reiterated that the County would have a productive, constructive workshop on August 10, 2021, and that the County would make sure it was structured correctly, that it was advertised, and that Ms. Esterson could have an opportunity to participate.
Ms. Brown opined that there was not a consistent policy, and that she had written an email asking for standard operating procedures and intake policies two months ago without any results.
Commr. Parks stated that he appreciated what she was doing and thanked her for helping the cats.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, questioned why local government did not track spending per resource and compare it to peer agencies like businesses did. He opined that Lake County should be a member in the Florida Benchmarking Consortium, and he expressed concerns for there not being discussion of certain items on the consent agenda. He opined that the County had not been using internal audit appropriately for two or three years, and that the County needed to shift to a cost focus.
Commr. Parks opined that the Board was well informed on decisions made on millage rate and budget items, and that some items on the consent agenda were sometimes pulled. He stated that the Board did not question staff members publicly, but that they were, at times, questioned behind the scenes. He said that, at the last meeting, they voted to save about $300,000 a year by outsourcing parts and inventory, and that the County was always trying to be more efficient. He commented that the County had metrics that presented benchmarking, and that many of the budget presentations did present benchmarks.
Mr. David Serdar, a resident of the City of Fruitland Park, made comments related to local government issues.
Mr. Mike Stephens, with the Lake 100’s trails committee and Friends of Lake County Trails, thanked the BCC for their funding in the previous year for the Tav-Dora Trail and North Lake Trail project development and environment (PD&E) studies, and for the BCC’s legislative priorities which resulted in $2 million for the design funds for the Wekiva Trail, along with $2 million to complete the Green Mountain Connector. He pointed out that there was currently no local designated funding for trails, and he requested that a more significant, ongoing funding source be designated for trails because of the investment that the BCC was making and because of the economic impact of the estimated seven to one return on investment for trails in addition to the quality of life that it brings. He stated that there was currently over $35 million in trail projects, and he estimated that the current needed amount for all four regional trails was around $75 million. He encouraged the Board to investigate other Central Florida communities regarding funding sources for trails, and he asked the BCC to at least fund trails in the following year at the same level as the previous year for about $1 million. He opined that this would address the feasibility study for the North Lake Trail, the River to Hills Trail, the feasibility study for South Lake to the City of Tavares, a feasibility study for the Central Lake Trail, and to partner with the City of Leesburg on their feasibility study for the Lake Denham Trail. He remarked that this would be about the same amount as the County spent in the current year on PD&E studies, noting that this would get these trails eligible for State funding. He added that his organization would like to accelerate the County’s five year work program over the following two years, but noted that this would take significantly more funding. He also asked that when the Board discussed the ARPA funding, to set aside funding to cover any shortfall in the Green Mountain Connector in addition to building the River to Hills Trail. He expressed appreciation for what the Board had done.
Commr. Parks opined that some pieces could fall into place within the next couple of months through discussions with ARPA, the budget, and road funding. He opined that the use of trails had increased significantly at the local and state level, and that it was an important part of recovery, adding that people got outside and stayed outside after realizing that the County had these trails. He opined that trails and those kinds of facilities were an acceptable use of ARPA funding, and that the Board would be discussing it on the current day.
Mr. Stephens commented that the Lake 100 wanted a permanent source of funding because he opined that Lake County was behind other communities. He said that it was a significant investment, but relayed his understanding that it had a seven to one return on investment in addition to bringing people and businesses to the County. He opined that when people wanted to build a home in a community, access to trails was one of the first things they looked at; furthermore, it would help bring additional businesses to the community. He opined that it would have a significant economic impact as well as a quality of life impact, and that he would like to continue discussions.
Commr. Parks commented that the question was if the County could get consistent funding for trails.
Mr. Stephens said that the Lake 100 had to find a way to move forward, adding that he did not like asking for funding every few months; however, he reiterated that he would like to get the Lake 100 involved in the budget with a long-range plan and start building trails.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 5, as follows:
List of Warrants
Notice is hereby provided 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.
Arlington Ridge Community Development District FY 2022 Approved Budget
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Arlington Ridge Community Development District approved budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.
Central Lake Community Development District FY 2022 Proposed Budget
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Central Lake Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.
Olympus Community Development District FY 2022 Proposed Budget
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Olympus Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.
Town of Lady Lake Items
Notice is hereby provided of having received the following from the Town of Lady Lake: Ordinance 2020-10; Ordinance 2020-13; Ordinance 2021-01; Ordinance 2021-02; Resolution 2020-112; Resolution 2020-113; Resolution 2021-101; Resolution 2021-102; and Resolution 2021-103.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 21, including Tabs 33 and 34, as follows:
Management and budget
Recommend approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-102 to accept funds from the U.S. Department of Treasury for the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA2) Program. The fiscal impact is $3,508,538 (revenue/expenditure).
Recommend approval of the purchase of the Nationwide Communications Access Control Project for the Lake County Courthouse. The fiscal impact is $33,831 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Recommend approval of a liability claim settlement with Dale Fletcher Williams, and authorize the Human Resources & Risk Management Director to execute any necessary documents associated with the settlement. The fiscal impact is $40,000 (expenditure). The estimated reimbursement from the County's excess insurance carrier is $30,129 (revenue).
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Emergency Medical Services
1. Recommend approval of Contract 21-0723, based on Florida Sheriff Association (FSA) Contract FSA20-VEF14.0, with Emergency Tactical Rescue Vehicles (ETR, LLC, Sanford, FL) for ambulance refurbishment services; and
2. Authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The first annual fiscal impact is $108,208 (expenditure) and each remaining fiscal year's impact will be in alignment with future growth and will not exceed each respective fiscal year's budget.
Fire Rescue
Recommend approval of Contract 21-0721 with Ten-8 Fire & Safety, LLC (Bradenton, FL) for the purchase of Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for the Office of Fire Rescue and approval of the associated budget transfer.
The first year fiscal impact of $1,784,629.21 (expenditure) is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 budget. Each remaining fiscal year's impact will be in alignment with future growth and will not exceed each respective fiscal year's budget.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 21-0530 for the renovation of Fire Station No.15 to PCDG Construction, LLC (New Smyrna Beach, FL);
2. Of an up to 10% contingency for unforeseen material costs that may arise;
3. Of the associated Fiscal Year 2021 budget transfers reallocating funds from other capital projects to this project; and
4. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact of $1,192,576 (expenditure: $1,084,160 contract and contingency of $108,416). Commission District 5.
Public Safety Support
Recommend approval:
1. For utilization of the existing Standardization Agreement;
2. Of the Motorola contract to add the Motorola Site Equipment to the Lake County system at the Apopka tower site;
3. Of a budget amendment to transfer funds to the established project number; and
4. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact for the Motorola contract is $206,900 (expenditure) and is included in the overall project fiscal impact. The overall project fiscal impact will be $258,427, which also includes all incidental costs such electric, propane, HVAC, and generator to be performed by others. The overall project fiscal impact is within, and will not exceed, the 2021 Fiscal Year Budget.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Housing and Human Services
Recommend approval of Form HUD-50071 for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. There is no fiscal impact.
Recommend approval of Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Proposed Projects and Annual Action Plan. The fiscal impact for Fiscal Year 2022 is $1,513,925 for CDBG Projects and $568,429 for the HOME program (revenue/expense – 100 percent grant funded).
Recommend approval:
1. Of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-107 adding $588,432 to the Section 8 Fund.
2. Of a Memorandum of Understanding with Mid Florida Homeless Coalition to assist in administering the voucher program.
The fiscal impact is $588,432 (revenue/expense 100% grant funded).
Library Services
Recommend approval to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for Data Sharing for Virtual Library Card Services with the Lake County School System. There is no fiscal impact.
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 21-0919 for Lake May Reserve Site No. 1 improvements to Bayshore Construction, Inc. (Myakka City, FL);
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact of $174,566 (expenditure - 100 percent grant funded) is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 21-0918 for Butler Street Boat Ramp Improvements to Live Flyer, Inc. (Carrabelle, FL);
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $181,368 (expenditure - 100 percent Boating Improvement Funds) is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 5.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 21-0439 for playground swings at East Lake Sports and Community Complex to Lanier Plans, Inc. dba Korkat (Carrollton, GA).
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $32,166.38 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 4.
Public Works
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-103 to reduce the speed limit from 35 MPH to 25 MPH on South Haines Creek Road from Learn Road to Northern Avenue, from 35 MPH to 25 MPH on Ocklawaha Drive from South Haines Creek Road to Pierce Avenue, and from 30 MPH to 25 MPH on Virginia Drive from Lincoln Road to the end of the road, in the Bassville Park area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $600 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 3.
Recommend approval of the First Amendment to the agreement between Atlantic Civil Constructors Corporation and the Board of County Commissioners for the construction of Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive Special Assessment; Project No. 2020-06. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.
Recommend approval of the First Amendment to the agreement between Commercial Industrial Corp. and the Board of County Commissioners for the construction of CR 466A Phase 3B Pond #4; Project No. 2021-01. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.
Recommend approval of the First Amendment to the agreement between D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. (DAB) and the Board of County Commissioners for the construction of Lakeshore Drive and Lake Louisa Road Safety Improvements; Project No. 2020-05. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Recommend approval of the revised Exhibit A to Traffic Signal Maintenance and Compensation Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the revised exhibit.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $812,541.61 (revenue).
Recommend approval to accept the final plat for Ridgeview Phase 2 and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Ridgeview Phase 2 final plat, located near Clermont. The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 2.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:29 a.m. for 10 minutes.
Solid Waste Assessment Roll Presentation
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, mentioned that she was combining the presentations for Tab 24 and Tab 25 for the purpose of approving the solid waste and fire assessment rates and establishing public hearing dates. She then displayed an outline of what she would be going over, starting with the solid waste assessment, which was used to fund the collection, management, and disposal of residential waste and recovered materials in the unincorporated Lake County. She commented that the assessment rates must be set annually and were included on the Truth in Millage (TRIM) notice, adding that vacant lots were not assessed and the assessment could not be used to fund countywide services such as landfill operations, convenience centers, and hazardous waste disposal. She then displayed a table of the 2022 Solid Waste Assessment Rates, stating that the rates were based on the service area and the service level, noting that the first highlighted column indicated those who received pick-up once per week, and the second highlighted column indicated those who received pick-up twice per week; furthermore, she mentioned that all of the proposed rates were status quo and that there were no increases. She stated that the requested action was approval of the solid waste initial assessment resolution and to establish a public hearing date of September 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter.
Commr. Campione commented that Lake County had three different haulers in each of the different regions and that she had experienced issues in her area. She applauded Ms. Mary Hamilton, Interim Assistant County Manager, on the amazing job she did of making sure that complaints were documented, that the hauler was contacted, and that the situation was rectified. She opined that solid waste ran into the same issues that the rest of the economy and employers were facing regarding insufficient personnel, and that if residents were able to understand that the haulers had manpower deficiencies, it could help resolve some situations. She thanked Ms. Hamilton for going the extra mile to address some of these things.
Commr. Smith noted that there were many enclaves in unincorporated Lake County within the cities where there were Lake County trash cans on half the street and city trash cans before and after. He inquired if the County could partner with the Cities and their waste departments so that Lake County was not going into the City to pick up trash when City trucks already went by. He wondered if it would be more efficient to pay the rate of each citizen for the Cities to pick up their garbage.
Commr. Campione opined that the idea had some merit but would be difficult, logistically, to draw the boundaries. She proposed that if a resident was in the middle of an urban area, the situation could be addressed incrementally.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could look at the situation. She opined that it was always a benefit to work with the Cities and partner on efficiencies, adding that she could work with Ms. Hamilton to research the actual process.
Commr. Smith commented that Ms. Hamilton was doing a great job handling complaints and thanked her for her efforts.
Commr. Parks said that he supported working with the Cities as well but opined that in some cases it could be cheaper to stay with the County’s rate. He thanked Ms. Hamilton for what she was doing, and added that Lake County had the lowest rates of most of the surrounding counties, adding that Marion County was lower, but that they did not have collection.
Commr. Campione remarked that the County service centers did a great job.
Commr. Shields asked if Lake County would be affected by the minimum wage increase, and Ms. Hamilton relayed that the County would not be affected.
Ms. Barker commented that countywide, the Office of Procurement Services needed to look at how some of the minimum wage impacts would affect contracts for some daily services to see what it meant for the budget.
Commr. Campione wondered if there were provisions for multi-year contracts that would allow adjustments.
Ms. Barker said that they had some provisions for Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rates. She stated that there could also be provisions for some of the other contracts, and said that it could be confirmed with the Office of Procurement Services.
Commr. Parks opined that solid waste could be paying more than $15 an hour already.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Solid Waste initial assessment Resolution 2021-105 and established a public hearing date of September 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter.
Fire Assessment Roll presentation
Ms. Teslia stated that the fire assessment fee could be used to fund fire protection services, such as fire suppression, fire prevention, fire building inspections, and basic life support services (BLS) but not advanced life support (ALS) services, and that they were calculated based on call data, distribution of incidents, the allocation of resources and budget, and proportionate share of each land use. She displayed the calculated rates that Tindale Oliver had presented to the Board on May 25, 2021, and added that they conducted an annual technical study using the most recent budget information, call data, and distribution of resources by land use. She noted that there had been a shift from BLS calls to ALS calls, and that, per state law, the fire assessment fee could only cover BLS services which was why the residential fire assessment fee was being reduced in fiscal year (FY) 2022. She commented that, in order to maintain the same level of services, the County was proposing an increase in the Fire Rescue Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) rate, which she would be discussing in the next presentation. She concluded that the requested action was to approve the fire rescue initial assessment resolution and to establish a public hearing date of September 14, 2021 at 9:00 am or as soon thereafter.
Commr. Campione commented that the studies calculated the rate based on the calls and where the calls went to for BLS, and that it would shift a little every year, adding that emergency medical services could not be funded with an assessment.
Commr. Smith asked if the County could change this at any time during the process, and inquired if it could be changed during the workshop if the County saw something that could be reduced or moved.
Commr. Campione stated that it could be changed for purposes of the millage until the County reached the final hearing, noting that the County could bring the millage down but not raise it up, which also applied to fees. She commented that this was just the rate that would be on the TRIM notice.
Commr. Smith said that he was uneasy about the vacant land portion.
