A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AUGUST 10, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 10, 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: Alan Rosen, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and said that he wanted to congratulate the United States (U.S.) Olympic team, adding that they did a wonderful job. He pointed out that one of the medalists was from Lake County, and that the Board wanted to honor them at a future date. He mentioned that school started on the current day, and he reminded everybody to drive safely. He then introduced Mr. Loren Blackwell, a Lieutenant in the Office of Fire Rescue, who had been with the County since 2004 and would be leading the Pledge of Allegiance. He said that Mr. Blackwell served in the U.S. Army from 1998 until 2003, and that Mr. Blackwell was a Sergeant with the 734th Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. He remarked that during his time on active duty, Mr. Blackwell worked on every type of ordnance in the world, such as hand grenades, improvised explosive devices (IED) and nuclear bombs, and that he conducted bomb sweeps for the Secret Service, the President and the Vice President. He then thanked Mr. Blackwell for his service.

Pastor James Elder, with the First Baptist Church of Umatilla in the City of Umatilla, then gave the invocation and Mr. Blackwell 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 Zoom Webinar for members of the public who 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 participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 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 read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments submitted during the current meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting.

Agenda update

Mr. Alan Rosen, County Manager, mentioned that the County added the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) update to the agenda since it was first published. He requested to pull Tab 11, which regarded a request from the Office of Housing and Human Services, from the consent agenda for discussion, indicating that more information had become available.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, requested for Tab 4 to be pulled and brought back at a future date.

Commr. Campione inquired about Tab 17, the Office of Animal Services update, relaying her understanding that the County was going to have a workshop with rescue groups and make it available and accessible, possibly at 5:30 p.m. at the Lake County Agricultural Center, similar to what had been done in the past. She requested that this item either be pulled, and or to receive the update but make it clear that they would follow up with a workshop and invite the animal rescue community.

Commr. Parks said that he would support that idea, adding that although there were no comment cards received on the current day, he knew that there were some people who had concerns and questions, and that this could be a good idea.

Commr. Campione commented that they wanted to be involved, opining that they were not currently in attendance because they were not able to attend. She thought that previously, the County had been successful with the Office of Animal Services and had made progress because they had an open dialogue and provided information. She mentioned that the County could learn from outside groups, and that policies could be modified if there was room for improvement. She said that others could learn the basis for some of the policies, and that it could foster better understanding and cooperation between everyone.

Commr. Parks commented that he liked the idea.

Commr. Smith said that he thought the County was going to do a workshop in the evening so that everybody could attend.

Commr. Parks proposed that the County could potentially hold a separate workshop, and that the Office of Communications and staff could provide this information. He commented that it could be scheduled as soon as possible, possibly at a different location.

Commr. Campione thought that the Lake County Agricultural Center could be the best venue, adding that the City of Tavares could also possibly let the County use their conference room at their public works building.

Commr. Parks stated that the County could do this, and he thanked the Office of Communications staff for agreeing to provide information as soon as possible. He then stated that there were speakers for the Tourist Development Tax (TDT) item and another item; therefore, he would move the TDT item up. He indicated that would also like to move forward with Tab 19, regarding The Village Center agreement, after the consent agenda, and then they could address the TDT item.

employee awards

Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County, as follows:

FIVE YEARS

Norma Barrow, Scales Attendant I

Public Works Department

Aaron Textor, Web Designer

Office of Communications

Addison Harper, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue

TEN YEARS

Nicole DeYarman, Program Specialist

Office of Housing & Community Services

FIFTEEN YEARS

Roland Breeden, Maintenance Technician II

Office of Facilities Management

Dwayne Henry, Program Manager

Office of Parks & Trails

Tommy Carpenter, Director

Public Safety Department

SPECIAL RECOGNITION

Lake – Sumter Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution

Paramedic of the Year Award

Cameron Hendrixson, Paramedic

Office of Emergency Medical Services

Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), introduced Mr. Cameron Hendrixson, a Paramedic with the Office of EMS, who had received the Sons of the American Revolution Paramedic of the Year Award. He said that Mr. Hendrixson had been a member of the Office of EMS since August 2014, that he had originally started as an emergency medical technician (EMT), and that throughout the process he had gone through paramedic school and their provisional program; furthermore, he was now stationed at one of their busiest stations in the City of Eustis. He added that Mr. Hendrixson was a valuable member of their team and provided the best medical care possible; additionally, he was always professional, courteous, and set an example for his peers to follows. He indicated that Mr. Hendrixson embodied their core mission values on and off the clock, and he that he was pleased to present Mr. Hendrixson as Paramedic of the Year for the Sons of the American Revolution.

covid-19 update

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Public Safety Director, provided an update on COVID-19. He said that the COVID-19 delta variant had mutated, and they had seen a sharp increase in the number of cases in the state. He commented that statewide, there had been 11,437 cases at the end of May 2021, with a positivity rate of 3.6 percent, and on June 25, 2021, there were almost 16,000 new cases with a positivity rate of 5.3 percent. He added that at the end of July 2021, there were 134,000 cases statewide with an 18.9 percent increase. He commented that while the numbers for Lake County were not the same, the positivity rate increase for the county paralleled the state; furthermore, the majority of positive cases were the delta variant. He noted that Lake County had 201,000 people who had been vaccinated with at least one shot, which was 61 percent of their age 12+ population, and that in the week of July 30 through August 5, 2021, 4,575 people were vaccinated, there were 2,100 new cases, and the county’s positivity rate was around 22 percent. He then said that the county’s hospitals were busy but that they had not made a request for assistance. He remarked that the higher percentages were in the 12-49 age range, noting that the delta variant was impacting younger people. He stated that the delta variant was believed to be twice as contagious as previous variants, and studies had shown that people with the delta variant may be more prone to be hospitalized. He mentioned that being vaccinated was a personal decision, and he opined that people needed to talk to their physicians or their peers about being vaccinated, commenting that 80 to 90 percent of patients in hospitals were unvaccinated. He also said that the mortality rate was fairly low and that people recovered, but that they could possibly be more ill.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that some people who were vaccinated were getting sick from the delta variant, but the mortality side did not seem to be as significant as what they saw when there were no vaccinations, and Mr. Carpenter confirmed this.

Commr. Parks commented that no Board member was mandating vaccination; however, he had received the vaccine, and he encouraged everyone to ask their doctor about it.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of April 27, 2021 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

commissioner’s boards and committees update

Commr. Shields reported on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and said that there was some concern that the County was renting facilities through their partners that were hosting events, which the County had paid for in the past with TDT revenue. He proposed that the County could possibly handle those contracts instead of the people who were awarded the jobs, and he commented that the TDC was also looking at the TDT. He indicated that their new marketing group had started and that it looked like they would do good work for the County.

Commr. Smith said that he was unable to attend a recent Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB) meeting, but that he had attended a Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board meeting on the previous night. He mentioned that this board was running smoothly and was moving in a positive direction, and he believed that each board member was a good fit.

Commr. Parks commented that he represented the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) Board. He displayed an image and explained that the CFX Board had spent time on the Brightline inner city rail system between the Cities of Miami, Orlando, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. He elaborated that the segment between the Cities of Miami and Orlando was being finished, and that much of the right of way released from the east coast to the City of Orlando was within the CFX right of way. He said that a question was which route would go between the Cities of Orlando and Tampa, such as if it went along State Road (SR) 417, which was CFX right of way, to the Interstate 4 (I-4) corridor to the City of Tampa. He mentioned that the question moving forward was if the route to the north would be taken, which was SR 528 and had Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and CFX right of way, noting that the route to the north was more expensive. He stated that they were studying both routes to see which was best, mentioning that Brightline was a business and was not government funded.

Commr. Campione commented that on August 4, 2021, there was Wekiva Wild and Scenic River System Advisory Management Committee meeting that she was not able to attend. She added that on the following day, there would be an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee meeting that she would be reporting about at the following BCC meeting. She added that she had several meetings with constituents, residents and stakeholders, including a meeting in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills area near the City of Leesburg and Town of Howey-in-the-Hills interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) areas regarding the Whispering Hills annexation proposal. She also indicated that she had a stakeholders meeting with the East Lake County groups, along with a meeting with the City of Mount Dora Mayor, City Manager and City Attorney which Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, and Ms. Marsh also attended. She mentioned that on the current night, she would have a meeting at RedTail with residents about issues impacting that community, and that she had a good meeting with Ms. Barbara Wheeler, Executive Director for the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, about an update on the homeless situation and affordable housing issues. She said that she also had a meeting with Mr. Scott Shepherd, an environmental expert, about the Onsyte Distribution wastewater system, and that he had some ideas that she would like to share with the Board regarding a potential policy for requiring an Onsyte system for unincorporated areas that did not have central sewer availability.

Commr. Blake said that the Children’s Services Council did not meet since the last time that he provided an update. He then reported that on the previous Thursday, he visited the City of Deland with Mr. Mike Woods, Executive Director for the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), to meet with Mr. Jared Purdue, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 5 Secretary, regarding their list of priority projects for the following year. He relayed that Mr. Purdue was complimentary of the Lake-Sumter MPO, noting that 14 of their top 20 projects were funded in the previous year.

Commr. Campione asked if there was any feedback on the issue of appropriations.

Commr. Blake confirmed this and said that Mr. Purdue cautioned the County about going around the MPO process.

Commr. Campione inquired if Mr. Purdue thought that items would have to be moved around.

Commr. Blake relayed that Mr. Purdue would not make a commitment on this, but that he requested some options.

Mr. Rosen said that staff had a recent meeting with Mr. Purdue, and that there would be an agenda item on the August 24, 2021 BCC meeting to discuss this.

Commr. Campione stated that it could be possible to use some American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to fund an appropriation, then not take that appropriation and leave their list of priority projects intact.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Lee Conger, a resident on County Road (CR) 44A in the City of Eustis, said that many residents in the Thrill Hill area were appreciative of the support from the BCC. She recalled that about one year prior, the BCC was informed about an annexation that was presented to the City of Eustis, and it was determined that it was possibly an illegal annexation; furthermore, to slow down the process, the BCC had voted to convey a 25 foot strip of land of the Lake May Reserve to a foundation. She elaborated that they had been able to open up dialogue between the County and the City of Eustis, and she thought that they would see some creative design and planning for their rural areas.

Commr. Parks said that the County and the City of Eustis would continue to have these meetings, noting that they were public meetings. He thanked the City for staying with this, and mentioned that there was another meeting toward the end of the current month.

Commr. Campione applauded the residents for attending many City of Eustis meetings, commenting that the issue kept being brought up and postponed. She expressed appreciation for what Commissioner Parks was doing, and said that she was hopeful that his meetings with City of Eustis Mayor Michael Holland could build consensus between the County and the City.

Mr. Gary La Venia, Fruitland Park City Manager, discussed funding for NorthWest Lake Complex, noting that it had been a successful venture between the County and the City of Fruitland Park. He said that the County had given the City $50,000 per year over the past four years, and they also funded the lighting at the park; additionally, the City had been an equal partner in contributing funding to this facility. He asked to increase the funding in the current year, or to consider a mechanism where they could take funding from future years and put it into this one year for $150,000 toward bathroom facilities. He opined that the park had grown so much that these facilities were necessities for need and safety, noting that the closest bathroom was across Shiloh Road. He stated that they were looking at between $130,000 to $150,000 for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant bathroom facilities, which included electric, water, construction, sewer, etc. He relayed that Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Lake County Office of Parks and Trails, thought that it was important for them to address the BCC, and he relayed that they had 250 kids in their soccer program in the current year; furthermore, they had an archery program, an increase in softball and tee ball, and there was a flag football program that they had been able to start.