Commr. Parks commented that he could continue to do research between the current BCC meeting and September 2021, and pointed out that, until a few years ago, vacant land was not charged anything.
Ms. Barker confirmed that Commissioner Parks was correct, and opined that the County started charging for vacant land three years prior, noting that they received a 50 percent discount and did not pay the full rate.
Commr. Campione commented that, in many instances, fire response involved trying to prevent the spread of fire, and added that if the land was overgrown, it could create a condition that affected the adjoining property owners.
Commr. Smith noted that it helped reduce the cost for residential, commercial, and warehouse spaces, which was good.
Commr. Blake remarked that he understood how Commissioner Campione framed it, but that he would vote against it because he promised during his campaign not to vote for any increases, noting that there were a couple of increases in certain categories.
Commr. Parks commented that in response to Commissioner Smith’s question, the rates could come down, and that there was some time to further investigate and evaluate.
Commr. Smith said that he would like to see the institutional rate come down, but acknowledged that it was done by a calculated rates study.
Commr. Campione stated that the institutional rate was similar to the vacant rate.
Ms. Barker explained that, with the institutional rate, the County provided a discount as well, adding that the County paid about 64 percent and the owner paid the remaining 36 percent. She said that the General Fund sent that funding over to the fire rescue fund, providing the subsidy for the institutional rate, adding that she could go through the actual study with him more in-depth or look at the Office of Fire Rescue budget.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the Fire Rescue initial assessment Resolution 2021-106 and established a public hearing date of September 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter.
Commissioner Blake voted no.
Fiscal Year 2022 maximum millage rates presentation
Ms. Teslia stated that the purpose of this item was to establish the maximum millage rates to be included on the TRIM notices, and approve the public hearing dates. She noted that the outline included the certified property values, the recommended budget summary, the proposed millage rates, public hearing dates, and the requested actions. She commented that the certified property values increased 7.9 percent from the previous year, adding that in an overview of the change in residential properties from last year, the median values of residential properties increased as well as the number of homesteaded properties. She pointed out that homestead property values could not increase more than three percent per year, per state law, and that in the current year, the maximum amount was 1.4 percent. She summarized that both budget recommendation options fully funded County operations, the new position requests, judicial support, Constitutional Offices, the Medical Examiner budgets, and the $12 minimum wage increase with compression, adding that both options projected to increase reserves, but did not include purchase order (PO) carryforward projections. She remarked that the real difference between Options A and B was the merging of the Stormwater, Parks, and Roads MSTU with the General Fund millage. She then displayed a chart of the position requests and their budgetary impacts, noting that a part-time day custodian was added for the Office of Animal Services as they had an immediate need, and the funding was currently available due to vacancy savings; furthermore, she added that since the animal shelter just opened, the County was going to evaluate any additional needs that they would have going forward. She stated that Option A would use a status quo General Fund millage, and that the major increase from the FY 2021 adopted budget was due to the $35 million in ARPA funding that the County expected to receive in the following year. She then displayed a breakdown of the proposed millage changes under Option A, stating that the only change under this option was the increase in the Fire Rescue MSTU as it related to the reduction in the fire assessment rate. She displayed the summary of the General Fund budget under Option A, explaining that the ad valorem increase was due to the taxable value increases. She noted that other revenues in grants and aid for FY 2022 included $35 million in ARPA funds with specific use and allocations which would be discussed later, and that the fund balance decreased due to spending Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds from the previous year. She mentioned that it showed an increase related to the $12 an hour minimum wage increase, and stated that reserves would increase to $23 million, which was about 12 percent of all expenditures, adding that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommendation was 16.7 percent. She summarized that, on a breakdown of how each tax dollar would be allocated under Option A, County departments and offices were at about 23 percent, Constitutional Offices were at 52 percent, and others were at about 25 percent. She commented that under Option A, an unincorporated homesteaded property with an assessed value of $165,000 would see a decrease in their overall bill by $7, noting that the major impact was related to the fire MSTU and the fire assessment changes. She compared that to a non-homesteaded property with the same assessed value, noting that their savings would be about $4.84. She stated that Option B increased funding for roads by merging the Stormwater, Roads, and Parks MSTU with the General Fund millage, noting that currently, the MSTU only applied to unincorporated property owners and was allocated 87 percent to parks and 13 percent to stormwater, and that nothing was allocated to roads. She explained that under Option B, taxpayers in the entire county would contribute to the services that were provided countywide, and that it would increase the tax base, noting that if 4.95 mills was used, there would be about $3 million in additional funding available that could be used towards roads. She displayed a list of road projects that had been proposed should Option B be chosen that added up to about $3 million. She commented that there would be an increase in expenditures in the General Fund budget related to parks and stormwater being shifted over that was previously recognized in MSTU funds, and that there would be an increase of $3 million in funding for roads, noting that this option also allocated the necessary amount to keep approximately 12 percent in available reserves. She stated that the breakdown of how each tax dollar would be allocated under Option B showed about 1 percent going to roads, and that parks funding would increase as well. She remarked that if this method were adopted, homeowners with an average $115,000 taxable value in unincorporated areas would see no effective changes in their tax bills, noting that the increase was related to the Fire Rescue MSTU change. She commented that since homeowners in the incorporated areas did not currently pay the fire, stormwater, or parks MSTUs, the Fire Rescue MSTU change would not affect them, but that an incorporated homesteaded property with the same value would see an increase in their overall tax bill of approximately $45. She noted that a non-homesteaded property in an incorporated area would be impacted with this change, and that since their taxable values would be higher, their overall impact would be higher. She stated that the first public hearing date would be September 14, 2021 at 5:05 p.m., and that the final public hearing would be on September 28, 2021 at 5:05 p.m. She requested that the Board establish a maximum millage to be included on TRIM notices and to approve the public hearing dates and advertisements, adding that final millage rates would be determined in September 2021 during the public hearings. She mentioned that in the interim guide provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, fiscal recovery funds from ARPA could not be used directly or indirectly to help pay for a tax cut or a reduction in revenues during the coverage period, which was through 2024. She reiterated that in Option A, the only change was the Fire Rescue MSTU, and that option B included the Fire Rescue MSTU change and merged the current Stormwater, Roads, and Parks MSTU with the General Fund millage.
Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Teslia, and stated that the Board would take public comments first, and then would have questions before making a decision.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. David Colby, President of the South Lake Chamber of Commerce and also a member of the Lake 100, said that he had served on the Lake 100 study panel, which had provided the County with some findings, opining that road funding was of paramount importance for local businesses. He commented that Lake County had a great business environment, but that businesses were very worried about what could happen to the environment if the County did not properly plan for and treat the roads, opining that there had not been the amount of vision necessary to go forward in a rapidly growing community like Lake County’s. He noted that the Lake 100 group was a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) roundtable with more than 100 local business executives, and that the South Lake Chamber of Commerce was a business organization with over 700 businesses. He stated that these organizations had taken a position not to support a rollback, even though it was somewhat counterintuitive for businesses not to want lower taxes, adding that it was very important that the County invest in the community. He proposed that the County institute road construction funding of two percent from the General Fund and also protect all current road funding that was in place. He opined that it was a difficult position the Board was in, but that it was the right thing to do for the community and for continued prosperity. He stated that there had to be a plan, and that there had to be investment in Lake County’s infrastructure.
Commr. Campione asked a question of the County staff to make sure she understood what the request was, and she inquired if one percent yielded about $3 million.
Ms. Teslia explained that was one percent of the total budget.
Commr. Campione asked if Mr. Colby meant two percent of the General Fund, and if he had a dollar amount that the group was looking for.
Mr. Colby commented that his panel had discussions with three of the Commissioners, and opined that there needed to be some discipline implemented to use those funds, adding that they had calls set up for the other two Commissioners. He opined that two percent of the General Fund would be a start in having some dedicated funds, noting that there had not been any in quite some time.
Commr. Parks commented that he had been included in the discussions, and clarified that Mr. Colby referred to two percent of the General Fund and not the overall budget. He remarked that it was consistent with the recommendation from the Capital Facilities Advisory Committee (CFAC) about 10 years ago, adding that the whole task of CFAC was to come up with funding recommendations for transportation so the County did not have to rely so heavily on impact fees. He opined that the County could have some of the General Fund allocated to support transportation, adding that the County did that 30 years ago. He also mentioned that the County had a gas tax and impact fees to help spread out the cost, but that currently, the County did not have anything that came out of the General Fund.
Commr. Shields opined that it was $6 million a year to keep up with repaving, and that the County needed $3 million a year over 10 years to catch up with the roads that were below that.
Mr. Kyle Tetzlaff, representing the Lake 100 and the 2600 members within the Realtors Association of Lake and Sumter Counties expressed support for the funding of the roads in Lake County, which was desperately needed. He commented that realtors were often the first point of contact when someone moved to the area, and that they drove clients from property to property to try to sell them on the area that they called home. He mentioned that potential residents generated a first impression based on the County’s roads, which was an important aspect of the home buying process as everyone needed roads to commute to work, travel, and visit local businesses. He noted that the Lake 100 had presented several options that would generate revenue for the funding of the roads, adding that his association, along with the National Association of Realtors, had recently launched a smart-growth poll where they asked 400 Lake County residents numerous questions related to the quality of life in Lake County, housing availability, and economic development. He remarked that when asked what the primary issues were in the area that they would like local elected officials to focus on, Lake County residents overwhelmingly deemed road repair and infrastructure as a primary concern, showing that the issue was prevalent, and that residents were more than aware of the condition of the roads. He noted that the National Association of Realtors invested over $28,000 to help with this initiative as well as the countless hours spent with the community to find answers, and that he hoped to share more of the results with the Board in the future as his association was dedicated to finding a solution with the County to repair the roads.
Mr. Steve Smith, representing Housing for All of Lake County, noted that according to information from United Way of Lake and Sumter Counties, 10 percent of the people in Lake County earned less than $30,000 a year, which represented about $15 an hour and $2,500 a month; furthermore, 46 percent of Lake County residents were struggling with their housing costs being more than the recommended 30 percent of their monthly incomes, which should be $750 a month. He opined that many people could not afford the houses being built currently, and that the market for existing houses had gone up significantly. He opined that almost half of the people in Lake County were housing-cost burdened, and that there were many people who could become homeless and many who had a need for affordable housing. He relayed an understanding that the state Florida Housing Finance Corporation would provide millions of dollars for housing developments and apartments for low income families in the community if the County contributed $460,000. He stated that there was a project for seniors in the City of Clermont that was full with a waiting list, and that he had land approved for rezoning to build another development for seniors that required a commitment of $460,000 from the County. He opined that housing should focus on being safe, sound, and affordable, not with four or five bedrooms and two to three bathrooms, but with three bedrooms and one bath. He remarked that local builders could do that, but that it would reduce their profit margin creating a need for government subsidies, adding that houses could be $150,000 or less with a subsidy. He indicated an understanding that the County had $72 million coming in over the next couple of years, and opined that the County should focus on housing. He opined that children who did not have housing had limited educational opportunities, and that people without housing had poor job performance. He opined that there were many things the food banks and The Salvation Army could not do because of lack of resources, but that Lake County could provide resources not only for homeless services, but to help provide housing that was not burdensome. He opined that with the price of medicine, gasoline, and food going up, the County needed to provide more affordable housing.
Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Smith, commenting on his passion for attainable housing and homelessness, and opined that some of the ARPA discussion could be about homeless mitigation strategy and attainable housing projects.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Parks commented that even though taxation was not
an easy subject because of challenges and issues that the County was faced
with, the Board was trying to be very thoughtful and diligent. He remarked that, though he would like to have
taxes as low as possible or have no taxes, the County wanted to be able to
provide the services that residents and businesses needed on a regular basis,
adding that it was a balancing act that continued with this agenda item.
Commr. Smith requested to see FY 2022 Position Requests slide and asked for clarification on the approval of one communications position and the request for a public information officer (PIO) position.
Ms. Barker explained that it would be addressed in the Office of Communications update presentation which showed the research done for outsourcing the PIO position that was discussed at the previous meeting; however, the County left it in the budget until the outcome of the study, adding that the County could take it out at any point during the budget process.
Commr. Parks asked what the $15 per hour minimum wage amendment, which was passed in the State of Florida and in Lake County, would cost the County.
Ms. Teslia said that in November, voters approved to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour this year and to increase it by $1 per year up to $15 an hour. She stated that the $12 minimum wage plus compression was roughly $2.3 million, opining that if the County increased it to $15 an hour, it would be about $6.7 million.
Commr. Parks reiterated that, at some point, the County would need an additional $7 million in order to reach $15 an hour.
Ms. Teslia noted that the County would not have to be at point for five more years.
Commr. Shields remarked that it needed to be well communicated.
Commr. Parks commented that it was a challenge to budget the increase, but that the Board would support it, not only because the County had to do it, but also because the County appreciated everybody working there and wanted them to do well and to stay. He noted that a possible risk for the County was losing great employees to other places as they increased their wages, some raising them higher, and some raising them quicker; furthermore, he opined that it was a struggle and that the Board wanted everybody to be aware of that. He inquired if it was a generalization to say that ARPA could not be used for a tax cut.
Ms. Barker said that the U.S. Department of Treasury guidance stipulated that the County could not indirectly or directly use ARPA funds to offset a reduction in tax revenue, adding that the County was still evaluating what that meant. She stated that if the County took the 2019 tax revenues as a whole and then looked at a four percent escalator for the next couple of years, the revenue would be based on that four percent escalator, and the County could not drop below that number. She opined that the County would be okay, but that the rate would have to drop very low to bring the revenue below that level, especially because of new construction.
Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that the $2.3 million from the constitutional amendment and compression just applied to the County and did not include impact to the Constitutional Offices.
Ms. Barker stated that this was correct.
Commr. Campione commented that the County was going to see that in future years.
Ms. Teslia related that some of the Constitutional Officers said in their letters that they were making adjustments, and that some of them were waiting to see what the County was doing.
Commr. Parks opined that the only Constitutional Officer that could not make adjustments would be the Lake County Property Appraiser, but that the others could possibly deal with the $15 an hour adjustment and compression.