Commissioner Chris Bell, with the Fruitland Park City Commission, thought that the partnership that Mr. Bonilla established with the Cities had increased the draw of the parks and the ability to serve the residents. He opined that the City of Fruitland Park had probably served more county residents than city residents, and said that they needed the bathrooms because of the success of the two soccer fields. He opined that it had become a safety issue, noting that the coaches had to escort the kids across the road to the current bathrooms and leave the fields shorthanded. He asked for this to be considered.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, 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 and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report

Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report of June 30, 2021 is hereby provided.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Parks commented that the Board had pulled Tab 11.

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 3 through 12, pulling Tab 4, and pulling Tab 11 for discussion, as follows:

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval of a Lease Agreement between Lake County and GTMJ Investment Group, LLC, for the Sheriff's substation located at 108 LaGrande Boulevard in Lady Lake. The estimated fiscal impact is $2,128.50 (one month) for FY21 and $25,542.00 for FY22 (expenditure). Commission District 5.

Request authorization for the County Manager to execute a Partial Release of Final Judgment of Foreclosure.

Request approval:

1. To file a Declaratory and/or Injunctive Relief Action Relating to Hoboh Lane naming all property owners along the road as defendants; and

2. To authorize the County Attorney to execute a letter of engagement with Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McClain & Mangan, P.A., to represent the County in the litigation.

The estimated fiscal impact is not to exceed $25,000 (expenditure).

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Extension Services

Request approval of employment of Brandon White as Extension Agent I, Commercial Crop Production and Food System Agent (Multi County). The fiscal impact is $13,226.44 annually, which is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Management and Budget

Request approval of reimbursement to the Lake County Sheriff's Office from the State Law Enforcement Trust Fund for expenditures authorized under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The fiscal impact is $26,401.60 (expenditure).

Request approval of reimbursement to the Lake County Sheriff's Office from the State Law Enforcement Trust Fund for expenditures authorized under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The fiscal impact is $138,210.69 (expenditure).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Housing and Human Services

Recommend approval for the County Manager to execute documents required by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the submission of the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan, and approval of Resolution 2021-112. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Works

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-113 accepting a portion of Cagan View Road (County Road No. 0162M) into the County Road Maintenance System. The fiscal impact equates to approximately $7,357 annually in expenditures. Commission District 1.

Tab 11: CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT HOUSING SOLUTIONS

Mr. Rosen stated that staff had wanted to place this item on the agenda and that they included the best information they had at the time, knowing that it could change. He relayed that for this project, he believed it was regular HOME funds rather than HOME-ARP funds.

Ms. Maria Abdoulkarim, Director for the Office of Housing and Human Services, explained that the State was currently accepting qualified allocation plans for the low income housing tax credit developments; additionally, the County had received a HOME allocation of $568,429 for HOME general funds. She said that this was separate from the HOME-ARP funds in the amount of slightly over $2 million, and that the County was approached by a developer who was applying for these low income housing tax credits, and that the application period would end on August 25, 2021. She stated that this was for 81 affordable housing units for seniors, which would be a phase two added to a phase one which had a successful development. She relayed that they were asking for $460,000 in a loan commitment, which was part of the State housing application process. She mentioned that after the consultant had reviewed the project, staff had attached the draft letter of what would be attached to the application for the State, as well as a contingency letter for additional elements needed to build this property. She clarified that if this project was not to be selected by the State, then the County would not be committed to the $460,000.

Commr. Smith asked about the total anticipated cost of the entire build.

Ms. Abdoulkarim, said that she did not have this information; however, staff sent all of the documentation to their consultant for review.

Commr. Smith mentioned that at $460,000, it would be $6,000 per unit, which he opined seemed significant for one project.

Ms. Abdoulkarim believed that they were also seeking additional funding from other sources.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that Commissioner Smith was asking about the total construction cost so that the Board could understand what this amount was in relation to the total.

Mr. Steve Smith, representing the project, explained that the total project was about $21 million for 81 units, and that the State had indicated that to receive priority funding, they needed a $460,000 commitment from local government.

Commr. Campione relayed that it was about $253,000 per unit, and Mr. Smith indicated that the cost for construction had increased significantly. Commissioner Campione then asked if this type of project had amenities or if it was strictly housing.

Mr. Smith clarified that it was phase two and that they had just completed a project for seniors only; furthermore, it had a full clubhouse with services, along with a pool. He added that the project which opened a few months prior was already full with a waiting list.

Commr. Campione inquired about what residents would have to pay per unit and how many bedrooms they had.

Mr. Smith replied that phase one was all one bedroom for individuals age 62 and above, and that they were paying $740 per month. He elaborated that the second phase would include one and two bedrooms, noting that the two bedroom units would be $810 per month, and that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) set the rental rates on the tax credits.

Commr. Campione mentioned a concept to use ARPA funds to create some affordable housing stock in the $700 per month range for rental, and she asked if the County could negotiate with him for a certain number of units that the Lake County Office of Housing and Human Services could use for placement.

Mr. Smith did not think that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) would allow this.

Commr. Campione thought that they could, noting that she had been involved in other projects where the agency that provided the match was able to designate a certain number of units for their needs.

Ms. Abdoulkarim explained that there would be a separate set-aside amount of units, which she believed would be nine units for very low income, with the rest being for moderate income. She commented that there would be a waiting list; however, they could accept vouchers for these units, and the home management piece would be restricted separately from the tax credit piece.

Commr. Campione thought that it would be helpful for the County to place some of their clients who could not afford more than the HUD voucher.

Commr. Smith indicated an understanding that this $460,000 was contingent on Mr. Smith receiving the other funding, and Mr. Smith confirmed this. Commissioner Smith then stated that this was similar to a loan that Mr. Smith would be paying back over 30 years.

Mr. Smith said that this was correct, but clarified that they would pay it back in 18 years.

Mr. Rosen inquired if it was a forgivable loan.

Ms. Abdoulkarim relayed her understanding that this was correct, reiterating that it would be through the regular HOME allocation rather than the HOME-ARP allocation.

Commr. Parks hoped that ARPA funding could be geared toward homeless mitigation and helping with attainable housing. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Housing and Economic Development (CHED) group also was trying to address the high cost per unit. He believed that the Cities should play a role in this activity as well.

Commr. Campione asked if Mr. Smith had built an impact fee waiver into his overall cost.

Mr. Smith replied that they would pay the school impact fees out of the $460,000 from the County. He added that for the building side, his understanding was that the County was allocating two projects per year for multifamily on the building impact fees waiver.

Commr. Parks recalled that they limited a program for this, though he was interested in looking at it.

Commr. Campione expressed interest in it coming off their amount so that they would receive credit for it.

Mr. Smith clarified that they had only requested the school side.

Commr. Campione thought that the school impact fees could be waived because it was an affordable housing project for senior housing.

Commr. Parks said that all impact fees could be waived for attainable housing and that the Board had the ability to do this.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that the County had a provision in the impact fee code that would allow the Board to waive impact fees for multifamily development if they met the affordable housing requirements.

Mr. Smith explained that the State wanted the funding to be provided to the development, and then the development would have to pay the impact fees as opposed to waiving them.

Commr. Campione questioned why there would be school impact fees since it was for individuals age 55 and older, and Mr. Smith clarified that there were not school impact fees. Commissioner Campione then commented that with the magnitude of the match, she was not interested in waiving transportation impact fees. She opined that Mr. Smith was doing something helpful but that there was also a business side.

Mr. Smith confirmed they would receive the funding and then pay back the impact fees required by the County.

Commr. Campione recalled that he had previously mentioned placing Lake County residents at the top of the list. She asked that if it was first come first served, what would happen if they were all Orange County residents.

Mr. Smith commented that they had made an offer that anyone who lived or worked in Lake County for the previous six months would have priority on the list.

Ms. Abdoulkarim explained that under their management piece, they would set up preferences for their waiting list to include preference points for anyone in Lake County.

Mr. Rosen read the recommended action to accept or decline the letter of support that would go to the project as they applied to the State.

Commr. Smith made a motion to approve Tab 11 with the understanding that the funds would not be released until Provident Housing Solutions had a State agreement, and that it be repayable.

Mr. Smith thought that the statute had already been set so that it was repayable.

Ms. Marsh inquired if Commissioner Smith was still amicable with it being forgivable at the end of the loan term so long as they complied with everything, but that it would be repayable if they did not comply.

Commr. Smith said that this was correct.

Commr. Campione seconded the motion but wanted to ensure that the conditions were included for priority for Lake County residents, and for a set-aside for very low income individuals which the County could utilize through the Office of Housing and Human Services to place clients.

Mr. Smith indicated that they would be doing an open house on September 8, 2021.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following items: a local government contribution in the amount of $460,000 to Provident Housing Solutions for the proposed development of 81 affordable housing units for seniors, located at 13550 Hunt Trace Boulevard, Clermont, payment of which is contingent upon the developer receiving funding through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program offered through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation; to reserve funding through the HUD HOME Program, provided project meets eligibility standards or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) allocation for this purpose if deemed eligible; and to authorize the Chairman to execute the Local Government Verification of Contribution Loan Form to be submitted with the LIHTC Program application. These items were approved with the understanding that the funds would not be released until Provident Housing Solutions had a State agreement, and that it be repayable; additionally, there would be a priority for Lake County residents, there would be a set-aside for very low income residents, and the County could utilize this through the Office of Housing and Human Services to place clients.

public hearing: renewal of the village center copcn

Mr. Jerry Smith explained that this was a public hearing and that it had been properly advertised. He said that this item was for the issuance of a non-transport Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, noting that it was a renewal for the The Village Center Community Development District, and that it would allow The Villages’ public safety department to continue servicing the citizens of Lake County.

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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved The Village Center Community Development District renewal of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity through September 30, 2023.

comments regarding animal services workshop

Commr. Parks commented that the Board had moved this agenda item and that they would have a workshop at a separate time. He noted that Ms. Whitney Boylston, Director for the Office of Animal Services, was in attendance, and asked if the Board had any questions for her.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Board wanted Ms. Boylston to go through the presentation to understand the current policies.

Commr. Smith thought that they should properly notice it as a workshop and address it when other people could attend.

Ms. Boylston mentioned that they had a robust presentation and that her office could answer any questions. She also thanked Commr. Smith for attending a recent Everyday is Caturday school event.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:07 a.m. until 10:23 a.m.

discussion relating to tourist development tax

Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for Economic Growth, presented a TDT update, recalling that when staff brought this to the Board in June 2021, they were asked to go to the TDC and collect their thoughts on a potential increase from a four to five percent TDT collection. He displayed the following information for the authorized uses for each percent under the Florida Statutes: the first three percents could be used for any purpose; the fourth percent was currently enacted for promotion and advertisement of tourism, and it could also be used for construction, reconstruction and renovation of facilities including a professional sports franchise facility, spring training facility or convention center; and the fifth percent was similar to the fourth but did not include convention center space. He showed benchmarks to compare Lake County with other Counties in the region, noting that Lake and Marion Counties were both at a four percent TDT rate, that Polk and Seminole Counties were at five percent, and that Orange, Osceola and Volusia Counties were at six percent; however, Lake County was unable to get to six percent because of their annual collection amount and some facilities they had, and the most they could receive was five percent. He showed a graph for estimated TDT revenue from four percent to five percent, noting that the increase from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2023 would be from $580,000 to about $850,000 annually. He displayed a slide with a projection for an estimated budget of $3.4 million, noting that they had been spending about two cents out of the four cents on marketing and advertising, an average of about one penny on capital, and slightly under one penny for personnel and operating costs. He commented that if this was projected to a fifth cent and if the County wanted to maintain the same amount of advertising, then the fifth cent would have to be dedicated to this, and one of the first three cents could be utilized for another item such as capital. He recalled that the TDT ordinance was discussed at the TDC quarterly meeting on July 19, 2021, and the TDC had recommended to oppose raising the TDT to a fifth cent with a 6-1 vote; furthermore, the TDC requested that this item be discussed at the upcoming joint meeting with the BCC on September 29, 2021 to further discuss the uses and strategy of the TDT, as well as potential projects that may be considered for TDT funding. He then relayed the main concerns from the TDC regarding capital projects: capital projects funded in past had not provided the promised return; the TDC’s view on the merit of projects in relation to tourism had not always been mirrored at the BCC; the TDC felt that some partners molded projects to get funding instead of bringing forward projects that they were working on specifically for tourism; and the TDC wanted to have the discussion regarding capital at the joint meeting in September 2021. He also indicated the following TDC concerns regarding the fifth percent of TDT: the lack of a specific plan for the additional fifth cent; the TDC did not think that they would approve a spending plan for the fifth percent even if there was a more specific plan; and the TDC felt that the Lake County Fairgrounds 50,000 square foot building did not represent a high return investment for tourism and was not large enough to host meaningful events, noting that Orange County had 500,000 to 900,000 square feet and that ongoing maintenance costs were not considered.