Commr. Campione said that she was intrigued by the discussion about transportation funding, and that it was important to discuss the fact that the County was not using the General Fund for roads, adding that there needed to be changes in that regard. She commented that she was not comfortable with the concept of taking the unincorporated MSTU and using it countywide, explaining that it would be increasing the rate for only incorporated residents. She stated that it was important to be talking about funding the roads countywide with the residents of Lake County, the businesses, and the Cities, since, whether a person lived in the city not, everyone used the roads, and that the County was responsible for taking care of the roads and making sure they were maintained. She opined that the County needed to look at it differently by picking a percentage or a dollar amount and not increasing the millage rate, opining that the County could find revenue of $2 million to $3 million dollars.
Commr. Shields asked if the MSTU could be eliminated since it was not fair because everybody used the County roads.
Commr. Campione commented that the MSTU was used for things that were in the unincorporated areas, and that the County could be more focused on how the MSTU was used so that it stayed primarily in the unincorporated areas. She mentioned that it could be used for parks and stormwater, some of the roads that were not connector roads, roads that were not going to be traveled by the general public but were in the unincorporated areas, or improvements that were needed, adding that some clay roads needed maintenance and some of the dirt roads needed to be kept passable in unincorporated areas.
Commr. Blake commented that it was a good point and wondered if that was something the Board could draft in an official policy so that funding stayed where it was supposed to be.
Ms. Marsh stated that the Board could vote to do that, adding that it could be done by a resolution or by a code provision, which would give it more forcefulness than a resolution.
Commr. Smith remarked that as the Cities annexed property, county roads could be surrounded, noting that Dead River Road was a county road completely consumed by the City of Tavares except for a few houses on the end, and that Woodlea Road was a county road that the City of Tavares was annexing around, resulting in the City using the county roads, but not assisting with funding.
Commr. Campione opined that the County needed to take funding out of the General Fund and use it countywide, but that the County could not do it all at once without a large tax increase, which nobody wanted.
Commr. Smith said that transportation was one of the County’s biggest economic impact drivers, and that the roads needed to be fixed, adding that the roads had not been adequately dealt with in a long time. He remarked that it was expensive, and that the County was trying to save as much funding as possible; however, he stated that there had to be a point where the County dedicated that funding to the roads so that it would not get dedicated anywhere else, noting that the County would have to figure out how to gain efficiencies within the government to make it happen.
Commr. Parks wondered how much was actually going to roads, and Ms. Barker said that nothing was going to roads currently from the General Fund.
Commr. Parks opined that the issue was that the road requests were all coming from the cities, adding that in Commission District 2, there were about 370 roads that were all county roads within the city. He proposed that the County could put a policy in place that said that the MSTU would be used for the unincorporated county areas, opining that the County could do some of the clay roads that were in the Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area and other parts of the county. He asked where the funding was going to come from, and he inquired how the County would catch up on roads like Hartwood Marsh Road or County Road 466A, wondering if the County could wait for the FDOT.
Commr. Blake opined that a possible option was to take two years and completely devote every non-encumbered dollar from the Infrastructure Sales Tax to road maintenance, and advertise it as a two year project, opining that it should raise about $12 million per year after the funds that were already dedicated to debt and the things that the County had already financed, which would give the County two years and $24 million to catch-up on the roads. He opined that it would be a challenging thing to do, but that it would be the right thing to do because it would improve the quality of life with a two year pause on some of the County’s less important projects in order to improve the roads.
Commr. Smith asked for some examples of the less important projects Commissioner Blake referred to.
Commr. Blake commented that if the Board was interested in that option, some of the staff could research using the additional spending from parks. He opined that it was a viable, revenue-neutral option comparable to paying the power bill instead of the cable bill, and cancelling cable until more funds were available.
Commr. Campione commented that she did not agree that it would be revenue neutral from the standpoint of economic development, opining that many of those projects were driving the local economy in a positive way and had the potential to put the County in an even better position in the future. She remarked that the Board knew what trails, in particular, could do for a local economy, and opined that it should not be put on pause, adding that the County would not be investing in the things that would allow Lake County’s economy to grow and thrive. She opined that the County could tighten spending in every single category in order to come up with enough out of the General Fund to allocate a percentage going forward. She commented that it could be incremented over the next several years, but opined that the County should start with a percentage of the General Fund.
Commr. Blake said that he agreed that it would not be easy, and that it could be politically uncomfortable; however, he stated that he had given the most radical example. He commented that there could be middle ground where every non-road expense with Infrastructure Sales Tax could get a one year reduction of 30 percent, adding that the County could use that additional funding as part of the project.
Commr. Shields stated that there was also the option to give the voters a voice, adding that the County could put something on the ballot in 2022, such as another half penny sales tax. He noted that the County did that with Four Corners, telling them if they wanted the item fixed, the County could set up an MSTU and fix it, and that was what they did for the community center.
Commr. Parks asked if the Board did Option A, could the Board make a policy at the current time that two percent of the General Fund would go towards roads only.
Ms. Teslia inquired if Commissioner Parks referred to the General Fund millage, explaining that currently, the General Fund included $35 million in ARPA funding. She added that two percent was a lot bigger than if it was just the General Fund.
Commr. Parks said to take the ARPA funding out.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the County could be creative with some of the ARPA funding used for stormwater projects, opining that part of the Public Works Department budget could be moved over for road resurfacing. She opined that if the County could come up with $2 million with what the Board was discussing and then come up with $1 million or $2 million more from using some of the County’s stormwater funding that was moved around, the County could possibly have $4 million.
Commr. Parks opined that the Infrastructure Sales Tax budget spreadsheet included parks, trails, libraries and some other things that the County could use ARPA funding for, adding that there could be $25 million worth of ARPA applicability there. He commented that, if the County did that over the next three years, the road projects could be added in through the regular sales tax.
Commr. Campione clarified that projects that would be under sales tax could use ARPA funds, and that some sales tax funding could go towards resurfacing.
Commr. Parks remarked that there were two things about the roads that needed consideration, noting that one was resurfacing, which the County was $9 million behind on, and the other was finishing the widening of CR 466A or Hartwood Marsh Road, for which the County was waiting for FDOT funds.
Commr. Campione commented that historically, the County set aside either impact fees or a combination of impact fees and gas tax funding.
Commr. Parks said that the County did not have the impact fees for that project.
Commr. Blake noted that the County had received the share that FDOT was going to pay for CR 466A, and that the remaining $3.5 million was for the County to pay, adding that the County would not get that much in impact fees for that district.
Commr. Campione opined that it would be good to look at the sales tax projects and use some ARPA funding to fund them, and that the County could take some funding out of sales tax to help get the CR 466A match.
Commr. Smith opined that if the County dedicated some funding towards roads, it would be a signal to the FDOT that Lake County was trying to do their infrastructure. He said that it could help them decide to help the County a little more, opining that if the County was not committed to helping the roads, neither would FDOT.
Commr. Campione commented that even though relationships were important, FDOT was obligated, based upon the population, to allocate funding to the County’s priority list.
Commr. Parks opined that when the County put more funding in and more commitment, it showed that the County was invested.
Commr. Smith asked if Option A, with all the changes, was an overall tax reduction.
Ms. Teslia stated that it was a reduction when including the reduced fire assessment fee.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that only unincorporated residents would see a reduction.
Commr. Smith said that according to the slide for Option A, unincorporated homestead property would have a change of 0.58 percent, noting that the value of $65,000 on the property needed to be changed because a person could not buy a house in Lake County for $65,000.
Ms. Teslia explained that it was the average assessed value from the Lake County Property Appraiser, and that it was very different from the market value.
Commr. Smith noted that the non-homestead property was still getting a 0.31 percent reduction, but that Option B was an increase for the incorporated properties.
Commr. Shields stated that the City of Groveland was partnering with the County and building a park.
Commr. Parks commented that the City was going to take over operations for the park, and that the County still had Infrastructure Sales Tax committed to it. He remarked that operationally, it was significant, and that was why the County partnered with them.
Commr. Smith stated that the City of Tavares was doing the same thing, and that there could be some savings there as well.
Commr. Parks pointed out that Lake County was the lowest in total millage rate, except for Sumter County by half a percent, within the nine county region, and that the Board wanted to make it clear, as part of the discussion, that Lake County was not a heavily taxed county. He commented that the Board was very careful about keeping taxes as low as they could be, pointing out that the County saved $300,000 per year or more from the outsourcing of inventory of parts. He then inquired about the Lake County public lands-voted debt millage, asking what the remaining portion of that bond was and how low it could go.
Ms. Barker said that as of September 30, 2020, the County had about $15 million outstanding in that debt, and that it was set to retire in 2026, adding that the County had enough in reserve to cover the costs for arbitrage calculations. She stated that the County could reduce the millage to 0.0918, and that it was a countywide millage that would affect everybody.
Commr. Parks asked how much that would change.
Ms. Teslia answered that for an unincorporated homesteaded property, their savings would be $9.11 from $7.01, which would be another $2.
Commr. Parks asked what the additional cost was for Option B, and how much it would add.
Ms. Teslia commented that the additional cost in Option B only applied to incorporated property, adding that with the alternate debt service, the cost would go from $45 to $42.92, which would be about a $2 difference.
Commr. Campione asked what would happen if the public lands-voted debt did not change, and then in 2025, if the County lowered it to pay off the rest of the debt.
Ms. Barker said that if the County had an excess amount in reserve in the final fiscal year, along with the debt service for the final year, and an excess, then the County could lower it to zero and close out the debt service account. She said that if there was any reserve balance left once the debt was retired, the County could transfer it over to the General Fund at that point. She opined that when the public lands-voted debt retired from a debt service fund and the millage was lowered to just what was needed for the final year, the County would have a bit left over in that fund balance after the final debt service was paid off, and that it would transfer to the General Fund.
Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer, commented that it would be appropriate, but that it could be researched.
Ms. Barker said that because it was a countywide millage, it could transfer to the General Fund, but that the County would look into it, adding that the County would reduce it to zero as much as possible.
Commr. Campione remarked that Commissioner Parks asked about going from 0.11 mills to 0.0918 mills, and inquired how that much that would be in dollars.
Ms. Barker asked if Ms. Teslia knew what the revenue generated in the debt service fund would be, and she said that she did not have that calculation.
Commr. Campione commented that the next step could be to take that dollar amount and put it into the transportation fund as another piece, adding that the County could lower that millage and then increase the other millage.
Ms. Barker asked if Commissioner Campione meant for the County to increase the unincorporated millage or the General Fund.
Commr. Campione answered that the General Fund could offset what was reduced for the public lands-voted debt millage, but that the County would then be able to use that extra funding towards transportation.
Ms. Barker said that the County could do that calculation and send an email, so that the Board would know what that revenue would total.
Commr. Parks asked if the County would be taking one part, reducing another part, and then adding it to the General Fund.
Commr. Campione said that shifting it around would bring in the same amount, but that it was funding that could be used for something other than public lands, such as roads, adding that the County could lower the public lands-voted debt millage to the lowest possible amount and still pay the debt service, and that the difference could be used to increase the General Fund.
Commr. Parks remarked that it would only go towards roads, and Commissioner Campione agreed.
Commr. Smith commented that the County would be taking, for example, 0.11 mills and taking it down to 0.05 mills, adding that the County would then take 0.06 mills up to the other portion and use that for roads.
Ms. Teslia said that it was about $480,000.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could make that adjustment if the Board would like.
Commr. Smith noted that the Board’s obligation that day was to set the TRIM millage, and that the Board did not have to set the options.
Ms. Barker said that the Board needed to set the maximum amount allowable, noting that the County could always lower it.
Commr. Parks inquired if the Board was to do that, then the County could lower the 0.1 mills to 0.0918 mills, and the difference would go to the General Fund.
Ms. Barker said that the County could raise the General Fund by the amount that was lowered because they were both countywide millage funds.
Ms. Teslia said it would be 5.0509 mills.
Commr. Parks stated that the Board would need to make it clear that it was for transportation only.
Commr. Campione commented that looking at the list of road projects that was put in the slides, CR 561 segments from Frankies Road south to U.S. HWY 27, was $500,000, and that the County could almost fund that project by this adjustment.
Commr. Smith said that it was one project a year.
Commr. Campione remarked that this was given as an example of what could be done in the first year with $3 million to work with, and that it was one of the projects that was listed, adding that it did not take care of all of it, but that it was a beginning.
Commr. Smith opined that the County had to figure out how to do more than just a little bit, noting that the County was very far behind and had to do something.
Commr. Parks commented it was a good proposal, and asked if it was $9 million per year to catch up.
Ms. Barker stated that it would be $6 million a year to maintain, and that it would be $9 million per year for the next 10 years to get everything completed and maintained.
Commr. Parks commented that it was a great first step, and opined that part of the General Fund, up to two percent should be allocated towards transportation. He asked how much that would be, minus the ARPA funding.
Ms. Teslia said that two percent was $3.4 million.
Commr. Parks opined that the County should allocate $3.4 million or two percent, which would all go towards resurfacing. He commented that it was only about 35 percent of the issue, noting that there were speakers on the current day who spoke towards transportation.
Commr. Campione proposed that the County ask the Constitutional Officers to take a percentage and allocate it across the board, and see what they could pull out of their budget requests.
Commr. Blake remarked that a dedicated MSTU for the LCSO had been brought up in conversations with multiple people, but that he had not spoken directly to the Sheriff about it. He stated that it had been done in Marion County, but that he did not know how it would work in Lake County, which had a different system and more municipalities. He opined that it would protect the LCSO budget, and that the County could separate it on the TRIM notice, which would provide some separation between what the County was doing and the LCSO dedicated funding.
Commr. Smith mentioned that he had already talked to the Sheriff about it, and that he was thinking about it, adding that the County could not include it this year because it was too late, but that it might come up in the following year.
Commr. Parks commented that there was no way this year to show on the TRIM notice what percentage the Sheriff’s budget was.
Ms. Barker said that a couple of years prior, the County looked into separating it out on the TRIM notice or on the Lake County Tax Collector’s bill that would come out in November, but that there was no way because the State had scripted what those notices had to look like.
Commr. Parks asked if a separate notice could be within the TRIM notice as an informational piece.
Ms. Barker said that the County would have to get the permission of the Lake County Property Appraiser, noting that when asked before if the County could provide an insert to be included to explain any changes in the MSTU, the Property Appraiser was not in favor of doing that.
Commr. Shields asked about a separate mailer.
Commr. Parks said that when Mr. Carey Baker, Lake County Property Appraiser, returned from Italy, he would ask him; furthermore he mentioned that another route would be to include it within the Cities’ utility bills.
Commr. Smith remarked that the County was trying to be as transparent as possible, and opined that the Property Appraiser might not understand the request.
Ms. Barker said that the County could do a separate mailer or check with the Cities to see if there was a partnership opportunity with the utility bills, noting that there were several options outside of adding it to the TRIM notice because it was just a cost.
Commr. Campione inquired if the discussion for now would be to actually allocate the breakdown for the Sheriff’s budget.
Commr. Smith answered that it was the moving around of the different millage rates, adding that some people may get confused over that.
Commr. Campione commented that any changes in the millage came from moving funding from one category to another.
Commr. Smith said that it was net-neutral or a reduction, but that in some areas, it would look like it was being raised when it was not. He commented that if the budget was cut in half, and that half was moved somewhere else, it would be the same amount, but it would look different on paper and would need to be explained.
Commr. Parks asked to go back to the slide for Option B, and inquired what the percentage increase would be on an incorporated homesteaded property if the County went with Option B.
Ms. Teslia stated that it was 4.09 percent.
Commr. Parks asked about a small compromise of one percent, and that every year there would be another one percent, adding that it would not be 4.09 percent, but only one percent, taking it year by year. He then asked what one percent would be on that.
Ms. Barker said that if the County went from four percent to just one percent, it would be around $10.
Ms. Teslia stated that the reduction in the non-ad valorem would also be included, and that it would skew the number. She noted that parks and stormwater were also being fully funded from this percentage, not just roads, and that the County would have to look at it closely.
Commr. Smith mentioned that Option A kept it in there.
Ms. Teslia commented that Option A did not have any because the MSTU was going to roads, parks, and stormwater, and that the County was bringing in about $9 million.
Ms. Barker commented that the County kept stormwater and parks fully funded and then moved the cost over to the General Fund in Option B. She stated that if the County went through the process of analyzing each department for efficiencies, this issue would go through the process as well, adding that, previously, stormwater and parks had kept their current budget.
Commr. Parks asked what would happen if the County proportionally took that unincorporated MSTU and transferred only a percentage over to the General Fund.
Ms. Barker stated that it would reduce the amount of funding available for parks and stormwater because it would be reducing instead of keeping the same millage rate. She noted that the County was currently transferring over at the same millage rate, and if that was reduced to get down to a $10 increase, it would decrease the funding for parks and stormwater, which the County could look at.
Commr. Campione commented that the County could not increase one percent for incorporated residents and leave the unincorporated the way that it was, but that the County would have to do it across the board, which could really impact the current operations.
Commr. Parks remarked that the County could take into account that the $10, or one percent, was moved over when it was added to the General Fund.
Ms. Barker said that the County could look at this option.
Commr. Parks opined that even with all these moves with Option A, Option B, and the County looking at efficiencies, one percent would do no harm to the current departments that were taken out of the unincorporated funding.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could look at keeping the departments at the current operational spending levels, and present the findings at the September 14, 2021 BCC meeting. She mentioned that it was the Board’s opportunity at that point to make reductions or whatever was needed to the millage, noting that it could not be added to at that point.
Commr. Parks stated that he wanted clarification of what it would mean if the County did a one percent change instead of doing the full move to Option B while not affecting operations.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could look at it in the next couple of weeks, and send the results to the Commissioners and everybody concerned to look at it and think about it well ahead of the September 14, 2021 BCC meeting.
Ms. Teslia remarked that if the County was just increasing the millage by one percent for the General Fund and not touching the MSTU as it was, it would be 5.0830 mills, which would produce about $1.3 million.
Commr. Parks inquired if that meant that the County would have to leave the MSTU that was unincorporated the same, but then possibly reduce it in September 2021.
Ms. Teslia stated that the County could reduce it in September 2021.
Commr. Campione said that, in this scenario, it would have to increase on the current day.
Commr. Parks opined that it would have to increase, and that the County would be offsetting it with the public lands-voted debt millage as well.
Commr. Campione opined the millage should stay the same, and that the County should try to carve out approximately $2 million to $3 million from the General Fund revenue. She commented that the County should find reductions and ask the Constitutional Offices to relook at their budgets and leave the current unincorporated MSTU as it was in Option A.
Commr Parks asked about Commissioner Campione’s proposal of public lands-voted debt millage, and if she was making a motion.
Commr. Campione stated that she was not making a motion, but that she was talking about possibilities because the County could plan ahead for the following year and know that it would be an option. She opined that if the County did not touch it in the current year, there would be much more that could be reduced in the following year.
Commr. Smith said that he was not in favor of increasing the millage rate or going back to rollback rates, but that it was important to dedicate funding to roads, adding that the County had to find it somewhere. He stated that whether it was through the public lands-voted debt millage switch or something in the General Funds revenue, the roads had to be fixed. He pointed out that the County had already saved some money through using public-private partnerships.
Commr. Parks said that through Commissioner Campione’s proposal, the County could get an additional $480,000 this year.
Commr. Campione asked if this was referring to the public lands-voted debt millage discussion, and that it was not in her motion, noting that was just a discussion.
Commr. Smith remarked that it was a discussion to set the millage, because that was what the Board was doing on the current day.
Commr. Campione stated that she was not in favor of increasing the millage rate, but that from this point on, the County could not increase it. She commented that it was important to focus on a couple of things that had been brought up, one of which was the minimum wage issue. She opined that it was one of the reasons why a rollback would be an impossibility, because then the County would not to be able to accomplish it in the next couple of years, and that the millage rate had to stay where it was. She stated that the second reason was roads, which was what the County was trying to carve out part of the General Fund and put some funding towards. She opined that those two reasons justified leaving the millage rate where it was at, adding that now the County had to figure out where the County could carve out savings, or where to use ARPA funding to help move some things around.
Commr. Parks said that he hoped ARPA funding would come in because he did not see a way of catching up for a long time.
Commr. Campione asked Commissioner Parks if he supported increasing the millage significantly in order to generate $9 million a year, which she considered a significant increase.
Commr. Parks said that he would not do that, but that he was interested in Option B because, looking at the map, it was the only way to catch up in the long term; however, he stated that he did understand the situation. He commented that if the public lands-voted debt millage funding was not put into the General Fund, it would have to be used for public lands, adding that if the County kept the 0.11 mills in September 2021 and passed it to public lands, there would be no $480,000 that could come out of that to go towards roads; however, if it was moved over, the County would be able to use that funding.
Commr. Smith said that he disagreed, because if the Board accepted 0.11 mills, it could come down but not up.
Commr. Campione clarified that the County could not take the difference and apply it to the General Fund.
Commr. Parks opined that it was a revenue neutral move, and that it would not change anybody’s TRIM notice.
Ms. Barker stated that they were both countywide millages, and that as long as it was countywide to countywide by the like amount, it would be the same.
Ms. Mullane asked if it was presented separately.
Ms. Barker answered that it was presented separately, and that the County would have to make sure that it was communicated that the General Fund millage went up by this amount and the public lands-voted debt millage went down by the same amount, adding that it was all about how it was communicated.
Commr. Parks commented that somebody who was paying attention would look at that and see that one went up but one went down, and that there was no difference in the dollars. He stated that he would approve that at the very least.
Commr. Campione opined that if the County left it intact in the current year, then in the following year it would seem that there would be an even larger reduction.
Ms. Barker agreed that if the County left it at the current rate, it could come down quite a bit more in the following year.
Commr. Campione said that the County could work with the ARPA funding and see about allocating a portion of the General Fund for roads, and then use that as an option next year, opining that it would probably be more than $500,000 at that point, which would represent a larger amount.
Commr. Parks commented that every year there was going to be some difference.
Ms. Barker agreed that the County could take a bigger decrease next year and contribute more funding than the $480,000.
Commr. Parks opined that if the County waited a year on using it for roads, the cost would incrementally increase, stating that he would rather do it now and use it for resurfacing. He opined that it was a neutral move for taxpayers and a good idea. He also opined that, on top of keeping the two percent minus ARPA funding from the General Fund, the County could make the commitment to do that and whatever else for roads in the next couple of months.
Ms. Teslia remarked that in August 2021 the County would be coming back with the infrastructure sales tax plan, adding that some things could be moved around there too.
Ms. Barker said that the County would start looking at the projections in the next month or so for the sales tax revenue, and that the County could come in higher than anticipated in the current year or could bring in more next year, adding that if there was any additional funding identified, it could be committed at the Board’s direction. She noted that there was an infrastructure workshop on August 10, 2021, and that there was the public hearing later that month.
Commr. Blake opined that it could be a useful way to address the two roads mentioned that the County had to have a match on, adding that the County should set the baseline now and dedicate any additional funds to those matches.
Ms. Barker said that the County could do that for CR 466A.
Commr. Smith remarked that he was usually in support of reserves, but that he was now in support of roads.
Ms. Teslia said that if the Board wanted to reduce the reserves, that it would be another option.
Commr. Campione commented that the County could take $1 million or $2 million off of reserves and put it towards roads.
Commr. Parks stated that he was not in favor of that, and asked how much the reserves translated into days of operation or operating cash.
Ms. Teslia replied that the County was at about 12 percent of the operating budget in reserves.
Ms. Barker related that 16 percent, which was what the GFOA recommended, was about two months of operating cash, which would get the County to the first collection of tax revenue.
Commr. Smith commented that reserves were extremely important.
Commr. Campione made a motion to adopt Option A.
Commr. Smith seconded the motion.
Commr. Parks said he was going to oppose the motion because he really liked the idea of simply reducing the public lands-voted debt millage and adding it to the General Fund. He remarked that the County could commit the $480,000 for roads only, and that there was absolutely no dollar difference to the taxpayer.
Commr. Smith asked if the Board wanted to reduce the public lands-voted debt millage rate now and add it to the General Fund millage rate. He stated that the Board would have call for a vote, and vote down the motion unless Commissioner Campione wanted to amend it.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith, which failed by a 1-4 vote, the Board did not approve Option A.
Commr. Blake, Commr. Parks, Commr. Smith, and Commr. Shields voted no.
Commr. Smith asked if the County would reduce it to 0.05 mills.
Ms. Barker commented that the County would reduce the public lands-voted debt millage 0.0918 mills and increase the General Fund by a like amount.
Ms. Teslia clarified that the like amount was 5.0529 mills, up from 5.0327 mills.
Commr. Smith made a motion to change the General Fund millage rate to 5.0529 mills, reduce public lands-voted debt millage rate to 0.0918 mills, and keep Lake County Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU millage rate and Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU millage rate in Option A the same, adding that the General Fund millage rate difference would be added to roads.
Commr. Parks noted that it was a revenue neutral move, and that there was no impact difference to the TRIM notice for the taxpayer.
Commr. Campione stated that she was in favor of clarifying that the difference would go towards transportation.
Ms. Barker stated that the County would highlight that in the first public hearing and any communication about the budget.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had an idea about that, but that he would talk about it after the motion.
Commr. Campione commented that she was glad to offer a creative solution, but that she was not going to vote for it because she was in favor of her first motion.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to establish maximum millage rates to be included on TRIM notifications as follows: the Lake County General Fund Countywide Millage at 5.0529 mills; the Lake County Ambulance MSTU at 0.4629 mills; Lake County Stormwater, Roads, Parks MSTU at 0.4957 mills; the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU at 0.5138 mills; and the Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt at 0.0918 mills; additionally, it was approved that the addition to the Lake County General Fund Countywide Millage would be dedicated to roads.
Commr. Campione and Commr. Blake voted no.
Commr. Parks proposed that the Board could possibly have a workshop before August 2021, inviting elected or appointed representatives for all 14 Cities and other invitees, to create more transparency on spending, and to show the Cities that the County carried out what was planned. He opined that this model could be very helpful if the County went to a countywide structure or transportation MSTU, and that it could help the County build trust with the Cities. He proposed that it could be a semiannual event where, in July, Cities and others could meet with the County in a workshop setting to go through the list of what was being proposed, and that in January, the Cities would be able to see what the County actually spent the funding on. He commented that if the County was going to allocate two percent to county roads and did a countywide MSTU, the County could show that funding was not moved around to another department. He stated that he would make sure the Board received a copy of his proposal, adding that it did not have to be discussed on the current day.
Commr. Shields asked when the Board would talk about large capital items, such as trails. He opined that if he was running a business and the manager said that he could get a seven to one return on his investment, he would go find the funding somewhere. He asked when the Board would have those discussions, and how that would work. He opined that companies did not save money until they got enough funding for the capital that was going to give them a return on their investment, but that they would go raise the funding. He pointed out that homeowners did it, and that they paid it off over time, noting that it was not meant for funding operations but for capital costs. He wondered when the Board would have that discussion, and why the County did not just get it done if trails were a seven to one return on investment.
Commr. Parks commented that the Board was going to have a discussion on the Tourist Development Tax (TDT) use of that funding for trails, and that part of the discussion was going to happen at the current time or right after a break when the Board talked about ARPA funding.
Commr. Campione said that unless the County were to do something like some of the other Counties had done, like a large bond issue, it would have to be pieced together, and it would have to be creative, opining that ARPA funding could be one piece, the TDT funding might be another piece, and some plan of sales tax could be included. She opined that unless there was a dedicated source of funding, voters would have to get behind it and approve it, especially if it was something as large as what was done in Volusia County or Seminole County; additionally, she hoped that there might be a lot of support to do that, which could be brought to the Board as a proposal. She commented that the Board had to guard these tax dollars and innovatively piece together what was needed in order to move trails forward as much as possible.
Commr. Parks opined that if the Board presented the idea, it would possibly not be perceived as good, but if it came from the public it could be better.
Commr. Campione opined that since it would be a big lift for a community, it needed to come from the community. She commented that the Board could talk about how important the trails were economically and try to piece together funding, but that it was going to have to be a partnership with the community. She opined that it was going to have to come from a grassroots community movement if the County was going to do something significant, such as constructing all the trails at one time.
Commr. Parks commented that it was possibly going to take a large bond.
Commr. Campione remarked that it would be a significant undertaking, but that it was important to embark on some research. She wondered how much it would cost to take the parks master plan and do everything versus doing certain projects that were really integral. She opined that it was an exercise that the County should probably do.