Commr. Parks noted that some TDC members were in attendance, and he confirmed that the current meeting had been advertised. He clarified that the joint meeting would be in September 2021 and that the BCC was not making any final decisions on the current day; rather, they were deciding whether to advertise an ordinance that would be heard in October 2021. He explained that the ordinance entertained the increase to five percent TDT, along with amending the spending plan on how the fourth or fifth percent was spent. He commented that if this item was approved or if the BCC moved forward with how they decided to use just the fourth percent, it could be reallocated more toward capital, specifically for trails and an expo center in the City of Tavares. He did not believe that there was an intent from the Board to not do advertising, nor did the Board want to raise property taxes to fund something that had been overwhelmingly supported by the BCC and other individuals to fund the trail plan outside of what they were currently asking developers to do. He remarked that most other surrounding counties had a five percent TDT, and that he had yet to see data indicating that going from four to five percent affected businesses at all. He recalled that for years he and Commissioner Campione had discussed the possibility of using TDT funding for trail construction, noting that he did not think that there was interest to use General Fund funding for this.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm if there was not a requirement in the capital category for it to be spent on an annual basis, and Mr. Matulka said this was correct. Commissioner Campione then inquired that if the hotel tax were to stay at four percent, one option was to reduce the three percent currently used for advertising and make it a capital category.

Mr. Matulka clarified that there was currently about two percent used for marketing and advertising, noting that the fourth cent had to be dedicated to advertising.

Commr. Campione stated that the third cent could be allocated to capital, though they could possibly go to five percent and keep the advertising funding the same while adding about $850,000 more to capital annually. She also asked about sponsorship funding.

Mr. Matulka replied that this was categorized under the marketing and advertisement piece.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the money provided to the Greater Orlando Sports Commission (GO Sports) then contributed to various venues.

Mr. Matulka relayed that most of these items would be bid fees for events that GO Sports was bringing to Lake County and different host facilities, noting that there were a number of events that they were recruiting on the County’s behalf.

Commr. Campione noted that they were discussing actual funding that went to events, venues, hotels, resorts, and to promote the events.

Mr. Matulka confirmed this and relayed his understanding that historically, the County did as much event sponsorship and co-op marketing as they did with their general marketing agency. He commented that they just went from $500,000 to $750,000 for this, and he believed that they had been around $750,000 to $1 million in terms of event sponsorships and co-ops.

Commr. Campione asked how they measured the effectiveness of print advertising and how they knew that they were getting a return on investment (ROI).

Mr. Matulka replied that their marketing agency provided much of their return and that it depended on which type of media platform they were using, such as tracking where people were coming from and how they were interacting with what was being provided.

Commr. Campione inquired if they surveyed people to find out how they discovered Lake County or events.

Mr. Matulka stated that this was not something that the marketing agency did; however, it was something that staff was looking into doing. He elaborated that there was a group in the City of Tallahassee that did this for tourism agencies, noting that the County’s marketing agency could compile this to have better information about the target audience.

Commr. Campione asked how GO Sports used funding that the County provided to bring in certain events.

Mr. Matulka explained that GO Sports was recruiting those events and that typically, funding that the County would give them was for something like a bid fee to win an event. He commented that someone such as Mr. Steven Clenney, Interim Director for the Office of Visit Lake, would work with the County’s partners, such as the Cities and host venues, to ask what they could do to help the County with in-kind pieces. He reiterated that the funding going toward those were primarily related to bid fees.

Mr. Clenney noted that these items were presented to the Office of Visit Lake for review, and the events were usually secured by a bid or were received through a request for proposal (RFP) process. He commented that many events that GO Sports went after were national or international governing bodies, and there were many Team United States of America (USA) type sports. He mentioned that an Olympic qualifying event for swimming had been held in the National Training Center, noting that the national or international governing body would send out an RFP to different destinations and list the obligations requested of the host or different venues; furthermore, GO Sports would review the RFP and present a budget for it. He explained that the return could be based off the actual visitors, total number of room nights generated by the event, or economic impact. He commented that the County would review the budget with GO Sports and see what would make sense for everyone, including local partners, and then the County would present it to either the TDC or BCC. He added that staff could also approve it if the funding level was under their purview.

Commr. Campione noted that an exhibit for GO Sports had a category of total economic impact, and she asked if this was based on a formula or if it was a whole impact to the community as a result of people coming in for those events.

Mr. Clenney replied that it was an economic impact model regarding an average daily spend on visitors, dependent on where they travel from to the destination. He commented that there were different spend metrics and spend amounts that were calculated onto this, giving the example that for a youth softball tournament, one would calculate the number of participants and visitors that were youth, and calculate the number of adults visiting and whether they were local, along with their distance from the destination, noting that each of these had a different spend metric tied to it.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if a for-profit group stayed, not only did the hotel or resort get the room night, but the community collected the TDT. She then indicated an understanding that if they were a nonprofit, then there was no hotel tax collected because they had a tax exemption.

Mr. Clenney confirmed this and believed that if they were tax exempt, then they would not have to pay the TDT or sales tax appropriated with these items; however, this was where staff looked at some other metrics for supporting some of the events, noting that the visitation itself impacted the greater good.

Commr. Smith requested data points for the September 29, 2021 meeting, including the average room rate in Lake County, and the percentage of Lake County property owners staying in hotels in the county. He opined that the Board was trying to do this for a myriad of items and that it was economic development-driven; additionally, if they could generate funds not provided by property owners, he believed that this was better for all of Lake County.

Commr. Parks thanked Commissioner Shields, noting that he had been the chairman of the TDC. He also thanked the TDC members.

Commr. Shields commented that his wife had sold many vacations in the past 10 years, being a property manager for vacation home rentals in three counties, with other counties being more expensive than Lake County; however, not once had a guest asked about saving one percent by moving to a different county. He said that it seemed to him that the County was leaving funding on the table with people coming to vacation in Lake County, noting that they were struggling to figure out how to address their trails.

Commr. Campione thought that it would be helpful for the County to bring their trails master plan to the joint meeting, along with information about what was on the plan and key locations that were integral to connecting to the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail and the Heart of Florida Trail, to discuss the economic benefit side of this.

Commr. Parks asked about what this number was and the linkages that would not be funded by current developers, noting that the County would be responsible for making those connections. He said that he County could have a map and some costs.

Commr. Campione mentioned the priority trails that were linked. She opined that some of those gaps were associated with the type of trails that brought people to the community.

Commr. Shields relayed that Osceola County took in $60 million per year in TDT revenue, and Orange County took in $300 million per year, opining that it did not seem to affect their economic development too much.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Gigi Lemon, a TDC member with The Big House sports complex, relayed that one of her primary concerns was that if the County was proposing something similar to fairground buildings or maintenance, then what was the need, who would it service, and who would perform the ongoing maintenance. She expressed interest in seeing which events had been funded with GO Sports at the joint meeting, noting that her organization looked for events to bring to Lake County. She expressed interest in seeing more indoor events, and for seeing how the five percent TDT would be used. She also indicated interest in if there were plans for future hotels.

Commr. Campione asked to include the different categories of events that the County possibly was not reaching out for, noting that they could potentially get additional events.

Mr. Jim Gunderson, a TDC member and owner of Lakeside Inn in the City of Mount Dora, opined that the Board’s sentiment regarding what they anticipated doing with the fifth cent was discouraging from a hotelier’s perspective. He opined that there was an oversimplification of what hoteliers did, how they drew people in, and how they serviced the tourism element of the community. He commented that Lake County benefited from tourism and that their ability to bring people in provided an interest for restaurants and attractions to develop. He thought that they were a broad county with many small communities, and opined that capital projects had typically not driven tourism. He commented that if they were taking the fifth cent and focusing it strictly on advertising and promotion, then they would have his attention; however, he said that investing in another capital program lost his interest in moving forward with this. He relayed that there was a large TDT reserve because people did not know they were going spend that funding or match those funds to drive it. He thought that if the Board was looking at the overall capital program and making decisions about what would be done with it, then it would start to make some sense. He also opined that two percent out of four percent was almost nothing. He said that the only thing Lake County had was its TDC to promote and help define Lake County in potential visitors’ minds; furthermore, he opined that the amount of spend they had was miniscule compared to other communities, though they had to try and stand out.

Mr. Alex Cooke, a TDC member and operator of Key West Resort in the City of Tavares, opined that the increased TDT funds in Osceola and Orange Counties became a source of funding for special interests and projects and that much of it was no longer used for advertising and tourism. He opined that it was not a victimless tax, noting that hotels were used for many purposes for local citizens. He expressed support for the trails and relayed his understanding that they were primarily used by Lake County residents, but he did not believe that it was a significant draw for tourism. He wondered if it would be a benefit for the Lake County citizens if the County did not approach them and ask if they were willing to pay for it, noting that it could be good for property values. He opined that the Board should possibly not be targeting a tax on a specific industry for the benefit of the county citizens. He also opined that raising the TDT would add to the price shock that some hotel customers encountered on a daily basis.

Mr. Bud Beucher, a TDC member and President and one of the owners of Mission Inn Resort and Club, expressed concerns what appeared to be a predetermined path that the Board wished to go on. He said that his hope had been that the Board would hold off on anything on the current day and give the TDC a longer opportunity to discuss something that impacted them and their businesses. He commented that the TDC had funded a classroom at the Lake County Agricultural Center and that it was not a tourist related building; additionally, they had funded items that were for tourists, opining that they had never denied anyone anything and that there was plenty of funding. He encouraged the Board to work with the TDC, noting that the TDC had a 6-1 vote against the TDT increase and that the people who voted no were experts in this industry. He asked the Board to give the TDC an opportunity to help the Board understand that there were ways to help them get what they wanted without raising the tax. He agreed with Mr. Cooke that taxes were not victimless, and he expressed concerns for taxing someone else so that they would not have to be taxed. He commented that they did not pay anything for road repairs in the county because developers were charged impact fees, and that over time less impact fees were charged; furthermore, currently none of their ad valorem taxes went to the repair, replacement and maintenance of roads. He expressed support for not rolling back the tax and recalled that as a founding member of the Lake 100, it was important to them that the Board had the funding to do what they needed to do to take care of them as citizens. He asked the Board to hold off on their vote.

Commr. Parks noted that the TDC members would not be limited to three minutes of comments at the joint meeting. He offered to meet with Mr. Beucher and relayed that he and other Commissioners often discussed this issue with staff. He said that the action on the current day would be whether to advertise an ordinance, noting that there was no final decision.

Commr. Blake relayed that he did not agree with instituting this tax, expressing support for getting rid of the tax and letting it be voluntarily collected.

Mr. Beucher clarified that he was asking the Board to delay advertising the ordinance until they knew more.

Commr. Campione asked if Mr. Beucher would be in favor of abolishing the TDT.