Commr. Shields commented that they were comparing apples to oranges because every County was different. He said that Volusia County’s TDT revenues for May 2021 were about $8 million, which was more than Lake County made in an entire year; however, he remarked that if the County could get some concepts and some ideas, it would be great.
Commr. Campione opined that the County could use some of the TDT funding, but that the Board did not know what the total number was or how much to take on from year to year, adding that the County could go through the exercise of having staff help put together a couple of options.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had seen some numbers of what the trail master plan would cost, and that even though developers would help pay for the trails, there were still some pretty significant segments left. He opined that the County had run numbers on how much it would cost towards construction outside of PD&E study funding.
Commr. Campione noted that the whole master trail plan was massive, and that she did not want to cause concern and have residents question why the County would undertake something like that. She commented that if the County honed in on key segments and was realistic, the chances could be much better for getting support from the public.
Commr. Parks said that he was not part of the public lands deal, but he mentioned that everybody wanted to list all their lands, which were great lands to buy. He opined that it was $200 million, and that it was reduced down to something realistic, like $30 million, stating that it was what the County would have to do here. He commented that there was some discussion on what some of the key segments would cost, but he did not want to force a number right now.
Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, remarked that in the presentation given on trails last October, the County talked about doing feasibility studies and PD&E studies. He opined that the Office of Parks and Trails had a trails master plan, but that it was not focused on the overall cost of the trails because there were so many factors that went into the trails. He commented that until there was a feasibility study or a PD&E study, there could be no accurate estimate of the cost because of right of way that might be needed, which could be significant if not coming from an old railroad, adding that the County would have to build bridges over waterways and more. He commented that it was correct to focus on particular ones that had right of way, and to try to get those to completion.
Commr. Campione proposed that the Board look at the list of trails and pick one like the Wekiva Trail, which may not have right of way. She mentioned that the County could have a workshop about this.
Commr. Shields commented that if the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail was done except for Lake County’s piece, that would be a concern.
Commr. Blake said he could not remember how that return on investment (ROI) was arrived at, and that he could not recall how it was broken down. He asked if it looked at which industries benefitted the most, which could include the hospitality industry, restaurants, and retail that benefit from people coming in. He opined that Commissioner Shields’ point that a private business that could get seven to one ROI would have private investment, even if it was not seven to one to a particular industry, because capital would go where it was valued; therefore, if that was a correct number, it really should be a partnership.
Mr. Stephens stated that the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy came up with the seven to one figure after they studied the trails, and that it was evident in the City of Clermont’s downtown area where they had a 17 percent increase in their commercial real estate tax base and 29 new businesses, which moved there because they were connecting to the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail. He noted that the trails they were trying to do were four regional trails starting with the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail, which was being funded by the state with Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail money. He stated that the Wekiva Trial, which was another east to west trail that cut through Lake County, was a game-changer because it would go into the downtown areas of the City of Mount Dora, the City of Tavares, and the City of Leesburg, adding that it was a huge trail and number one on everybody’s list. He stated that there was a north to south trail, which was the River to Hills Trail in North Lake County with three phases, adding that the right of way was already publicly owned by the United States Forest Service. He summarized that they were focused on the following four trails: the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail; the Wekiva Trial; the River to Hills Trail; and the Lake Ridge Trail, which came from the City of Leesburg to the south. He noted that they been successful in getting all the unfunded feasibility studies, PD&E studies, and construction design, and that there was $35 million in the fund. He opined that, if the County wanted to build them all right now, it would probably be about $75 million, which was not the focus; rather, he opined that the focus should be on those pieces that the County could handle, reiterating that the Wekiva Trail was the number one game-changer, which went east to west through Lake County touching many of the different cities. He reiterated that the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail was already being built in South Lake County by the State of Florida, and that it was funded by SUN Trail, adding that the County did not have to worry about that other than managing it and making sure it was done. He explained that the River to Hills Trail went from Astor where it touched the Heart of Florida Loop that the State was building, all the way down to the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail, and that it was already built up from the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail from North Hancock Road, up to the Green Mountain Connector; furthermore, he noted that they were talking about connecting over to Lake Idamere Park and Wooton Park, and then going through the Cities of Tavares, Eustis, and Umatilla on the way to Astor. He commented that the local trails were great, and that the City of Leesburg had done a great job of building local trails; however, they were focused on the regional trails that could actually bring in economic development because people want to ride those longer trails. He opined that if they came to those areas to ride the trails, they were going to spend four times as much as a local user, adding that if they spent the night and rode the trails, they were going to spend eight times as much as a local user. He commented that all those studies were from 2010 from just the Orange County trails, who did many massive economic studies down there, noting that because those were old numbers, it could be even better currently; furthermore, he opined that the trail counts went up significantly in the current year because of COVID-19. He stated that the four regional trails were a focus because they would bring in the most economic impact, adding that they wanted the quality of life, but that the economic impact could be even better. He opined that the trails would pay for themselves, and that they could pay for additional items as well by bringing that business into the area.
Commr. Blake remarked that it made an excellent argument for public/private partnerships funding this.
Commr. Campione asked if he meant the funding to actually build the trail.
Commr. Blake said that he meant for people to contribute who were going to benefit the most economically. He opined that if it was a seven to one investment, it could be beneficial to invest that funding, opining that if the number was correct, there should be some private capital.
Mr. Stephens replied that the private capital could come in after the trails were built, and that they were seeing that in the Cities of Clermont, Winter Garden, and Dunedin, adding that the tax base could increase, giving the County those additional funds to invest in other areas of the community. He opined that private capital would flow in because of the funding that the Counties had contributed, pointing out that Pinellas County used the Penny for Pinellas tax, Volusia County used environmental, cultural, historical, and outdoor recreation (ECHO) funds, Seminole County used a bond referendum, and Orange County and Marion County had used other ways of funding it. He reiterated that private funding could flow when that funding was invested by the County and by the Cities to build those trails and put in that infrastructure, opining that once the infrastructure was there, the tax base would grow because of it. He relayed his understanding that there could be a four to six percent increase in residential home values because of the trail, and that the same would hold true for commercial sites. He noted that in the City of Clermont, there was a 17 percent increase in the commercial real estate tax base, and that in their downtown area, just last year, 29 new businesses moved in because of all those trails connecting them to the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail. He concluded that it was then that the private funding, the growth of the economy, and the return on investment could come in.
Commr. Shields commented that most of the economic development would be going to the Cities, because that was where the shops, stores, restaurants, and bars were, and those were usually not in unincorporated areas.
Commr. Campione opined that small businesses were not going to contribute money to build a trail.
Commr. Shields mentioned that the Cities might contribute funding.
Commr. Campione opined that the Cities were in the same position as the County, and that the Cities did not have a lot of funding. She opined that the Cities were doing exactly what the County was doing, which was trying to piece together all of the different priorities that had to be taken care of, noting that the Cities had contributed money to help with the PD&E.
Mr. Stephens commented that the Cities of Eustis and Umatilla had committed money and budgeted it, and that the City of Leesburg was going to come up with $175,000 to fund some of their feasibility studies; furthermore, he relayed his understanding that the City of Tavares had budgeted some funding to help with those feasibility studies. He opined that the Cities were on board and realized that everybody had to work together to get it done. He concluded that they were working with the Cities and asking the County to help lead the program.
Commr. Parks commented that it was the County’s role to lead it, but that the Board wanted the support to come; however, he opined that there were not any businesses that were going contribute $1 million to build a trail that would connect the City of Mount Dora to the City of Eustis or to the City of Clermont. He opined that they would want to know that there was a plan in place, and that the benefit would come afterwards, adding that they would start investing in mom-and-pop businesses, stores, ice cream shops, and bike stores.
Mr. Stephens opined that the whole economy would grow at that point.
Commr. Campione commented that the Board was making progress, and that she was excited to talk about the ARPA funding, noting that there were some opportunities there.
Commr. Parks said that ARPA was going to cover a couple of things that the Board had discussed such as the roads, the trails, and funding for the PD&E studies, and that there were some questions about what was eligible. He stated that the Board had to vote on whether number two on the screen was approved, which was the public hearing dates and advertising. He said that there were some individuals that wanted to participate in the ARPA discussion, but that there was going to be a lunch break.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the public hearing dates and advertisements of September 14, 2021 at 5:05 p.m. and September 28, 2021 at 5:05 p.m.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
The Chairman called a recess at 12:36 p.m. for 45 minutes.
spending plan for american rescue plan act
Mr. Sean Beaudet, Grants Coordinator for the Office of Management and Budget, presented an overview of the ARPA. He explained that the ARPA was a $1.9 trillion broad package of programs, funds, and tax credits enacted on March 11, 2021, and that the package could be broken down into these three components: direct financial assistance to individuals; additional appropriations to existing programs; and direct, flexible aid to counties referred to as “fiscal recovery funds (FRF).” He displayed some additional appropriations and program examples nationwide which included economic disaster loans, childhood programs, homeless assistance, housing and transportation. He showed the current program, projects and funding list for Lake County, noting that some funding had been received from the ARPA. He said that the official title of the FRF was Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF), and that Lake County would receive funds directly from the U.S. Department of Treasury; furthermore, all Cities and Towns within the county would receive funds directly from the State of Florida as non-entitlement units of local government, or those with under 50,000 residents, and funds were allocated based on the county share of the U.S. population. He remarked that the total revenue would be just over $71.3 million to the County, and that it would be distributed in two tranches in May 2021 and May 2022 with 50 percent received each year. He added that the eligibility dates to use these funds were effective March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024; additionally, they were available until December 31, 2026 but had to be allocated. He displayed the following eligible use categories: public health; negative economic impacts; services to disproportionately impacted communities; premium pay; infrastructure; revenue replacement; and administrative. He then listed the following eligible expenses which staff had identified that would be appropriate for those categories: public health included ventilation, personal protective equipment (PPE), mental health costs, FDOH costs, communication costs and improvements to the jail for public health; negative economic impacts included business related grants and job training for underemployed workers; services to disproportionately impacted communities included affordable housing, a possible PD&E study on parks in the north portion of the county; premium pay included emergency medical technician (EMT) premium pay; infrastructure included broadband, expansion of water and sewer, possible distributed sewer for unserved and underserved areas, and stormwater/water quality projects; revenue replacement would be anything that they would normally provide which they could not because of lost revenue; and administrative costs included evaluation of data. He then discussed ineligible uses and clarified that the County could not use this for any reserves or rainy day funds, legal settlements or judgments, pension fund deposits, debt service, tax reductions using these funds to offset them, any general infrastructure outside of water, sewer and broadband outside of the revenue loss portion, or general economic development or workforce development activities, unless they directly addressed a specific economic impact from the public health emergency. He relayed that the U.S. Department of Treasury continued to gather comments, and that the deadline for comments was July 16, 2021; furthermore, the interim rule was not final. He said that for reporting requirements, there was an interim report, a project and expenditure report, and an annual recovery plan performance report. He listed the following considerations with this funding: much of the economic and public health categories should place priority on disproportionately affected populations, households, areas, and/or residents in qualified census tracts (QCTs); under the infrastructure category, broadband should focus on underserved or unserved areas, though the greater population could also be served; performance reporting was mandatory, and an annual performance report must be posted to the official County website; some programs would require additional evidence-based interventions including mental health services and early childhood education; funding was considered a grant with many more strings attached; federal grant requirements would apply, which was different from the CARES Act funding received in the previous year; procurement procedures applied; and grants provided to businesses and other subrecipients would require additional staff time, oversight and coordination. He read the requested action to approve the displayed allocations and to approve an unanticipated revenue resolution to accept the first half of the ARPA funds.
Commr. Blake asked if this included being able to switch funds between categories in the future, and Mr. Beaudet confirmed this.
Commr. Parks noted that Ms. DeAnna Thomas, the new Executive Director for Lake Technical College (Lake Tech) was in attendance, and that he wanted to discuss a proposal that he had recently spoken to her about. He presented a memorandum to consider four different categories totaling about $8 million. He said that under the category of negative economic impacts, his understanding was that everything that Ms. Thomas was trying to do was to help those affected by COVID-19; additionally, the County believed that it would be easy to demonstrate this. He mentioned the Infrastructure Sales Tax items, and he thought that they could possibly use ARPA funding for this as well.
Commr. Campione inquired about a question to the U.S. Department of Treasury regarding whether parks and trails could be funded outside the QCTs.
Mr. Beaudet replied that one published fact said that parks were an eligible expense, though it had to be in a QCT or disproportionately affected community. He remarked that the County had then asked how to define a disproportionately affected community and if a community redevelopment area (CRA) fit into this.
Commr. Parks commented that Mr. Matt Chase, President of the National Association of Counties (NACO), helped write policies regarding how this would be distributed, and that his interpretation was that people had wanted to get outside and were aware of these facilities. He elaborated that according to Mr. Chase, this would be an acceptable use of ARPA funding; additionally, the QCTs came into play if those residents were in the county and using those facilities. He remarked that there was a similar connection with workforce preparedness as long it was for county residents who were disproportionately affected, and that this could possibly be eligible with ARPA funding.
Mr. Beaudet commented that staff had identified three QCTs in the county.
Commr. Campione asked about the location of Ocala National Forest area QCT, and Mr. Beaudet replied that it was a good portion of the forest and that it came close to Altoona. Commissioner Campione then mentioned regional trails and said that this could possibly include a large portion of the River to Hills Trail. She mentioned that there was a large price to do the feasibility study, and she opined that they could possibly construct that trail through the QCT area, noting that they would still have a gap between there and the City of Umatilla. She also mentioned that the City of Mount Dora had submitted a request for assistance with water and sewer expansion, commenting that this went along with the County’s desire for water and sewer service to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA and the SR 46 corridor. She mentioned that it could serve an underserved area and that one possibility would be to seek to purchase the CSX railroad corridor and use it as a utilities corridor, which could then be also used for any other purpose, including a trail. She commented that it would be 100 feet of right of way and that CSX would have to abandon it.
Commr. Parks asked about the purchase price.
Commr. Campione relayed that CSX had always said that they would sell it for the appraised value. She commented that the City of Mount Dora’s services currently ended at Round Lake Road, and this was where the County would take it to CR 437 north. She estimated that it could cost $7 million and that it would have to be appraised. She noted that this funding could give the County the opportunity to start these discussions about CSX selling this portion of right of way.
Commr. Smith mentioned that there was the same situation of using the CSX railroad tracks as a utility corridor between the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora. He also thought that it was a good idea for Sorrento.
Commr. Campione said that it was known that this segment could be used for this purpose, and the City of Mount Dora had indicated that they would have less conflicts with getting the lines to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA.
Commr. Parks asked to clarify that the City of Mount Dora would be doing the sewer.
Commr. Campione clarified that the City would be the provider, though the County would enter into an interlocal agreement with them for a joint utility corridor.
Commr. Parks thought that the County needed to know if there was the potential for a developer doing a pioneering agreement if the County had the right of way.
Commr. Campione thought that with the way ARPA funding had been allocated, there was enough flexibility to move things around. She said that she wanted to see if the Board was interested in this and if they could start the process of approaching CSX to see if they would be willing to consider selling the right of way. She also wondered if there could there be an opportunity under negative economic impacts where it referenced tourism.
Mr. Beaudet replied that loans could be used to mitigate financial hardship, to implement COVID-19 prevention and mitigation tactics, and for technical assistance such as counseling to assist with business planning needs.
Commr. Campione said that she was hoping that they could possibly use it for marketing and to replace some TDT funding.
Ms. Barker noted that staff was reviewing items that were already budgeted and might be eligible for ARPA funding, which could free various budgets throughout the County, along with items that they could cover with a lost revenue calculation.
Commr. Campione inquired if funding for communications related to the pandemic could help.
Ms. Barker responded that the County could possibly tie back the work order system, such as pandemic related activities in the Office of Communications.
Commr. Smith mentioned that the City of Tavares and Lake Tech were trying to work together on a training facility, and he asked if this would be considered as part of that.
Commr. Parks relayed that in the memorandum from Ms. Thomas, this was project one and was a $4.3 million request. He elaborated that other projects included project two, Pathways to Prosperity in Lake County for $1.9 million, project three, a dental hygienist program for about $1.03 million, and project four, an industrial machinery and maintenance program for $610,000. He mentioned that these were all areas geared toward people who had lost their jobs, and said that he would like to see this request at least put into a placeholder.
Commr. Smith stated that he liked the idea because it was about training people to get back on their feet and giving them a skillset to become self-sufficient.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the job training might fit but that the construction of the building would not fit.
Commr. Smith asked to confirm if the City of Tavares was doing a significant part of it.
Ms. Thomas confirmed this and indicated that this was only the Lake Tech portion of the building, noting that it would likely be a $15 million or $16 million total project that the City of Tavares was contributing.
Commr. Parks expressed support for asking the U.S. Department of Treasury before saying no to the construction.
Commr. Smith thought that it could be in play since it would be for a training center for a specific job opportunity.
Ms. Thomas opined that Lake Tech did not really fit into the education sector and that they were more helping to mitigate the negative economy, along with workforce training. She thanked the Board for what they had given to Lake Tech in fall 2020 from the CARES Act funding, and she mentioned that Commissioner Parks had recently asked her to think of some projects that could be an investment of this funding into the economy. She said that for project one, there were many pieces that were not just training. She mentioned what it was going to do for the local municipalities, such as the ability for fire engines and police vehicles to be repaired. She stated that over 59 percent of the student population at Lake Tech was low to moderate income, noting that they only offered Pell Grants; additionally, in the Pathway to Prosperity program, all but one program was not Pell Grant eligible, yet were in the most impacted sectors from the pandemic. She mentioned that for some other programs such as dental assisting and hygienist, this would be hopefully be a partnership with Lake-Sumter State College (LSSC) and could result in a low or no cost dental clinic. She encouraged the Board to think about Lake Tech as workforce and career technical training, which was a direct payoff and support to the community.
Commr. Parks said that this was why he thought it could be eligible for construction, noting that it was because they were helping many people who were disproportionately affected. He opined that ARPA funding could be appropriate for something like this.
Ms. Thomas added that it was a shovel ready project and that they had applied for other grants. She mentioned that it would be the first of its kind to combine secondary training and a municipality together, and opined that it was a great way to expose students and get them the job immediately.
Ms. Marsh stated that the beginning of the interim rule was clear that the items listed in the rule were examples, and that they were not trying to lock anyone into specific types of projects; however, the rule was also geared more toward programs and services than brick and mortar. She thought that it was a great idea to ask the U.S. Department of Treasury about brick and mortar for this because the rule that the County currently had said that general infrastructure projects were typically not considered a response to the public health emergency, other than building a vaccine distribution site or housing for people who lost their homes. She also said that if it was in the works before COVID-19, then it may be something that the County would want to steer clear of because it was not a direct response to COVID-19. She mentioned that the subgrant agreement which would be with Lake Tech and/or the City of Tavares would state that if the U.S. Department of Treasury came back at some point and said that these were not eligible uses, then those entities would have to help repay that funding. She said that the County should be very specific when they asked the U.S. Department of Treasury about this use.
Commr. Parks proposed to take the memorandum which Ms. Thomas wrote and to hold it as an allocation as proposed, and to receive guidance on project one.
Ms. Thomas said that since COVID-19, they had brought on partners such as Duke Energy and SECO Energy, and they could use the facility as a remote emergency operations center (EOC) with vehicles staged there; additionally, students would be able to work on those vehicles. She said that it was more than just training students.
Commr. Campione thought that it was a great idea if the County could make it work, and she supported focusing on it being needed for retooling and retraining in areas where people needed to switch jobs due to COVID-19.
Commr. Shields noted that they were meeting demands and that there were customers who wanted students.
Commr. Smith opined that it could have the most impact for the community.
Commr. Campione mentioned the QCT and inquired about asking a question to the U.S. Department of Treasury about if one trail connected to another or if CRAs were included. She said that she was picturing a scenario of a trail from the Ocala National Forest, through the City of Umatilla, and over to the City of Eustis where the other QCT was.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that this was how Mr. Chase was interpreting it and that this could qualify the project.
Commr. Campione asked where the other two QCTs were.
Ms. Barker replied that there was one in the City of Leesburg, along with one in the City of Eustis.
Commr. Parks inquired when the question about the Lake Tech item would be due, and Mr. Beaudet responded that it would be due on the following Friday.
Ms. Barker requested to conclude this section of the meeting with the Board’s top priorities.
Commr. Parks asked if there were any other specific projects.
Commr. Campione said that there was Lake Tech, the Wekiva Trail utility corridor, and the North Lake QCT trail.
Commr. Parks thought that there were some other projects on the Infrastructure Sales Tax project list in a QCT that could possibly be eligible for ARPA funding over the following three years. He said that he was looking at about $18.8 million worth of penny sales tax funding and that it was essentially a replacement. He mentioned the Ferndale Preserve, Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Park, Astor Park walkway, fencing and playground improvements, Lake Idamere Park, South Lake Hancock Trail, the South Lake Regional Park, the $300,000 left on the Minneola Athletic Complex (MAC), Ellis Acres, and Pine Forest. He questioned if these projects were ARPA-eligible, reiterating that this could free up around $18.8 million and that they could possibly place road projects on the list.
Ms. Barker thought that it could be helpful if the County received a concrete definition of what a disproportionately impacted community was; however, because the South Lake Regional Park was considered long term debt, she would not think it would be eligible. She also commented that anything with Astor could qualify.
Commr. Parks asked if these projects needed to be described to the U.S. Department of Treasury.
Ms. Marsh was unsure if the U.S. Department of Treasury was going to look at the County’s project by project list; therefore, she thought that the County’s question would have to be drafted in a manner that would cover these types of things.
Commr. Parks reiterated Mr. Chase’s comments that the intent of ARPA was to cover the wide scale usage and benefits of parks of trails.
Commr. Campione asked if the Board was in agreement for where they could go from there and for using this as a framework.
Ms. Barker inquired if the Board wanted staff to go with the total funding requested from the different entities, fitting them in the list, and finding out if they were eligible after submitting questions to the U.S. Department of Treasury. She remarked that staff could come back regularly as they received more information with an update and a new list of projects.
Commr. Parks expressed support for getting the questions answered specifically and for adding the appropriate categories for Lake Tech and the CSX purchase, along with the North Lake Trail.
Ms. Barker did not think that the North Lake Trail would be an issue because it was a QCT and there was a wide swath of space there.
Commr. Campione asked if there were any other needs in Astor that could be met.
Commr. Parks commented that the Astor Park walkway, fencing and playground improvements were on the Infrastructure Sales Tax project list.
Commr. Smith opined that if the Golden Triangle regional park was included, it could be a great use for it. He also relayed his understanding that they could move ARPA funding from infrastructure to negative economic impacts.
Ms. Barker confirmed that it was the Board’s decision for what the spending plan looked like.
Commr. Parks mentioned water projects and areas on septic tanks, particularly areas around lakes, and asked if there was $10 million allocated for this.
Ms. Barker relayed that staff had talked to some City partners about possibly extending their boundaries for utility services, noting that some city managers wanted to have the discussion.
Commr. Campione opined that this should be limited to trying to address the areas not served by sewer, which impacted water quality and lakes. She expressed interest in protecting rural areas without central sewer, opining that this should possibly be more of the County’s focus.
Commr. Smith mentioned areas in cities that did not have central water and sewer, such as portions of Old U.S. Highway 441 in the Cities of Tavares of Mount Dora. He said that the County could possibly help them extend their lines out and reduce phosphorus and nitrogen, along with providing clean water.
Commr. Parks agreed and clarified that the funding should not go to a city to help them expand to areas with new growth; however, there could be an area near a lake on septic with a nearby city sewer line, and the County could potentially partner with them. He added that the County also needed to save funding for areas where a distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS) could be an option.
Commr. Campione said that it might make sense to have a placeholder for those situations to the extent that they had residents who wanted to make that transition, noting that they would have a monthly bill.
Commr. Parks opined that keeping a septic tank could eventually cost more than to go to a DWTS or to pay a connection fee. He expressed interest in keeping this category open and to meet with the Cities regarding if they had gaps in urban areas. He then asked if there was any contemplation about the homeless mitigation strategy.
Ms. Barker commented that the County currently had about $3 million allocated for affordable housing programs.
Commr. Campione said that she liked the idea of doing a request for proposal (RFP) to find one or more builders or organizations that could build some bridge housing for the in-between period when transitioning someone from being homeless to permanent housing. She thought that the placeholder was good and that the County would have to work out the details.
Commr. Parks noted that he had a comment card for this item.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, suggested for the County to get the Inspector General to possibly participate in the process of rules and compliance. He also proposed for Lake Tech to possibly add certification programs for companies such as Google, and to get the U.S. Department of Treasury approvals in writing. He said that he had received an estimate of about $10,000 to connect to sewer, and he opined that the County had to come up with a lower cost.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Parks asked if staff needed a motion.
Ms. Barker thought that consensus had been fine for approving the categories, but they needed a motion to approve the unanticipated revenue resolution to recognize the first tranche of funding.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-104 to accept ARPA funds in the amount of $35,654,184.
Commr. Campione was absent for the vote.
public hearing: ordinance 2021-19
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 7, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES; AMENDING SECTION 7-2, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 7-3, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION, TO SPECIFIY WHEN CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN; AMENDING SECTION 7-4, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, TO CLARIFY WHO MAY APPLY AND WHO QUALIFIES FOR GRANT FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance 2021-19 amending Chapter 7, Lake County Code, entitled Economic Development and Business Incentives, to allow grants of up to 20 years for phased development projects if higher job creation and capital investments thresholds were met.
regular agenda
discussion on possible alternatives to septic systems
Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, presented information related to septic tanks and DWTS. He said that the Board had previously asked staff to come back and provide information, primarily centered around improving water quality in the lakes; additionally, there were three areas in the county that had basin management action plans (BMAPs), meaning that they were areas of concern for water bodies. He also mentioned that the county had four lakes that had been allocated phosphorus loading from septic tanks. He showed a map with the BMAPs in the county, noting the Wekiva River, along with the Upper Ocklawaha and Lake Okeechobee areas. He added that Lake Harris, Lake Yale, Trout Lake and Lake Carlton had a specific allocation related to septic tanks, noting that Lake Harris had the most at about 402 pounds per year that the State would like the County to remove. He displayed a map with springs in the county and pointed out Silver Springs, Volusia Blue Springs, and Wekiva/Rock Springs, and he then showed a list of the outstanding Florida springs in the county; furthermore, there were two sinks in the county. He clarified that phosphorus was considered in regards to lakes and water bodies, and nitrogen was considered with regards to estuaries and groundwater. He showed a map of the county which noted the areas covered by service areas from cities or another service agency, noting that the County would have to have an agreement with them to do a septic tank program. He mentioned that there were about 67,000 septic tanks identified within the county, and he relayed information about the number of septic tanks in different areas. He explained that wastewater treatment included centralized systems and decentralized systems, noting that a DWTS was both decentralized and centralized. He showed a diagram of a standard septic tank and explained its process, mentioning that there was little nitrogen treatment and most of the phosphorus treatment occurred within the drain field; additionally, this was permitted by FDOH, but there were no required inspections or maintenance. He said that adding air to a standard septic tank would be an aerobic treatment system, and he displayed a diagram of this; additionally, these systems provided more nitrogen treatment of 20 to 30 percent, and FDOH required two inspections each year. He stated that engineered septic systems had a defined treatment efficiency, such as 50 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus, and could include the introduction of air, a filter, or circulating it. He elaborated that these systems had to be monitored and inspected twice per year and were permitted by FDOH. He explained that DWTS, or Onsyte systems, already had air coming into it, and had a cell system to relay what the flow was. He added that it also monitored the levels and had a recirculating pump to retreat the water multiple times and get removal efficiencies as high as possible. He elaborated that it then went out to a drain field, and he showed an image regarding permitting. He said that for a typical septic system, it was one permit per one house with one tank and drain field; additionally, with a DWTS, everything could be under one permit. He showed a chart for nutrient removal efficiencies for different systems, pointing out that phosphorous was treated within the drain field; therefore, the removal would be roughly equal, along with oxygen demands and suspended solids. He mentioned that the difference was the removal of nitrogen with 30 percent removal for a regular septic tank, 59 percent for an aerobic septic tank, 64 percent for an engineered septic tank, 80 percent or greater for a DWTS, and 80 to 99 percent for treatment plants. He also said that some septic systems around lakes were older and may not be in the optimal condition. He displayed an image with the estimated costs for residential septic systems and noted the following: $13,000 for a conventional septic system without a mound, and up to $18,000 with a mound; between $25,000 and $30,000 for advanced treatment systems; and around $15,000 for installation of a DWTS, though this could increase to $18,000 to $20,000 if the drain field needed to be replaced. He stated that for maintenance costs, it cost about $435 per year to inspect an advanced treatment unit, and around $600 per year for a DWTS to repair the system in perpetuity. He explained that with septic systems, one had to have the following items: one-half acre per house; no more than four lots per net buildable acre; setbacks from water wells and water bodies; and a certain amount of effluent that could be created. He said that with a DWTS, the requirements were based on the future land use (FLU), commenting that more than 50 units would require a planned unit development (PUD) and central water and sewer; additionally, a DWTS would meet this requirement per the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). He added that the setbacks and the waste produced would be the same, but it had to be treated within the engineered system. He indicated that for planning and zoning regulations, the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) required mandatory central sewer and water within the Urban FLU series, which could be met by a DWTS; additionally, one unit per acre could still use septic tanks. He added that one would be required to connect if they were within 300 feet of water or 1,000 feet of sewer, and that there were currently no Land Development Regulations (LDR) that addressed septic tanks; furthermore, the only required item was a basic septic tank. He listed the following pros for DWTS: utility would provide maintenance; one master permit; reported flows; effluent was sampled; it was scalable; no piping network; and one would also not have to build a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity. He then listed the following cons: utility owned and maintained in perpetuity; effluent concentrations were not currently regulated; only worked within the County’s service area, noting that they would need agreements with the Cities to do this outside of that area; no additional removal for phosphorus; regular flow needed to maintain removal efficiency; must have a licensed operator and a way to bill for it; and would be unable to disconnect the utility service. He said that one option would be for the County to keep doing what they were doing with FDOH, or that they could consider a new code that would require some amount of treatment. He mentioned that the third option would be for the County to become a utility, and he believed that a referendum was required to create a utility; furthermore, staff would have to operate it, or they would have to contract with someone with operators, and they would need a billing mechanism. He mentioned that FDEP had a grant opportunity which was due in two days for this, noting that Onsyte had provided language for a grant application for a system like this. He elaborated that it was a 50/50 match, noting that they could fund about 50 septic tanks for roughly $500,000; however, they would have to match whatever funding amount that they asked for.