Mr. Beucher thought that the tax served them well but opined that they collected too much funding and did not have the capacity to spend it smartly; therefore, he opined that they should roll it back. He thought that the Board was committing themselves to something that the TDC was already supportive of, noting that they were supportive of the fairgrounds and trails; additionally, the TDC was prepared to help fund them to a level, though he opined that it did not warrant an increase in the tax. He listed several projects that the TDC had funded, and he asked the Board not to dismiss them.

Commr. Blake made a motion to table this item until after the joint meeting.

Commr. Campione seconded the motion and said that the Board could possibly advertise an ordinance after the joint meeting.

Commr. Parks commented that they could advertise it for October 2021 and then postpone it until December 2021; therefore, he was not in favor of the motion. He commented that it was up to the Board to decide how to spend the millions of dollars in the capital account, though they still had to address the issues of these facilities. He relayed that there was data indicating that this supported bringing people to the county, commenting that people were coming from south Florida and spending money there, along with other tourists. He stated that they could possibly steer the funding to items that were more tourist related, and that more information could presented at the joint meeting.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the Board wanted to dispose of the motion and continue to hear public comment.

Commr. Parks noted that he had one more comment card, and Commissioner Blake withdrew his motion.

Mr. Steve Bishop, a TDC member and Executive Director and President for the Florida Region of USA Volleyball, referred to Commissioner Campione’s comment regarding TDT and sales tax collected for youth and junior sporting events, clarifying they blocked hotel rooms for their guests and that they may buy a certain allotment of rooms as a nonprofit for staff and officials, but that all of their guests were paying the full sales tax and TDT. He estimated that 80 percent or more of all youth and junior sporting events were paying the full amount at the hotels.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.

Commr. Campione asked how much funding was in capital reserves currently.

Mr. Matulka believed that in the upcoming fiscal year in their special reserve capital account, they had the full allotment of $3 million that they were allowed to carry.

Commr. Campione proposed that at the joint meeting, the BCC could request the TDC’s approval to take this funding and put it toward trail priorities. She opined that the funding needed to be used and that the County had a use for it.

Commr. Parks agreed and relayed that he had a discussion with Dr. Kasey Kesselring, Headmaster of Montverde Academy and a former TDC member, that if the funding continued to be collected without being spent and if there was no plan for it, then why would the County be collecting it.

Commr. Campione noted that some projects needed a project development and environment (PD&E) study, construction funding or right of way acquisition funding; therefore, she thought that the BCC needed to request the TDC’s authorization to move forward with this.

Mr. Matulka mentioned that this funding was typically utilized for the capital project grant program for Cities, though this had been in a moratorium as COVID-19 had gone on. He added that the TDC had wanted to postpone this until October 2021, and that if the BCC wanted to utilize the special reserve account for trails, then the County essentially would not have that capital grant program for Cities.

Commr. Campione proposed to discuss some of these issues at the joint meeting, noting the discussion that some items funded in the past had not been impactful as far as bringing in out of town guests. She said that the funding was available and that it did not make sense to her why they would not put it toward a use that they knew was impactful, commenting that the Board had seen studies about places with trail systems that brought people in. She added that they could possibly have a small set-aside for the grant program.

Commr. Parks agreed and recalled that in the past, there had been some large awards to Cities. He opined that knowing the data, many or all of them had a good ROI; however, his view was that because the Cities had made it clear that they supported countywide trails, they would know that this funding would become smaller and that the County would simplify the grant program, such as if there was only $250,000 available per year for projects where a City could demonstrate that they needed emergency funding to get a tournament to their city.

Commr. Campione thought that if she was on the other side of this, she would not feel that it was right to advertise the ordinance when they had not had full vetting and discussion.

Commr. Smith clarified that his intent was that the Board talked to the professionals and saw what the cost and impact would be so that they would have a better understanding. He expressed that he was in favor of holding off on this item until after the joint meeting.

Commr. Parks commented that he did not see any reason to not advertise an ordinance, but that he could see the other Board members’ perspectives as well.

Commr. Campione remarked that historically, once an ordinance was advertised and they had a public hearing, the Board may not go through with adopting it, or they might change it. She indicated a preference to not advertise this ordinance, and then after the joint meeting they could decide whether to advertise. She expressed a concern that it could sound like a foregone conclusion if the advertising was done at the current time.

Commr. Parks noted that many times, the Board did not vote on items, or changed them, and he opined that it was not a foregone conclusion.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board tabled this item until after the joint meeting with the BCC and the TDC scheduled for September 29, 2021.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

developer’s agreement and annexation agreement with eustis

Commr. Campione commented that this was a City of Eustis issue and that with regards to the annexation requirement that the City had put forth, up until the current time the County had connected to the water for East Lake Sports and Community Complex and there had never been an annexation agreement requirement. She elaborated that the County paid the connection fees and that there were lines and a hydrant by the subject site. She suggested that as opposed to analyzing the cost of a well and an Onsyte distributed sewer system versus connecting, why would the Board not just approve the developer’s agreement for water but not the annexation agreement. She said that this item had not gone to the Eustis City Commission; therefore, this would be the time to send it back to the City and see if they could keep moving ahead without an annexation agreement.

Commr. Parks thought that the Board needed to hear the presentation on this item to see the cost.

Ms. Marsh said that it was up to the Board if they wanted to see the presentation. She remarked that there were two agreements that the City of Eustis had proposed for a utility connection and annexation agreement, and the Board could possibly only approve the utility connection, striking paragraph six because it referenced a mandatory annexation. She mentioned that they could approve the utility connection agreement and send it back to the City with a letter letting them know that there was a 2012 interlocal agreement between the parties which regarded some excess credits that the Lake County School Board paid; additionally, the Board could request that the City waive the annexation requirement at that time. She mentioned that the City had not taken either of these agreements under consideration and that they were waiting on the County to approve them first.

Commr. Parks assumed that the City of Eustis wanted the County to annex.

Commr. Campione noted that it had not gone to the Eustis City Commission and that the County had not had to annex before, commenting that it would only be a small piece of a larger park. She opined that it would not make sense.

Commr. Parks said that he was trying to avoid what could be prolonged meetings with the City and this being an issue. He noted that the City was asking for annexation; therefore, he did not see them saying that the County would not have to annex.

Commr. Campione questioned why there was never an annexation requirement before.

Commr. Smith relayed his concern for that if the Board approved the utility connection and sent it back for comments on the annexation, what would this do to the County’s projects for slowing them down or speeding them up.

A staff member with the Lake County Office of Fire Rescue did not think it would have any impact on them, though the utility agreement needed to be signed if this was the Board’s choice.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the annexation agreement was only for the fire station property, and was not the rest of the park or the school. She elaborated that the entire property was originally part of the 2012 interlocal agreement with the City of Eustis, and the City did not require annexation at that time. She was unsure why they were requiring it currently, other than if at some point they possibly came back with a policy to make everyone sign annexation agreements when receiving utilities from the City.

Commr. Campione recalled that when they did the interlocal agreement at the beginning, they had a master plan for this park area and that while they did not show a fire station, they showed a maintenance building in that location; therefore, it was always understood that there was going to be a structure there. She said that it seemed to her that this was a situation where the context and history were not considered, noting that the property had already been connected and that they were just adding another building; furthermore, ordinarily in the past they had just paid the additional charges associated with the number of bathrooms or water usage.

Ms. Marsh commented that the County had recently completed the concession stand and two restroom facilities there in the past six to eight months, that the City connected them, that the County paid the connection fees, and that the City did not require annexation to add those buildings.

Commr. Parks asked if Commissioner Campione was proposing to table this part of the item until the County received clarification from the City of Eustis as to whether they would require the annexation.

Commr. Campione confirmed this, and thought that the letter should state that they approved the utility connection agreement and that in the past, they have not had to sign an annexation agreement: therefore, they were asking that it not have to be a part of this connection. She pointed out that someone from the community had informed her that there was a large 10-inch well close to this location, and she said that she would do some investigation into this.

Ms. Marsh explained that the recommended option would be to approve the utility services agreement, striking the mandatory annexation provision in that agreement, and submitting this to the City of Eustis with a letter requesting that they waive the annexation requirement.

Commr. Parks noted that hooking up to their utilities was the less expensive option for the County.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to only approve the developer’s agreement for utility connection, and to strike the language in the agreement that pertained to annexation; additionally, the Board approved for the County Attorney to draft a letter making the request that this piece of property would not have to be annexed.

electronic game room facilities permitting update

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide an update regarding the electronic game room facilities licensing/permitting, and to request approval to advertise an ordinance to amend electronic game room regulations. He recalled that the previously unregulated game room facilities were creating several issues regarding law enforcement concerns and the Office of Code Enforcement, and that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) had over 60 complaints on record at these facilities ranging from breaking and entering to narcotics issues. He recalled that in February 2021, the Board had determined that these facilities had an impact on the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and that in March 2021 they elected to regulate these types of facilities. He explained that the Board allowed up to 25 preexisting facilities to move through the permitting process, and he provided the following information regarding the permitting: the Board allowed up to 25 facilities to apply for the permit, along with the associated application fees and yearly renewal fees; the initial application deadline was March 23, 2021; the County received 28 applications; each application had deficiencies; as of the current time, staff had issued all 25 licenses and these facilities were going through the building permit process; and since the deadline, staff had become aware of other preexisting facilities that did not submit applications, noting that the facilities did not realize that these regulations were in place at the time. He explained that the proposed amendments to the ordinance stemmed from the issues that staff discovered during the application review process, such as who was authorized to conduct criminal background checks, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) bonding requirements and affidavit requirements. He said that the proposed ordinance was more of a cleanup; however, it would be staff’s recommendation to consider increasing the number of licenses, or removing the cap on the number of facilities and limiting it to all of the preexisting facilities in operation prior to the February 2021 date. He added that in the future, the Board would see a Land Development Regulations (LDR) amendment to create a zoning land use category for game room facilities, and he requested approval to advertise an ordinance to amend Section 3-72, Lake County Code.

Ms. Marsh explained that the original ordinance required that existing facilities had to apply within 30 days of its adoption. She noted that the County had about 28 applications within the 30 day timeframe, and that one of the changes to this ordinance would be making it clear that those that applied but did not have completed applications as of May 31, 2021 would lose their priority status. She commented that the Board had limited it to 25 permits in the unincorporated area, but they would allow more than 25 if they were preexisting. She said that the County did not have a cap date on what point they needed to have completed applications, but after many months of trying to get completed applications, they had to draw the line so that they could be done with this process. She stated that out of the 28 applications, there were two that could not or did not submit completed information by May 31, 2021; therefore, they had been denied a permit. She commented that if the Board wanted to reopen this to people who were preexisting before February 23, 2021, then staff could adjust those dates by allowing them until the end of August 2021, September 2021 or another date to submit a completed application and prove that they were in existence. She noted that this was the first change, and that the second change was in the application requirements. She explained that staff found out after the ordinance was put into effect that FDACS would not accept bonds on these types of facilities and that FDACS did not consider them as nonprofit sweepstakes-type facilities; therefore, the County was striking that requirement. She mentioned that they were also modifying the criminal background check because they found out that the LCSO would not do criminal background checks; however, the County had established a process piggybacking off a contract with another County where the planning department was able to perform those checks. She said that the County had modified this to say that the applicant would have to give their full name, date of birth, physical address, social security number, etc., so that staff could do the check in-house. She commented that there was also a clarification on application fees and that the first year would be the $20,000 application fee, and subsequent years would be a fee established by the BCC; therefore, when staff brought back the annual fee resolution, the Board would set at that time what they wanted the renewal fee to be. She added that there was another minor amendment for the existing permits having to do with the application fee. She commented that these items were the major changes to the ordinance and that they came to light after staff was in the middle of reviewing, noting that it was time intensive to review these applications.

Commr. Parks asked if staff was proposing any additional permits and if keeping it at 25 was not changed.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and indicated that the Board could keep it at 25; however, if they wanted to modify the preexisting timeframes for people to apply or submit completed applications, staff could change this before they advertised it if the Board wanted to allow them an additional amount of time to apply and qualify for a permit, noting that they would get priority status so there could be more than 25. She relayed her recollection that when the Board had previously discussed the cap of 25, at some point in the future, through attrition the number would be brought down if these facilities did not renew or had their licenses revoked.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Kay Patel, representing the St. Paddy’s Sweepstakes electronic game room in the City of Clermont, said that they had been in business since 2014 and that they fell into the category of businesses that did not know about the new regulations. She said that she and her husband had visited the Office of Planning and Zoning, and that Mr. McClendon had informed them that they had to wait until August 10, 2021 due to 25 permits already being issued. She opined that she was not given a chance to apply for the permit, and mentioned that she had brought her lease agreement and over 70 letters and signatures from her customers and small businesses that they supported. She opined that her business provided an intangible asset to the community and that the customers never had a complaint. She asked for a chance to apply for the permit.

Commr. Parks asked to clarify if she did not submit the application in time.

Ms. Patel said that they never received notification that they had to apply during the time limit.

Commr. Shields relayed that the Board’s intent was not to shut down existing businesses, and that he was in favor of giving Ms. Patel a chance to address this.

Commr. Parks commented that the Board would need to see if they could craft the ordinance to have some leeway with these cases, noting that long-term he would like to cap the number at 25 facilities.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that staff could modify the paragraph discussing initial permits and existing facilities applying to remove the 30 days and leave it open; therefore, if they were existing, they could apply at any time but would have to show that they were existing before February 23, 2021. She said that she Board could also amend the ordinance to add an additional cutoff date to give these individuals another opportunity to apply, and then close that time period so that the County would not be having applications coming in constantly. She clarified that the County was aware of 27 or 28 facilities and that this list was compiled by industry representatives, the LCSO and the Office of Code Enforcement. She said that because they were not licensed facilities, the County did not have a way of knowing how many facilities were operating; additionally, she mentioned that ordinances were advertised in the newspaper. She reviewed the Board’s options and stated that the County had one application where it was questionable whether they were in operation before February 23, 2021, noting that they signed their lease about two weeks before that date and had provided power bills and similar items; however, the County returned it, noting that just because they had a power bill and their doors were open did not mean that they were actually in operation. She commented that the County was looking for strict proof that they were open and had customers and machinery.

Commr. Parks noted that if it was opened back up, then the County could possibly receive many applications; therefore, he wanted to be careful with this, noting that they had a special exception with this case.

Ms. Marsh commented that if the Board wanted to leave it open ended, staff could detail exactly what they were looking for regarding proof of operation, and this could make it more challenging for individuals who signed leases a few weeks before the ordinance was approved. She thought that staff could take this paragraph and add additional language regarding the proof or what they expected as far as operation and what that term meant.

Commr. Campione expressed interest in adding the additional language so that it was clear what they had to provide, as well as using another number so that if the County received more than five additional applications, then they would have to look at it again. She opined that having a cap allowed the Board to make a policy decision at some point.

Commr. Parks asked about moving the cap to 27.

Ms. Marsh clarified that they would not be moving the cap and that the cap was 25, noting that they had 25 permits issued; however, staff had two applications that were denied because they did not submit a completed application within a timely manner, and she believed that those were currently submitted but were in a holding pattern. She commented that the County would have those two, as well as Ms. Patel’s case as a third. She was unsure how many more might be in the county.

Commr. Parks relayed that he was comfortable to advertise the ordinance with what the Board had discussion on.

Ms. Marsh summarized that she would add what the County meant by “operation” and what they had to prove, and then she was going to leave it that as long as they could meet those items, then they could get the license; however, she recalled that Commissioner Campione had proposed to possibly open it to five more or that applications submitted by a specific date. She said that this was what she needed clarification on.

Commr. Parks suggested to possibly give leeway for two or three more.

Ms. Marsh recommended that if the Board was going to allow preexisting individuals who did not apply within the 30 days to come back, to just leave it and let them apply as they found out about it.

Commr. Smith noted that staff had a stringent requirement for proof and that he was amicable with leaving it open.

Commr. Parks thought that it was clear that they would find a way address Ms. Patel’s situation.

Ms. Marsh stated that Ms. Patel could submit the application, and she believed that this ordinance would come back to the Board at their next meeting for adoption; furthermore, once it was adopted and accepted by the State, the County would be able to process her application.

Ms. Patel asked how she would know when to reapply, and Ms. Marsh stated that staff could let her know.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to advertise an ordinance to amend Section 3-72, Lake County Code, entitled Permitting and Fees, to address and correct language pertaining to the Electronic Game Room Facilities, with the modification to add what the County meant by “operation” and what applicants had to prove, and leaving the number of facilities open.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 12:00 p.m. for 15 minutes.

presentation of fy 2022 infrastructure sales tax projects

Mr. Rosen recalled Mr. La Venia’s comments from earlier in the current meeting, noting that those requests ended up on the unfunded list; furthermore, if the BCC chose, then staff could place it on the funded list. He added that if the BCC liked those projects, the County did not have to fund the entire item in one year, noting that it could take two years.

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this item was to present the proposed five year project plan for the Infrastructure Sales Tax and discuss legislative priorities. She relayed that the Infrastructure Sales Tax was approved by voters in November 2015, that it would expire in 2032, and that it was distributed evenly between the County, the Lake County School Board and the municipalities. She commented that the referendum included the categories of public safety, quality of life, public works and other public infrastructure. She showed a graph of the revenue projections over the following five years, noting that the FY 2022 revenue projections included approximately $4 million in carryforward from FY 2021, which was attributed to revenue that came in higher in the current year than staff had anticipated; additionally, the FY 2022 Infrastructure Sales Tax revenue estimates were about $17 million. She displayed a list of projects that were funded in FY 2021 and that were in progress and/or would be rolled over into FY 2022, and she then showed a five year allocation by category. She began listing the FY 2022 funding allocations for the categories and displayed the five year plan for public safety, noting that it included $1.5 million for LCSO vehicles, $1 million for Office of EMS capital, $1.5 million for fire/EMS station renovations, about $1.8 million for fire apparatus, vehicles and equipment, $870,000 for the Bassville Park fire station, and $589,000 for the public safety tower and equipment. She then listed the following funding allocations for quality of life projects: $1.5 million for South Lake Regional Park, which was a partnership with the City of Groveland; $530,000 allocated to the East Lake Sports and Community Complex; $200,000 for South Lake/Hancock Trails; $200,000 for the Minneola Athletic Complex; $150,000 for Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Park for roads, parking and the path system; $150,000 for PEAR Park for improvements to the nature center; $140,000 for Twin Lakes Park; $100,000 for Lake Idamere Park; $100,000 for Neighborhood Lakes Trailhead; $75,000 for the buildings at Ellis Acres and $25,000 for the nature center, observation tower and multiuse field at Ellis Acres/Pine Forest; and about $33,000 for the Ferndale Preserve. She listed the following allocations for public works: roughly $3.4 million for road resurfacing and improvements; about $3.3 million for road infrastructure cost reduction programs; $860,000 for intersection improvements; $300,000 for sidewalks; and $300,000 for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) parking lot improvements. She said that for other public infrastructure, there was $30,000 for IT enhancements, about $326,000 for capital building renovations, and $170,000 for fleet equipment. She mentioned that there was little debt service and that it was on track each year for about the same amount. She listed the following next steps in 2021 for the Infrastructure Sales Tax: on August 24, they would have a public hearing to approve the FY 2022 Infrastructure Sales Tax plan; on September 14, they would have their first budget public hearing; and on September 28, they would have their final budget public hearing. She showed a list of different projects being funded through other sources, and she listed the following unfunded projects: the Central Lake Regional Park; the Four Corners community/recreation center; the Wellness Way Regional Park; the Conserv II Scenic Loop Trail; a multipurpose facility; a countywide resurfacing program; and a fleet/logistics building where they would be merging Lake County and Office of EMS fleet programs. She mentioned that staff would be working on the County’s legislative priorities over the next few months, and that the recommendations for what should be submitted included the following: project funding of $500,000 or less per project, due to having a better chance of receiving funding; projects with a local match; and projects that were fully funded. She showed a list of projects included in the Infrastructure Sales Tax plan with potential interest to the legislators, noting that if any of these projects submitted with their legislative priorities were funded, then the County could reallocate funding from the Infrastructure Sales Tax plan to other projects. She stated that for the legislative priorities, the next steps included the following: the first request on September 14, 2021; final consideration on September 28, 2021; the Legislative Delegation meeting on October 6, 2021; and the appropriation requests were due on November 16, 2021, noting that it was recommended to have their projects identified by mid-September 2021 so that they would have enough time to work with the sponsors.

Commr. Parks commented that this presentation was done each year and that the Board could have discussion about possibly moving priorities around. He mentioned that many things could be in play with ARPA, and that his perspective had been to wait and use as much ARPA funding as they could to replace items on this list, which could free up funding for roads. He asked about the action for this item.

Mr. Rosen said that it could be to accept or provide recommendations. He added that another project on the unfunded list was the request from the City of Fruitland Park, and the Board could approve this or include it in some way.

Commr. Blake thought that the Board had to make sure they were being fair in terms of commission districts. He said that for the quality of life category over the following three years, about $10 million would be spent; however, Commission District 5 would only be receiving about $95,000. He thought that this might be something to consider if there was any funding left over.

Commr. Smith stated that Commission District 3 was the only district without a regional park; furthermore, it was unfunded.

Mr. Rosen said that staff was working on numbers for this, and that they had received a request to review an agreement with the City of Tavares and the YMCA for one portion of the Central Lake Regional Park, noting the possibility of an east and west campus. He explained that the thought would be for the County to purchase and build out the property, and then turn it over to the City of Tavares. He mentioned that currently, the number he had was around $16 million, and that it was part of the strategic plan. He explained that the BCC could put funding toward this, and that they could also consider bonding it or saving funding for three or four years for that project.

Commr. Smith mentioned the growing population in the Cities of Tavares, Eustis and Mount Dora, and he opined that there was a need for it. He added that the east campus could fit between the two trails that would go there. He believed that the Board needed to consider starting funding a central park for Commission District 3.

Commr. Shields asked if he wanted to discuss bonding it.

Commr. Smith commented that there were many items they had to consider, but he at least wanted it on the books somewhere, noting that it was currently on the unfunded list.

Commr. Campione clarified that in the past, this was how the Board had been able to create a placeholder, move items up, or allocate funding. She noted that the project had been moved up from the master plan to the unfunded list. She expressed support for moving it to a funded category; however, she mentioned that Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, had done a great job with these types of projects through incremental funding.

Mr. Rosen explained that some items were on the list but had no funding, though when the Board passed the Infrastructure Sales Tax plan, the County could add funding to them without a public hearing.

Commr. Campione commented that in the past, the Board had started allocating funding each year, noting that items were pieced together for the East Lake Sports and Community Complex.

Commr. Smith expressed concerns that the Central Lake Regional Park was on the unfunded list when they had an opportunity for a public/private partnership and an existing facility.

Commr. Parks mentioned that they could potentially move some funding to that item and that ARPA funding could possibly help. He also expressed support for moving some funding to northwest Lake County.

Commr. Blake said that they had a great park in the City of Umatilla; however, a large portion of the population density in his district, Commission District 1, was on the west side of the district and was not benefitting from this. He expressed interest in being equitable within his district. He commented that in two years, there would be $200,000 for lighting and a path system at North Lake Regional Park; however, due to issues with access to inaccessible areas, he opined that it would make sense to move the funding around. He mentioned the severity of the issue at the NorthWest Lake Complex, and said that most of the people using that facility were county residents rather than City of Fruitland Park residents.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was consensus from the Board to move this funding for the NorthWest Lake Complex.

Commr. Blake said that he could meet with Mr. Bonilla regarding options for this item.

Commr. Campione asked if the Board’s position on ARPA was to not use those funds unless they received an opinion from the U.S. Department of Treasury. She said that she would think that an outdoor park used by many families that did not have a restroom would be a clear item to address.

Commr. Parks expressed support for maximizing ARPA funding as much as possible, and he hoped that they received answers soon; however, the Board could possibly assess some risk on this. He opined that some of these items were obvious for funding and would help significantly in this situation.

Mr. Rosen inquired if there were any comments on whether to move up the City of Fruitland Park request of $150,000.

Commr. Blake expressed interest in this, noting that the North Lake Regional Park had $300,000 programmed for FYs 2024, 2025 and 2026. He opined that to be fair, County had spent a considerable amount of funding on this facility and that some of it could potentially be spread around Commission District 5.

Commr. Parks said that this could be done, in addition to allocating $100,000 to show support for Commission District 3, with the understanding that it would be saved.

Commr. Campione inquired that if anything could be done or were they just trying to accumulate funds.

Commr. Smith indicated that he was trying to get movement so that as soon as a contract was signed between the County, the City of Tavares, the hospital and the YMCA, they could start immediately on improvements and programs within the existing buildings. He elaborated that they could add improvements on the 40 acres as they gained more funding.

Commr. Campione asked if there was a master plan.

Commr. Smith denied this but mentioned that they could use the current YMCA facilities as they were adding the improvements.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the funding had to be for capital.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they could allocate $100,000 year by year, but they did not have anything to spend it on for capital currently.

Commr. Smith indicated that pickleball courts could be installed.

Commr. Parks expressed interest in receiving a concept plan, and then the Board could start saving funding for this.

Commr. Campione asked if the first item the County gave to the City of Fruitland Park was $50,000.

Commr. Blake confirmed this and added that within Commission District 5, they had moved funding for additional improvements for the North Lake Regional Park to the NorthWest Lake Complex.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was any other funding in Commission District 3 that they could move.

Commr. Smith replied that there was the west campus of the Central Lake Regional Park, which was the baseball fields that could use a restroom, a concession stand and a parking lot.

Commr. Campione clarified that she was looking for anything that was programmed for Commission District 3.

Commr. Blake noted that PEAR Park had $300,000 for the following year.

Commr. Smith explained that the regional park in Commission District 3 had a west campus and an east campus, and that the west campus was designed and ready to go; however, the east campus was under conceptual design. He also opined that PEAR Park needed to go from 12 to 16 pickleball courts.

Mr. Bonilla recalled that on the previous day, they conducted a Parks, Trails and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, and that there was a motion by that board to support both the west and east campuses for the Central Lake Regional Park; additionally, included in the motion were the amenities that would eventually be programmed and built. He said that for PEAR Park, there was a request to expand the pickleball amenities, and they would conduct an assessment the site and see what they could program for this in the future. He added that the County had a Florida Communities Trust (FCT) agreement with the State for PEAR Park; therefore, they would have to do their due diligence.

Commr. Parks inquired if the BCC could recommend what they could do immediately for the first year for what Commissioner Smith was trying to advance.

Mr. Bonilla thought that they needed to begin the master planning for the west and east campuses, so that the Board would have a schematic and master plan to vote on and begin the phased improvement through the interlocal agreement with the YMCA, AdventHealth Waterman, and the City of Tavares. He noted that there were shovel ready projects that could be taking place through the City and the YMCA, but the County needed an interlocal agreement approved by the Board; additionally, some funding would be needed for the master plan process.

Commr. Campione asked about the cost for the master plan, and Mr. Bonilla responded that $100,000 would be a great start. Commissioner Campione thought that the Board had to fund the City of Fruitland Park’s request and the $100,000 to begin the Central Lake Regional Park master plan.

Mr. Bonilla said that they needed to establish a master plan for both sides on the record so that it could move forward as they continued to discuss parks and trails; additionally, not having a master plan approved by the BCC and the advisory board made it more challenging to access grant funding.

Commr. Blake mentioned that PEAR Park and Lake Idamere Park were both in Commission District 3; therefore, in the next FY there was $450,000 allocated to those two parks, and some of this funding could possibly be moved around.

Mr. Bonilla said that for PEAR Park, the County had two agreements with the State and the FTC, and there was always the need for some funding to keep the County in compliance; however, there was some leeway.

Commr. Campione asked about the multiuse field at Ellis Acres.

Mr. Bonilla believed that it was at Pine Forest and that the item read “Ellis Acres/Pine Forest.” He mentioned that there was a nature center at Ellis Acres that was in need of a new room and additional structures that they had to begin schematics and design for as part of the master site plan, noting that it was consistent with the management plan and referendum of 2004.

Mr. Rosen mentioned the legislative requests and said that staff had worked with Mr. Chris Carmody, with GrayRobinson, to see what might be most successful in obtaining legislative funding. He stated that the County had sent Mr. Carmody the funded and unfunded Infrastructure Sales Tax list, and he had recommended programs because the County had already funded a match in the Infrastructure Sales Tax. He added that it was also within the $500,000 that Mr. Carmody felt was most apt to be funded.

Commr. Parks commented that the list of legislative requests was just a starting point and that anything could be added to it.

Commr. Campione noted that road resurfacing was different than asking for a new construction project, and relayed her understanding that it would not get the County into issues with the list of priority projects.

Mr. Rosen clarified that Mr. Carmody had mentioned road projects that reduced flooding, which placed it in a different category; additionally, he thought that Mr. Schneider had found a project that could be a good candidate for this.

Commr. Campione mentioned that Lake Idamere Park was on this list and that this could free up Infrastructure Sales Tax funds and help with the Commission District 3 situation. She also remarked that Lake Idamere Park was special and could rise to a higher level for consideration.

Commr. Blake added that fire, EMS and public safety related items tended to have special appeal to legislators, and could also free up funds.

Commr. Parks proposed to possibly focus on fire and public safety first.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify that Mr. Carmody’s recommendation was for projects of $500,000 or less.

Mr. Rosen reiterated that there was a better chance of getting something funded for projects of $500,000 or less that already had a local match; however, projects up to $2 million could be included.

letter to leesburg and resolution regarding isbas

Commr. Parks proposed to address Tab 22 at the current time, noting that he had two comment cards for this item.

Commr. Campione explained that this item to approve a letter to the City of Leesburg requesting that an annexation be postponed until the County could meet with them, and adopting a resolution initiating the periodic review portions of the ISBAs with the Cities of Leesburg, Tavares and Clermont as a way to honor the provisions in those ISBAs and bring those City Commissions together with the BCC to see whether there were any changes they needed to make, or possibly terminate the ISBAs. She said that with the City of Leesburg, it would give them an opportunity to explore whether the County’s rural protection area (RPA) should be honored by the City, or if its spirit should be incorporated in any projects that the City would annex there. She felt that if the County did not ask for periodic review that the ISBAs called for, then the Cities were possibly not honoring the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) designations or the RPA.

Commr. Smith indicated that he had no issue sending the City of Leesburg a letter to ask if they would go by the ISBA.

Commr. Parks thought that the letter to the City of Leesburg could ask to discuss the ISBA; however, he expressed concerns for the second item breaking out the Cities of Clermont and Tavares separately because the City of Eustis had indicated that they had an issue with this. He said that out of respect for what he was trying to do with the Thrill Hill area, he did not want those discussions to be impacted by this.

Commr. Campione remarked that these were the three Cities that had ISBAs, and that there was a review provision in the ISBA that called for periodic review. She thought that it called for the two boards to review the ISBAs together.

Ms. Marsh explained that there was no policy or procedure in statute or the agreement that stated how the Board started the periodic review; therefore, the concept of doing the resolution was just the formal request of the BCC to do that review because it was overdue, noting that this should have been done around 2019. She said that for the Cities of Clermont and Tavares, the previous County Manager had some conversations with them about looking at those documents, though there was not any formal discussion or request from the Board. She stated that this resolution would be to formally say that they wanted to initiate this and start working toward reviewing these documents. She mentioned that the Board could change the resolution to just be for the City of Leesburg, or they could modify the letter and have it only deal with the postponement.

Commr. Parks proposed possibly addressing the City of Leesburg first.

Commr. Smith inquired if they could address the City of Leesburg first, the City of Tavares second and the City of Clermont third.

Commr. Campione was unsure why this impacted the City of Eustis. She asked why there would be a concern over the BCC trying to do this.

Commr. Parks opined that it was the County’s ongoing relationship issue with the City of Eustis, noting that he had an upcoming meeting with the City. He hoped that they might be able to finalize things or get close on the Thrill Hill area plan.

Commr. Blake inquired if the City had to consent to the ISBA review.

Ms. Marsh denied this and indicated that the statute required that ISBAs have a periodic review provision; therefore, the County’s ISBA did, and five years was chosen when it was negotiated.

Commr. Blake asked what would happen if the City declined to have a review.

Ms. Marsh explained that the County could consider the dispute resolution process because the City would not be complying with the agreement to have a discussion with the Board about the review.

Commr. Campione opined that this possibly needed to happen and that they had a dysfunctional system and agreements. She elaborated that if there was not a willingness to review the agreements and consider possibly modifying them and making them better, then they should possibly get rid of them; however, the County could not eliminate them without dispute resolution. She reiterated that she was unsure why this would bother the City of Eustis because the County was doing what they were supposed to under these other agreements. She stated that the City of Eustis had meetings to eliminate their joint planning area (JPA) with the County and to amend their Comp Plan, while the County was trying to do something constructive with the agreements with other Cities.

Commr. Parks said that this could possibly be cleared up within a few weeks, and that the long term question was to possibly get rid of ISBAs; furthermore, the City of Eustis did not have an ISBA. He questioned if they would do a new joint planning agreement.

Commr. Campione expressed support for a joint planning agreement, and she opined that the City of Leesburg was the most pressing due to the RPA and land uses that were not correlating with what was potentially being annexed.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was support for a letter to the City of Leesburg asking that they delay the annexation, and he said that he was amicable with including in the letter that the County would like to look at starting the ISBA discussions. He commented that for the second requested action, he wanted to make sure that nothing was jeopardized with the Thrill Hill area planning that the County was doing with the City of Eustis.

Ms. Marsh suggested that if the Board wanted to approve the letter only, staff could take the last paragraph, delete the language regarding a resolution, and just say that the Board was requesting to initiate the periodic review. She added that they could hold off on the resolution or doing similar letters for the other Cities until later in the year.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and representing Citizens for the Preservation of Rural, thanked the Commissioners who met with her group, and Commissioner Campione for assisting with the meeting with the Whispering Hills developers. She mentioned that some concessions were brought forth at a recent community meeting; however, the overall density had not been reduced. She said that the areas proposed for high density residential and commercial development and annexations were within the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA, though she opined that the parties proposing annexation had ignored this designation. She mentioned that the proposed Hodges Reserve development was also a significant concern because the second hearing with the City of Leesburg would be on August 23, 2021, and she asked the Board to consider addressing this project as well. She expressed support for the letter proposing postponement and further discussions, and she hoped that they could do better with these types of developments. She opined that the ISBA annexation process disregarded the regular annexation criteria; however, it appeared that they still needed to be urban in character, noting that these were rural areas. She mentioned that the Comp Plan policies were in effect until the annexation process was complete, and she asked that the Board consider a policy she displayed regarding annexations and rural areas. She relayed her understanding that the majority of the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA was covered by one ISBA boundary or another, opining that this was a disservice to this community. She opined that the ISBA did not have to be in effect for 20 years, and that it was not equitable to all parties and residents. She also opined that their rural areas provided open space, water recharge and carbon reduction.

Ms. Kim Cronin, a concerned citizen, agreed with Ms. Shelley’s comments. She expressed concerns for giving away a protected rural area to someone else, and she indicated an understanding that there was an intent to have traffic from a four lane highway go onto Dewey Robbins Road. She opined that Dewey Robbins Road was unsafe, and she hoped that a letter could be sent and that the BCC could meet with the City of Leesburg.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.

Commr. Campione asked about Hodges Reserve, adding that she thought that there could be some connectivity created if the developer said that there could be better access instead of using some of the rural roads; however, if the City of Leesburg did not incorporate this, then this possibility would go away. She said that this seemed like a concern that the County should raise, and that if the City was going through with this on August 23, 2021, then it seemed that the BCC should be asking them to wait on the second reading and have a meeting.

Commr. Parks said that this could be in the same letter.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a letter to the City of Leesburg requesting that the annexation of the property known as Whispering Hills be postponed, and to include the following items in the letter: a request for them to table the Hodges Reserve development so that they could have their meeting prior to proceeding with the second reading; to table the Whispering Hills development; and that they use this as an opportunity to review their ISBA as required by statute.

Commr. Blake was absent for the vote.

public hearing: agreements for library impact fee funding

Mr. George Taylor, Director for the Office of Library Services, presented the 2021 library impact fee public hearing. He relayed the following information about library impact fees: used for growth-related capital improvements; collected in all municipalities and unincorporated areas, noting that the Cities of Eustis and Mount Dora collected and retained their own impact fees; collected on residential construction with $191 per single family unit, $146 per multifamily unit and $152 per mobile home unit; and impact fees were awarded based on County Policy LCC-63, which discussed the application and review process, the March 1 annual deadline, public hearing requirement, and eligibility of all County and municipal libraries that were part of the Lake County library system. He provided the following information about the application process: the County Attorney reviewed all applications for legality; municipal library directors and County staff reviewed, provided input and formulated an opinion to the Library Advisory Board; he would present this to the Library Advisory Board, which would make a recommendation to the BCC; and there would be a public hearing. He said that for the 2021 impact fee funding, there was $1,117,046 available for the fund as of mid-May 2021, and that the following six applications had been submitted to his office: $250,000 from the City of Minneola; $94,000 from the City of Mount Dora for two requests; $500,000 from the Town of Montverde; and Lake County had requested $150,000 twice for the East Lake County Library and Astor County Library projects, noting that the total was $1,144,543 in combined application requests. He added that this had left $27,496 unfunded for the requests. He relayed the following information about the City of Minneola’s application: was requesting $250,000; this was their third request, noting that they received $500,000 in 2018 and $250,000 in 2020; would go from 800 square feet to 5,800 square feet; and would include expanded collections, a larger children’s area, a designated area for teens and tweens, and meeting room space. He provided the following information about the City of Mount Dora’s first request: requesting $60,343 for their parking lot expansion; the total project would cost about $120,000, noting that this was roughly 50 percent of the total cost; the City had funded about $38,000 before this request; and more than 45 percent of visitors were from outside the City of Mount Dora limits. He indicated that the second request from the City of Mount Dora was their children’s room expansion, which was a $34,200 request with a total project cost of about $145,000, which was roughly 23 percent of the total cost; additionally, they would expand the library’s collection by 2,200 books, add 455 square feet for an early reader room, and 23 percent of all youth checkouts system-wide were from the Mount Dora Library. He provided the following information about the Town of Montverde’s request: requested $500,000 for a new building; total project estimation of $1.6 million, which was a 31 percent funding request; would go from 3,600 square feet to 8,000 square feet; and would include a large meeting room and study rooms, dedicated computer, youth and teen areas, increased material capacity, and increased participation in system-wide programming. He relayed the following information about the Astor County Library request: requesting $150,000; total project estimated at $1.5 million, noting that this request was 10 percent; would go from 4,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet; and would include a larger meeting room, a small meeting room for public services, and a drive-through checkout window. He also mentioned that the majority of the Astor County Library funding was coming from a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant for $1.2 million. He commented that the East Lake County Library request was for $150,000 and that it was the second request for this library, noting that the first request was for $350,000 in 2019. He elaborated that the total estimated project cost was $3.5 million, that they would go from 5,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet, and that the project would include the following: larger meeting room; dedicated youth and local history rooms; increased capacity for materials; and a drive-through checkout window. He said that on May 20, 2021, the Library Advisory Board voted to recommend funding all six applications at the following funding levels: the City of Minneola Library at $250,000; the Astor County Library at $150,000; the East Lake County Library at $150,000; the Mount Dora Children’s Library at $34,200 and parking lot at $60,343; and the Town of Montverde Library at a reduced funding of $472,000. He stated that as of July 22, 2021, there was $1.25 million in the account; therefore, they had enough funds to cover this if it was the request of the BCC to fund this completely. He explained that the Library Advisory Board had pulled the Town of Montverde Library project aside because it was further in the future, and the plan was not as well planned as some of the others; however, he opined that it was a good project that would add capacity to the system.

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. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Interlocal Agreements with municipalities at the following funding levels: City of Minneola Library at $250,000; Astor County Library at $150,000; East Lake County Library at $150,000; W.T. Bland Public Library Children’s Room Expansion at $34,200; W.T. Bland Public Library Parking Lot Expansion at $60,343; and Helen Lehmann Memorial Library at $472,000. The Board also approved a two-year extension to the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Minneola dated August 11, 2020, and Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-114 adding $324,771 to the Library Impact Fee Fund.

regular agenda

discussion regarding dedication of land and impact fee credits

Mr. Matulka said that the purpose of this presentation was to obtain direction on possible changes to County code that would allow developers to perform work on behalf of the County while receiving cash reimbursement without having to bid the project. He explained that Section 22-39, Lake County Code, entitled Dedication of Land and Impact Fee Credits, allowed a developer to construct all or part of a road improvement project in exchange for transportation impact fee credits; additionally, the code stated that in circumstances where the impact fee credits would exceed the impact fees chargeable to the development itself, a developer could request cash payment in lieu of impact fee credits.  He added that in order to be eligible for cash reimbursement, the developer must competitively bid the project in the same manner in which the County would be required to bid the project if the County brought the project forward, noting that this section was what the County was considering in terms of alternatives to possibly provide the County with better outcomes and cost savings. He listed the following alternatives to consider: do nothing, leaving the code as it was and require competitive bidding if the developer was receiving a cash reimbursement; remove the requirement for competitive bidding; require competitive bidding if developer received a cash reimbursement, but give the Board the option to waive, noting that the decisions would come before the Board; require competitive bidding only in the event that the proposed cost was more than a certified engineer’s estimated cost; and require competitive bidding only in the event the estimated cost of construction exceeded a certain dollar amount. He commented that staff recommended a change in the language to option four, which would require competitive bidding only in the event that the proposed cost was more than a certified engineer’s estimated cost. He said that the benefits of this was that it would allow flexibility and a potential to save taxpayer money, as well as protecting the County from being charged too much. He mentioned that additional considerations included to require that the County approve and agree with the certified engineer’s estimates, and to require the developer to pay for any cost overruns or change orders. He stated that the Board action was just discussion and direction regarding any potential amendment to this section to modify or remove the requirement that a public road construction project must be competitively bid in order to be eligible for a cash reimbursement from the transportation impact fee account.

Commr. Parks thought that this was good to build a road as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Commr. Smith expressed support for option four, though he would include that they could competitively bid at any time.

Ms. Marsh stated that the Board could consider this as approval to advertise even though it was not in the agenda item, and staff could bring it back for a public meeting; additionally, staff could also bring it back at the August 24, 2021 BCC meeting so that the Board could see the language in the ordinance and approve it to be advertised with adoption in September 2021.

Mr. Matulka indicated that staff could bring this item back on August 24, 2021 for approval to advertise.

reports

county manager

NOVEMBER 2021 BCC MEETING SCHEDULE

Mr. Rosen said that the current BCC meeting schedule for November 2021 included a rezoning meeting on November 2 and regular meetings on November 9 and 23. He stated that since November 23 was close to Thanksgiving, he wanted to see if the BCC wanted to reschedule it. He thought that there were some items that had to be addressed; therefore, the County would have to either move those items to the November 9, 2021 BCC meeting, or to the meeting date that November 23, 2021 would be changed to.

Commr. Parks opined that the Board needed to change this.

Mr. Rosen noted that they could move the November 23, 2021 BCC meeting to the week before, and Commissioner Parks expressed support for this.

ARPA UPDATE – CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Rosen provided an update on the ARPA, noting that the BCC had provided direction to staff to find more funding for roads, to ask the Constitutional Officers if there was anything they could provide, and to see if there was anything that the Constitutional Officers were doing that could fall under the ARPA categories. He elaborated that the Lake County Sheriff had indicated that they were ordering laptops that would help people work remotely, and they could use $300,000 of ARPA funds toward this. He noted that this could free up more money and that instead of transferring $300,000 to the Sheriff from the General Fund, it could put an additional $300,000 in the General Fund for roads.

Commr. Campione asked if the County found any other capital projects that the Sheriff had included in his budget.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that there were some other capital projects that were already in the plan and qualified. He added that part of the air conditioning funding could be used to help filtration processes in the jail.

Commr. Campione hoped that they could find something in the Sheriff’s budget that was capital and not reoccurring, which could help the County free up some funds for their transportation needs.

Commr. Parks stated that he, Mr. Rosen, and Ms. Jennifer Barker, Deputy County Manager, had a meeting with the Sheriff and that they were working on this.

ARPA UPDATE – BCC ITEMS

Mr. Rosen commented that for ARPA, one item that was approved by the BCC and fit for the parks category was some updates to Astor Park. He mentioned that it had been reduced to $50,000, and that there was an additional $170,000 that they had programmed in ARPA that they could use for an ARPA project. He added that another item on the list was the vaccine incentive program, which was preliminarily discussed. He said that it was currently written such that it would only be for people who had not previously been vaccinated, and that it would be a $75 gift card to Publix; additionally, it would cost around $100,000 or less. He asked if the BCC wanted to move forward or reprogram the funding for other items.

Commr. Smith indicated a preference to use the ARPA funding for something else.

Commr. Parks mentioned a concern over whether it could go back to anyone who already had a vaccine, though this would not be the intent; however, that there did not seem to be support to move forward with an incentive program.

Commr. Campione relayed that she was not supportive of the incentive.

Commr. Blake noted that the vaccine was free and that people could get access to it.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) provided some vaccines to the County, and that anyone who worked for the County could visit the Primary Care Clinic and receive a vaccine.

Commr. Parks said that no one was mandating a vaccine, and people could ask their doctor regarding it.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

KROGER RIBBON CUTTING

Commr. Shields said that he had attended a ribbon cutting for the new Kroger fulfillment facility.

BREAKFAST FOR CITY OF LEESBURG TEACHERS

Commr. Shields commented that he and the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller recently provided breakfast to City of Leesburg teachers.

PROTECTING SENSITIVE AREAS

Commr. Shields mentioned that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Chairman Lee Constantine, with the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners, had indicated that Seminole County had imposed a rule to protect some of their sensitive areas. He elaborated that they were concerned about some of this getting undone at a later date; therefore, they passed a requirement for a supermajority to change their Comp Plan in those areas if they wanted to undo what the current board had done. He expressed that this was of interest to him, and asked for consensus to get staff working on language.

Commr. Smith said that he would be amicable with seeing what it looked like.

Commr. Parks thought that it could be added as an agenda item for discussion, but opined that they would not want everything in the Comp Plan to require a supermajority vote to change. He said that there could be a few critical areas to be defined, such as the Green Swamp and the Wekiva River Protection Area.

Commr. Blake noted that something that the Board disagreed with could happen, and then it would be challenging to undo.

Commr. Campione stated that the Wekiva River Protection Area was a State designation.

Commr. Parks commented that the Board could still change certain land uses.

Commr. Smith relayed that they could take a vote after seeing the language, and opined that it was worth exploring.

Commr. Shields proposed to see what made sense for Seminole County.

Commr. Campione mentioned that all of the Wekiva River Protection Area protections were on Lake County’s side of the Wekiva River and that Seminole County had developed almost right up to the river. She thought that Mr. McClendon needed to give the Board an overview on what this would look like for the Green Swamp and the Wekiva River Protection Area. She opined that the only time when the Board would modify something in those areas would be to address an issue such as property rights.

Commr. Blake opined that it was too sensitive to put something like this into effect.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Board could see the language and that Mr. McClendon could begin with what Seminole County was doing, along with other locations in the state. He thought that the Board had agreed that it would only be for those sensitive areas.

Commr. Campione opined that much of what was happening currently that was having an impact on the county’s character was more related to areas that the Cities were annexing.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

lake county tax collector permitting

Commr. Smith stated that the Lake County Tax Collector and his staff did a great job with customer service and efficiencies, and he proposed possibly allowing him to discuss with the Tax Collector or his staff the possibility of doing some of the County’s miscellaneous permitting, such as a re-roof, a fence or a door, at some of the Tax Collector’s facilities using their software and expertise. He added that this could allow the County to get further out to their customers.

Commr. Blake said that he was open to finding out more.

Commissioner Parks opined that this was a great idea and said that this was possibly another way to be more customer friendly.

Commr. Campione proposed to start with the building official and Mr. McClendon.

Commr. Blake stated that the pandemic was spreading out some business across the county.

Commr. Smith commented that he would meet with the Tax Collector and his staff, along with Mr. McClendon.

commission district 3 meeting

Commr. Smith apologized for postponing the Commission District 3 meeting, noting that two Commissioners were not able to attend, and he did not think it would be fair to the residents to not have a full Board there for the workshop. He mentioned that they were working to reschedule this meeting.

astatula town council meeting

Commr. Smith commented that he had attended the Astatula Town Council meeting on the previous night, and that it was a great group of people.

whispering hills development meeting

Commr. Smith relayed that he had attended the Whispering Hills development public meeting, and he had reached out to the developer’s attorney to further understand what they were doing.

commissioner campione –district 4

grant for high schools

Commr. Campione recalled that Commissioner Parks had supported the County being able to help Minneola High School with travel expenses when they had won a state championship, though she did not think that the Board had put a policy in place at the time. She relayed that she was asking that the Board have a policy and a not to exceed amount, noting that it was significant when they had state championship teams and that it drew attention to the county; furthermore, she opined that there was an economic development component because it attracted people to the county and the school system when they had good sports and kids excelling in athletics and academics. She thought there had to be rules and that they had to be careful that the policy did not get out of hand, but there could be were tight parameters and it could be evaluated periodically. She explained that for the Eustis High School team, the policy was not there to offer them travel expenses like the Board did for Minneola High School, and she wanted to help offset their cost for receiving championship rings, not to exceed the same amount that the Board put toward Minneola High School.

Ms. Marsh said that staff attached the policy to the Board’s backup, and what they previously drafted was that the County Manager would be authorized to provide grant funds up to $5,000, if funding had been approved in the budget, to assist a local high school with travel costs for attendance at a state or national competition. She noted that the Board could change this.

Commr. Smith mentioned that they could figure out the travel costs for Eustis High School and the County could pay them what they spent; however, he was not in favor of using this kind of funding for jewelry.

Commr. Parks relayed that the City of Eustis had offered to possibly split the cost.

Commr. Campione said that she would like if they went with the offset costs up to $5,000, and then agree to give that amount to Eustis High School’s girls’ softball team.

Ms. Marsh mentioned another provision in the draft policy that grants under the policy would be limited to one high school, per Commission District, per fiscal year.

Commr. Smith proposed to remove this and just have a maximum.

Commr. Blake expressed opposition to this, opining that it would be appropriate for a booster club to handle.

Ms. Marsh asked if the Board wanted to add a provision that it would be limited to a certain amount per fiscal year.

Commr. Smith mentioned that it was a maximum of $25,000, and he expressed support for leaving it like this.

Commr. Campione agreed with just having the cap, noting that the Board could revisit it. She commented that when dealing with teams and sporting travel, there was a significant amount of cost involved and many parents could have a challenge to come up with that. She thought that it was a great way to promote having strong athletics.

Commr. Parks recalled that the school had reduced this previously and that some schools were less funded than others and may not have any booster clubs to call.

Commr. Blake thought that in instances such as this where everyone was proud of the team, one could raise $5,000 in donations.

Commr. Campione proposed to address this as a pilot and see how it worked out.

Ms. Marsh stated that she needed a vote and asked if they were removing “travel” and leaving it as “costs.”

Commr. Campione proposed to leave it as “costs.”

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved a new policy to provide a grant up to $5,000 to assist with travel costs for County high schools participating in a state or national competition, removing the word “travel,” and to allow including Eustis High School since they had recently won the state championship.

Commr. Blake voted no.

arpa funding and csx railroad corridor

Commr. Campione mentioned a situation that had come about as a result of the ARPA funding. She explained that it was clear in the information the County had received so far that stormwater projects and water and sewer utilities were items that qualified for funding. She relayed that she had spoken to the City of Mount Dora about the possibility of using the CSX railroad corridor as a utilities corridor from Round Lake Road to Sorrento, thinking that they could offer to purchase the CSX railroad right of way; however, CSX would only sell them, at a minimum, from Tremaine Street in the City of Mount Dora to Sorrento. She remarked that she and the City identified several locations along the corridor where there were issues of flooding or water quality, and where it could be used for utilities, and they were going to see if the Mount Dora City Commission would support a resolution saying that they could use that corridor for those purposes if the County would use ARPA funds to acquire it, with the understanding that the corridor could then also be used for joint use rails to trails. She stated that they then started considering the rest of the corridor to the City of Tavares for stormwater projects and issues with flooding, and there was an opportunity to make an offer to CSX to purchase the railroad right of way. She opined that if it was not purchased this way, they would probably never would be able to obtain this right of way for rails to trails; furthermore, it would take them from the City of Tavares to the City of Mount Dora, and then to Sorrento and the Neighborhood Lakes Trailhead. She commented that the County would have to pay for an appraisal, and CSX would have to go through an abandonment process which could take a number of years; therefore, they would have to spend the money under the ARPA rules and figure out a way to structure it so the money could be conveyed. She thought that because the County had been able to obtain letters of support from Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Rick Scott’s offices, along with their legislators for rails to trails for this area, they could also convey their support to the railroad review board that did abandonment. She mentioned that there was a Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant put together by the Cities and the County, though there was no guarantee that it would be received, and there was not enough funding to purchase the railroad right of way and construct the trail. She thought that it was estimated at $10 million from Sorrento to the City of Mount Dora, and another $5 million to get it to the City of Tavares, noting that they would also have to buy out the Florida Central Railroad lease at an estimated $2 million. She mentioned the idea of getting a trail that ran from the City of Tavares to the City of Mount Dora and out to the Wekiva Trail, which would connect to South Lake via the West Orange Trail, and then to Seminole County, could be a great opportunity. She wanted to see if the BCC supported this, noting that she had spoken to Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator, who was excited; furthermore, she had asked if he could go back to his board and work with Ms. Marsh to draft a resolution indicating that they would want to partner with the County on this. She added that there was also an ARPA tourism grant application for grants from $500,000 to $10 million, with a 20 percent match, and it had to be submitted before the end of January 2022. She elaborated that it included new outdoor recreation and trail infrastructure, along with public access enhancements; additionally, the City of Fruitland Park could apply for this to fund bathrooms at the NorthWest Lake Complex. She thought that the County could ask the Cities to apply for this to ask for funding to help with the construction of the railroad corridor, noting that the County could put ARPA funds toward the railroad right of way.

Commr. Smith opined that the County should also seek this grant.

Commr. Parks asked if the alignment had been planned.

Commr. Campione replied that it was the County’s PD&E study, recalling that the County had to give it up because they could not construct it within two years.

Commr. Parks said that he wanted to make sure that it was not something different to help the City of Mount Dora run utilities in a different direction, opining that the City should do this.

Commr. Campione stated that the County had been asking the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA to help with utilities, mentioning that the Wolf Branch Innovation District also needed utilities from the City.

Commr. Parks inquired if the County would be pursuing this for the trails.

Commr. Campione clarified that for purposes of the ARPA, it had to be labeled as a stormwater and utilities corridor. She noted that it went through the Wolf Branch Innovation District.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that the funding would be for the acquisition and not installing pipes.

Commr. Campione confirmed this, with the understanding that it could be used for those purposes.

Commr. Smith inquired if this item had to be written up and brought back.

Commr. Campione said this was correct, that the County would have to make the adjustments, and if the Cities of Mount Dora and Tavares were to adopt their resolutions in the following weeks, the County could present an offer to CSX.

Commr. Parks stated that there could possibly be a presentation to look at this item and see a tabulation of where they stood in its entirety with ARPA.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

tag reader devices on county right of way

Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Schneider and Ms. Marsh for helping him on the previous day. He explained that he had seen a picture on social media of a tag reader device in the City of Leesburg. He stated they were located at other rural intersections, and that the LCSO had not agreed to this; additionally, the LCSO was in discussions with a private company, and 98 tag readers had been installed in the county in the last couple of weeks, noting that they were surveilling Lake County taxpayers without any right of way approval or permits. He thought that the County Attorney’s Office needed to contact this company and give them 24 hours to remove these devices, and he also thought that they should be disqualified from any further business dealings with the County.

Commr. Smith agreed and said that he had already asked if they could have some devices removed.

Commr. Campione asked if the company had to be given notice to confiscate them.

Ms. Marsh replied that the devices were in public right of way; therefore, the County could remove them. She added that her office could also send a cease and desist letter to demand that they remove them, unless the Board wanted staff to remove them.

Commr. Blake commented that if it was legally possible, to just have staff remove them, noting that the company could collect the devices from the County.

Commr. Parks said that he had talked to the Lake County Sheriff, and relayed his understanding that these devices were not uncommon in the state. He said that the company installed the devices without obtaining a right of way permit, and he was unsure of the opinion from public safety experts and the Sheriff regarding how helpful the devices were to investigations. He indicated an understanding that there was no human involvement and that the devices were just looking for tags.

Commr. Blake suggested to remove the devices as soon as possible and to put something in the Lake County Code to stipulate that any surveillance technology installed on County right of way had to come to the Board first. He opined that surveillance technology could be abused, and he expressed concerns for this and for the privacy of county residents.

Commr. Campione questioned that if the Board was not going to authorize them in the first place, why would they let the devices stay there. She expressed support for removing them.

Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that the direction was for staff to remove the devices from the right of way. She indicated that she would also send a cease and desist letter to the company to let them know that the County was removing the devices, and that the company could contact her office to make arrangements to collect them.

Commr. Shields proposed to possibly charge the company for the cost of removing them, and Ms. Marsh said that staff could look into doing this.

Commr. Campione commented that the Board could then move forward with a code provision specifically stating that any type of surveillance equipment would have to come before the BCC before it could be installed.

Ms. Marsh said that staff could draft this and bring it back.

Commr. Parks encouraged the Board to talk to the Sheriff as well.

Commr. Campione opined that there were always certain benefits to surveillance, but this had to be viewed in the context of the dangers.

Commr. Smith opined that the company may have thought that something was going on, or they would have done it properly.

Commr. Blake stated that a pilot program could have involved a few demo units, but not 98 units spread across five Commission Districts. He thanked Mr. Schneider for his help with this.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

four corners community center

Commr. Parks questioned what would be done in the Four Corners area with the potential space upstairs in the Cagan Crossings Community Library versus the possible community center. He thought that