Commr. Campione said that she was thinking that the County could make their match using ARPA funds.
Mr. Earhart confirmed that utilities were allowed to be used for ARPA funds, noting that there were also St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) grants which could be used to augment the FDEP grants; furthermore, they could ask for funding from the homeowner.
Commr. Campione referenced a map that was shown and expressed concerns that there were five parcels with septic tanks within 656 feet of Lake Carlton, and about 1,000 parcels with septic tanks within 656 feet of Lake Harris.
Mr. Earhart displayed a map and said that it included the four lakes that FDEP, through their BMAP, had indicated that they would allocate phosphorus loading for, due to them not meeting their desired concentrations or levels of use.
Commr. Campione asked if this would have any impact on the phosphorus load.
Mr. Earhart believed that many septic tanks around the lakes were older and likely had not been maintained; therefore, updating them could provide some phosphorus treatment.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that phosphorus did not go very far through the soil when compared to nitrogen, and that phosphorus was not as big of a concern when coming out of a septic tank.
Mr. Earhart explained that there was generally not a phosphorus plume and that the drain fields and the soils addressed the phosphorus; however, nothing really did anything to the nitrogen in the soils, and there were nitrogen plumes from septic systems. He commented that the treatment really happened in the drain field. He also believed that they could receive BMAP credits for replacing an old septic tank.
Commr. Campione inquired if they would receive more credit if it was a DWTS.
Mr. Earhart relayed his understanding that they could receive somewhat more credit if it was a DWTS, and that it could cost less to do than a septic system with a mounded system. He added that a septic system or DWTS would have to be 75 feet away from a well.
Commr. Campione asked that if they submitted a grant application, was staff envisioning that it would be where they would identify the most problematic areas or the areas that they could have the most impact on, and offer residents the opportunity to make this change if the County could fund it.
Mr. Earhart confirmed this and said that they could identify any area that they wanted, relaying that FDEP was interested in smaller communities doing this to get started. He said that the map showing septic tanks was based on 2018 geographic information system (GIS) data, noting that it confirmed 20,000 septic tanks and that there were 40,000 that they thought were there; furthermore, this was how they got to the 60,000 estimated number.
Commr. Campione said that one idea she had was to possibly use the Wekiva/Rock Springshed area as a pilot for the DWTS due to what was occurring on the Seminole County side. She added that the County could serve as the provider or team up with another entity to help with this.
Commr. Parks stated that DWTS could help them with the BMAP areas, and there could be partnership opportunities with the Cities for other areas around the Outstanding Florida Waters.
Mr. Earhart relayed that staff thought that the Green Swamp likely made sense because there could not be pipes running there. He also mentioned the Sorrento/Wekiva River Basin area, which was still separated. He opined that in the cities, it was probably better to extend the piping systems to fill those gaps.
Commr. Campione said that the County could possibly use ARPA funds as a match to try to get the State grant, and then see if they could get residents to participate.
Commr. Parks commented that he was thinking about the next step when it came to new subdivisions of 50 or more units in the unincorporated county, which could have an impact on water quality depending on the area. He stated that this could be an option and that there could be a code change to require it for those new subdivisions.
Mr. Earhart said he was not sure that there would have to be a code change, recalling that the Lake Nellie Crossing PUD was proposed with the same type of system. He said that the code already indicated that if there was over 50 units, then they were required to have central wastewater; furthermore, this system was already defined by FDEP as a central wastewater system.
Commr. Campione asked how a development near Lake Dalhousie was approved without this system.
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, stated that a few developments had built in waiver requests for the utility provision when an applicant had demonstrated that utilities were not available.
Commr. Parks said that it sounded like the Board could ask staff about this when they were reviewing a PUD request for a subdivision in unincorporated Lake County, noting that the BCC could deny a waiver request for central sewer.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that they were almost obligated to say no because this system had not been approved by FDEP. She added that as long as the County put items in place to make this available, then in the future any development over 50 units could possibly have to do this.
Commr. Smith remarked that they would have to ask staff to determine who would be the utility provider, noting that it could be the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA), the County, or the HOA for the PUD.
Commr. Shields stated that for every new subdivision, there could possibly be a separate MSTU to cover stormwater, roads and septic.
Commr. Parks opined that for a 50 unit subdivision, now that this option was available, the County could say that they would not grant a waiver request to not provide central sewer.
Mr. Earhart relayed his understanding that the County would own the utility, would require the developer to do it, would contract with FGUA, and would collect the funding to pay for this.
Mr. Jeff Littlejohn, with Onsyte Performance, explained that FGUA was a public utility in the eyes in the State, and that they contracted with private companies to operate their utility infrastructure. He added that they operated a dozen or more systems in Lake County currently, that they had an enterprise utility area for Lake County, and that all of the systems were incorporated into that enterprise and had uniform rates. He mentioned that his organization was currently serving FGUA and that the treatment unit at the Lake Apopka field station, south of the City of Mount Dora, was currently owned and operated by FGUA and permitted by FDEP; additionally, the FGUA service territory was currently the entirety of Lake County. He relayed that a scenario would be a 50 unit development coming in and the developer not receiving a waiver because DWTS was available for Lake County; furthermore, if that development entered into a utility agreement with FGUA, then the developer would purchase the equipment, have it installed, and turn it over to FGUA which would then be the long term owner and operator of the utility equipment. He added that the homeowners would become sewer and utility customers of FGUA and would pay monthly fees to FGUA under the enterprise rate established for Lake County, and FGUA would pay to operate and maintain the equipment out of those sewer fees; additionally, an HOA would not be involved in this scenario.
Commr. Parks thought that this would make it simple and that it could be good for water quality protection in the county for future development, along with opportunities with ARPA funding to get some existing homeowners retrofitted.
Commr. Smith expressed support for using ARPA funding for an individual who wanted to switch their old septic to this, but not for a development.
Commr. Campione commented that one downside was that people would have a bill, which they did not have currently. She thought that they had a great solution for new projects, and then the County could possibly make this part of their grant offering for people in the county who wanted to have this more enhanced system. She thought that the alternative, which they could possibly have better success with, was offering the septic and drain field replacement in the places with the most issues.
Commr. Shields stated that the County had previously maintained the well on his property, that they had offered an opportunity to hook up to public water for $10 per month, and that when he would have had to replace his well, the code had changed and it would have cost him significantly more than the $10 per month bill. He said that the County could possibly do something similar to this.
Commr. Campione said that paying the bill could mean that they would not have any other maintenance, whereas there could be other issues with septic.
Commr. Parks commented that residents could be made aware that the State could keep changing the standards and that it may be more cost beneficial to them to make the change to DWTS. He then asked about legislative trends with further regulation of septic tanks, etc.
Mr. Littlejohn replied that a large piece of legislation had already been passed. He elaborated that Senate Bill (SB) 712, which was 2020 legislation, transferred the responsibility for septic tank permitting from FDOH to FDEP, noting that this took effect 12 days prior to the current meeting. He explained that FDEP currently had authority to regulate septic tanks in the state, that the permit processor would still be a County FDOH employee, that their paychecks would be issued by FDEP, and that FDEP would oversee permit decisions and review waiver and variance requests. He added that there was also a new obligation for the department to consider nitrogen pollution in its permitting decisions, opining that one would start to see some denials; additionally, FDEP had to rollout a complete revision to the State’s septic tank permit rules and that this had to be ready to take effect on July 1, 2024. He mentioned that there were many vulnerable aquifers in the county, in addition to Outstanding Florida Waters and lakes and rivers that were impaired for nitrogen. He noted that DWTS was a lower cost alternative that the government could provide as a service.
Commr. Parks asked him if he saw them getting to a time where for a conventional septic tank it would be required to provide a proof of payment for getting it pumped.
Mr. Littlejohn opined that voters disliked the idea of the government requiring one to do an inspection or anything in their backyard. He opined that there was not a significant environmental benefit to a septic tank and a functional drain field, noting that if one was in a nitrogen-impaired area, the County would want to get that out of the hands of the homeowner and move them into a sewer program.
Commr. Campione asked about putting together a grant application without it coming back to the BCC.
Ms. Marsh noted that the Board had recently changed its grant policy so that the Chairman or County Manager could sign grant applications; furthermore, if the grant was awarded, it would come back to the Board and they could accept or reject it. She added that the Board did not need to take any action on this other than directing the staff by consensus to submit the application.
Mr. Schneider explained that there were different grants to apply for. He elaborated that one was for innovative grants and one was for standard septic tank replacement or a septic/sewer grant.
Commr. Campione inquired if they could do a hybrid or combination.
Mr. Schneider responded that they should be able to include some generic language, ask for a couple million dollars, and see what would come of it.
Commr. Campione mentioned focusing on the areas with the most issues.
Mr. Schneider said that for DWTS, he was unsure how well it would work if individuals wanted to be on it, and that some of the other systems might be more effective; however, the DWTS would probably work well if they could get a number of residences or businesses in one area onto the system. He mentioned that once the County owned the system, they would have to dig up the yard if they had to replace or repair the system, noting that they may need easements or agreements with the owners if the County was going to own the system on private property. He said that it could likely be easier with new developments and that it could be easier to get to for repair or replacement.
Commr. Campione said that they could evaluate a property, noting that one system might be better than another; furthermore, she thought that the County should write this so they would have that flexibility. She also thought that if they worked with FGUA, then they would be responsible.
Mr. Schneider said that the County would have to discuss this with them.
Commr. Parks noted that the management was already there and that the County did not have to create something new, other than requiring it. He expressed interest in maximizing the grant as much as possible.
Commr. Campione commented that this grant would allow them to offer this to residents to retrofit. She added that they could match it with ARPA funding, but then the resident would get 100 percent if they were willing to do the replacement; additionally, the issue with subdivisions would be that going forward, the County would require the DWTS.
Commr. Blake asked about the useful life of the upgraded systems.
Mr. Schneider opined that if one maintained their system, then it would typically have a long life. He added that the utility agency would maintain it.
Commr. Campione pointed out that this would included with the bill that they would pay each month, opining that this could be a significant selling point to residents.
Mr. Schneider said that if the County wanted to become a utility, then they would want to hire an expert to look at rates, how to operate the utility, etc.
Commr. Blake asked about the advanced upgraded drain field, recalling that this had been proposed for a previous rezoning case and that it was not as large of an economic impact.
Commr. Parks noted that this could be an option for a homeowner.
Mr. Bill Ray, President of Ray and Associates, explained that this had been cellulosic sequestration of nitrogen, which was a designed alternative approved by the State where one put in a woodchip bed under the traditional drain field to sequester nitrogen from the drain field. He relayed his understanding that it worked at about a 60 or 70 percent reduction rate, and there was an expected life which was recommended to be checked at 10 to 12 years; therefore, there was a maintenance cost with this system. He added that it at that time, the local FDOH would have had to implement regulations to approve this at the local level.
Commr. Blake mentioned that there were stakeholders in the community that might want to weigh in on this before the Board made a decision.
Commr. Campione said that for new development, the Board was interpreting the rules and that this could be an option offered in the future. She thought that the Board was looking for consensus for staff to put together a grant application to offer to residents that wanted to do this voluntarily.
Commr. Smith stated that if the residents wanted it on a voluntary basis, then they would have to agree to a monthly cost and an individual going to their property to inspect; therefore, he did not see any harm in having staff go forward with it.
Mr. Schneider clarified that staff could apply for two types of grant applications through this process.
Commr. Campione thought that the County could possibly use ARPA funding to hire a consultant if needed.
Mr. Schneider said that if Lake County became the utility operator, then this was where they would need some legal assistance.
office of communications update presentation
Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, presented information related to the two positions that his office was requesting for FY 2022. He said that in 2019, Lake EMS was transitioned to the Lake County government, and that since 2020, 42 firefighter positions were added; additionally, much of the growth could be attributed to the federal Staffing For Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, and the 12 new positions added when the City of Mascotte and City of Fruitland Park fire rescue teams joined the Lake County Office of Fire Rescue. He explained that his office supported their first responders through public safety messaging, public education, media relations, building public rapport and reputation, and supporting the hiring and attraction of new talent for firefighters. He explained that the public information officer’s (PIO) responsibilities included the following: acts as a buffer on scene between personnel and media, and facilitates briefings during extended incidents; helps to gather details and coordinate the timely dissemination of information; and understand the public demand for information and how to balance it with departmental interests. He commented that having these positions would help to improve their ability to provide onsite PIO support when needed, and ensure that regular communication continued to meet the public’s expectations for information. He said that some of the challenges they had with their current staffing level included supporting departmental objectives for public communications; providing on scene support as needed; and balancing competing priorities. He added that with the growing demand for public information in all the areas they served, it was increasingly more challenging to provide PIO support on scene given the large footprint of the county and the reactive nature of emergency incidents. He elaborated that it was also challenging to balance these priorities, and that this was something they experienced with the photographer/digital asset coordinator position. He stated that visual content played an important role in their communications strategy for the following reasons; it takes the brain one-tenth of a second to understand an image, while reading 200 to 250 words takes an average of 60 seconds; people are six times more likely to remember visual information than they are to remember what they read or hear; and content with relevant images received 94 percent more views than content without relevant images. He remarked that the data spoke to their audience’s preference for receiving information, and that these figures were consistent with their internal metrics, in addition to the reason why they seldom posted content without visuals. He mentioned that the photographer/digital asset coordinator’s responsibilities were primarily to capture and edit still and motion photography for use in digital and print media, and to manage the County’s digital asset library for the organization and distribution of digital assets. He then listed the following challenges with their current staffing level for this: meeting the demand for public information; quality control and brand management; missed coverage opportunities; and a backlog of production projects. He said that this could include two events happening simultaneously that required coverage, and that it was negatively impacting their ability to communicate in a timely manner. He relayed that they currently had a backlog of production projects which did not include the projects that they had rejected or deferred due to the current workload, and that some of the missions they served included the following: parks; quality of life; public safety; internal communications; tourism; animal services; economic development; and library services, among others. He added that another challenge was transparency, opining that they did a good job with this and making sure all of the information was available, though it was different when people could see that they were working on roads or that the animal shelter was having an adoption program, etc. He recalled that the Board had previously discussed the possibility of contracting, noting that his office had looked into this and that a rule of thumb in the industry was that it cost $1,000 per finished edited minute of video footage. He added that in the previous year, the Office of Communications delivered over 215 minutes of produced video content; therefore, based on this benchmark, it could cost about $215,000 to match this level of production. He elaborated that this also did not include the photography and some of the administrative preproduction tasks. He explained that most of the videos they produced were one to five minutes long, including animations and title graphics, which could also increase costs when contracted out. He said that their multimedia coordinator also provided still photography for use in social media, email outreach, digital delivery, event coverage and print graphics. He stated that because their position was internal versus contracting, they were able to coordinate interviews and scout sites, and with knowing their communications goals they could also help with preproduction and scriptwriting. He remarked that in addition to providing video and photography, the new position could also manage their assets and share those assets with agency partners, the community and businesses. He reiterated that the industry standard cost for the video content they put out in the previous year was $215,000, noting that the total fiscal impact internally for this position was only $72,700 for the past year. He displayed their proposed budget which showed the increases based on the two proposed positions, noting that the increase in operating expenses of 28.97 percent was mostly to support to those new positions and would not be a reoccurring charge.
Commr. Smith asked how this was broken up between the General Fund and the TDT, and Mr. Cooper said that several of their positions were partially funded by TDT.
Commr. Smith then inquired why it could not be a 50/50 or 75/25 split with the two positions.
Ms. Barker relayed that because the PIO would have a public safety concentration, it would be split with fire rather than TDT, and then the photographer/digital asset coordinator would be a split cost. She said that this could be evaluated each year to review where they were spending a majority of time, noting that it could be readjusted annually.
Commr. Smith asked how many PIOs they had currently, and Ms. Barker indicated that there was only one and that another was being requested. Commissioner Smith then inquired if it would be strictly for the fire department.
Ms. Barker clarified that the concentration would be for emergency management, fire rescue, EMS and all of their public safety departments.
Commr. Smith stated that he did not see this being 75 percent of the day and that if they could balance it more, then it could reduce the General Fund budget, opining that the TDT was paid by visitors and not residents.
Commr. Parks asked where they stood with an option with Lakefront Television (TV), relaying his understanding that it cost $1,000 per minute of video but that a partnership and $50,000 could possibly get them twice the number of minutes on some events such as trails, roads and covering significant BCC decisions.
Ms. Barker replied that she had spoken with Lakefront TV and received a quoted price of $4,500 to $5,500 per month for two videos per month; furthermore, this would be one short video of about one to two minutes, and one video of about five to seven minutes. She added that this came out to be about the cost of a position, and that their current staff position had produced about 215 minutes in the previous year. She added that staff looked for opportunities to partner with Lakefront TV to ensure that they were sharing content, and that staff was reaching out to Lake-Sumter State College (LSSC) regarding what they were working on in their studio.
Commr. Parks commented that if the Board moved forward with this, they could possibly see essentially double the amount of content and would be able to focus on issues such as roads month after month.
Ms. Barker explained that the intent was to get more specialized messaging rather than just event presence.
Commr. Smith inquired if LSSC had a program and if the County would get an intern partnership with them.
Ms. Barker confirmed that they had a new program and said that they were working on a new curriculum.
Mr. Cooper stated that staff was exploring their options for trying to expand what they were doing in the most fiscally responsible way. He mentioned that they had met with Dr. Stanley Sidor, President of LSSC, and had discussed the emerging media class; additionally, staff was looking at the possible use of ARPA funds.
OTHER BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Mollie Cunningham to the Planning and Zoning Board as the School Board Representative, along with the applicable waiver.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Evelisse Bookhout to the District 1 seat and to reappoint Ms. Trella Mott to the District 4 seat on the Children’s Services Council, along with a waiver for Ms. Mott.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board: Mr. Sean O. Johnson (seeking reappointment) for District 1; Mr. Eric Jacob White for District 2; Mr. David Clutts (seeking reappointment) for District 3; Mr. Michael Matulia (seeking reappointment) for District 4, along with a waiver; and Mr. Andrew LoFaro (seeking reappointment) for District 5.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE KEEP LAKE BEAUTIFUL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commr. Campione thought that Ms. CJ Blancett had experience in horticulture, arbor, and creating and defining spaces within common areas and communities.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the reappointment of Mr. Robert Olson and the appointment Ms. CJ Blancett as citizen representatives to the Keep Lake Beautiful Advisory Committee.
OFFICE OF EMS WAGE SCALE AND AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT PLAN
Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of EMS, presented information related to the Office of EMS wage scale and ARPA request. He said that this was in response to the previous BCC meeting when Mr. Alan Rosen, County Manager, discussed items including using ARPA funding for premium pay, the number of vacancies his office had, and moving up the pay scale change as quickly as possible. He displayed an overview of the missions accomplished in their office, and their organizational chart, noting that most of their positions were within the field. He showed a benchmark of different counties and pointed out the percentage of 65+ population, commenting that Lake County was up with large population counties for this. He also showed benchmarks for where Lake County was on the EMT and paramedic pay ranges compared to other counties. He indicated that Lake County’s pay scale was established in 2011 at 22 percent above the state minimum wage; however, they were currently only three percent above, noting that it changed to $10 per hour. He stated that being at the minimum wage was not an effective way to recruit staff and that they currently had 56 vacancies; furthermore, he mentioned that the Office of Fire Rescue was staffing two of their units. He showed a proposed EMS wage scale, clarifying that the maximum rate for a paramedic would be $19.50; additionally, these were the hourly rates for the 24/48 hour shift, commenting that this was a multiplier of 33/28 because anything over 40 hours was overtime. He displayed a benchmark for where they would end up for the EMT range, noting that it was intermittent. He stated that for the proposed implementation, the effective date would be July 18, 2021 and the expenditures for the current FY would be $300,000, which was in their budgeted allotment. He added that for the following year, they proposed that this would be a $1.9 million increase in their budget; however, they had worked out the opportunity to un-fund 16 positions, which reduced that cost by $1 million. He commented that this would still leave them with 40 full-time employee (FTE) positions to fill and that once they were filled, they could go from 17 ambulances to 20. He pointed out that they did not receive General Fund funding; rather, their funding was from patient transports and an allotment from the ambulance MSTU fund which went into the EMS fund. He displayed a workload comparison to other counties, noting that Lake County was at a 75 percent transport rate and that this was key to revenue. He also said that they had several units above the red line, which was one reason why they needed to work on recruiting staff to get more ambulances and spread out the workload. He stated that as part of the proposal for the ARPA funding, there was $1.5 million for EMS premium pay and that it would be a discretionary bonus of premium pay. He elaborated that they were looking at going back six months and evaluating a dollar figure per hour to come up with an amount for each employee, maximized at $10,000 per person. He added that they were also looking at a two-year commitment for a sign on bonus, which would be $8,000 for paramedics and $4,000 for EMTs, along with a $1,000 referral bonus available to all Lake County employees. He said that that the last item was EMT training and using it as a public jobs program, noting that they could use an agreement with Lake Tech. He then listed the following advantages of the request: increase retention; decrease overtime costs; discontinue the Office of Fire Rescue staffing EMS units; reduce mandatory overtime; decrease workload; improve morale; increase the number of staffed ambulances; and reduce response times. He displayed the requested action for the change in the pay grades and to use $1.5 million in ARPA funding for premium pay, bonus pay and the EMT course.
Commr. Parks opined that it was great that they were doing this. He relayed that the BCC understood the stress that the team was under and hoped that this could help.
Commr. Campione also hoped that this would help tremendously.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the proposed EMS pay scale for pay grades 175, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182 and 184, effective July 18, 2021. The Board also approved to utilize $1.5 million of the ARPA funding for the following items: to provide discretionary bonus of premium pay for EMS field staff not exceed $10,000 per individual; a two-year commitment recruitment bonus program; a sign-on bonus of $8,000 for paramedics and $4,000 for EMTs; a referral payment discretionary bonus of $1,000 for any County staff; and the EMT Academy for 20 EMT Trainee positions as a public jobs program.
reports
county manager
zoning meeting cancellations
Ms. Barker noted that the August 3, 2021 Planning and Zoning BCC meeting had been cancelled because the July 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board meeting had been cancelled due to Hurricane Elsa; therefore, they had no cases to bring to the BCC.
renaming portion of cr 455
Ms. Barker said that the City of Clermont was looking to have a portion of CR 455 renamed, and that they had offered the suggestions of “Champion’s Choice Parkway” and “Ray Goodgame Parkway.” She added that the City would like for the County to provide input. She mentioned that staff’s choice was “Champion’s Choice Parkway.”
Commr. Campione expressed support for “Ray Goodgame Parkway,” noting that Mr. Goodgame had served for many years on the Clermont City Council and had lived in Kings Ridge. She added that he was also very involved in the Lake-Sumter MPO.
Commr. Parks asked if it was just a portion of CR 455.
Ms. Barker clarified that it was a portion from SR 50 south to Hartwood Marsh Road.
Commr. Parks stated that he liked Mr. Goodgame and his passion for transportation, and that he thought that “Ray Goodgame Parkway” was appropriate.
July 27, 2021 BCC meeting
Ms. Barker stated that they would have a July 27, 2021 BCC meeting, noting that a couple of Commissioners would not be in attendance and that it was important to have a quorum. She elaborated that they had a few items that needed to be approved by the end of July 2021.
Commr. Campione asked which items needed to be approved.
Ms. Marsh replied that there was a housing item for a community development block grant (CDBG) amendment and that this was likely the biggest issue. She added that at the beginning of that meeting, the three Commissioners in attendance would have to choose a chairman and vice-chairman.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – district 1
community center in four corners
Commr. Shields relayed that he was moving forward with a possible community center in the Four Corners area, noting that Mr. Alan Rosen, County Manager, and himself had met with Mr. Jeff Cagan, who had land behind a hospital there. He added that he was also going to meet with Commissioners from other Counties in Four Corners and see if their Boards were interested.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
regional park in golden triangle
Commr. Smith mentioned that he had several meetings regarding a central regional park in the Golden Triangle, and that the meetings were moving in a positive direction.
BCC MEETING ATTENDANCE
Commr. Smith stated that he would not be in attendance at the July 27, 2021 BCC meeting.
commission district 3 workshop in leesburg
Commr. Smith reminded everyone that the Commission District 3 workshop would be at the Venetian Center in the City of Leesburg, on August 2, 2021 at 3:00 p.m.
commissioner campione –district 4
neighborhood lakes trailhead
Commr. Campione said that she had met Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, at the Neighborhood Lakes Trailhead. She encouraged the BCC to visit the trail, and noted that it was exciting to see it come to fruition. She also mentioned that she had a meeting scheduled on July 29, 2021 with stakeholders who were interested in what was happening there.
property on lake county side of wekiva river
Commr. Campione commented that the County had been trying to negotiate with FDOT to get a piece of property on the Lake County side of the Wekiva River conveyed to the County to have a canoe or kayak launch. She said that this seemed to be materializing because once the bridge construction was done, FDOT would not necessarily have a purpose for the land.
Ms. Marsh relayed that they were getting close to the end of that project and that it looked like they were possibly willing to work with the County on this issue.
Commr. Campione mentioned that people in that area had been asking to have access to the river; additionally, the idea would be for something passive.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
liberty tree ceremony
Commr. Parks thanked staff and the BCC for participating in the Liberty Tree ceremony.
joint planning with eustis
Commr. Parks mentioned the joint planning effort between the City of Eustis and the County in the Thrill Hill Area, noting that there was a meeting scheduled on August 23, 2021.
Commr. Campione said that the City had a meeting on the following Thursday, and that it looked like they would be discussing this again.
Ms. Marsh stated that she could send someone from her office to attend the City’s meeting.
Commr. Campione recalled that Mr. Rosen had attended the previous meeting and had made a request that since the City and County were working on joint planning, it would be better to hold off on these kinds of changes. She opined that getting rid of the rural land use would take this option away, and that getting rid of the joint planning area (JPA) map signaled that the JPA was not being honored.
Commr. Parks inquired if the County could have someone speak and mirror Mr. Rosen’s comments, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this.
thanking emergency management staff
Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, and the Emergency Communications and Operations Center (ECOC) staff for their job with Hurricane Elsa.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK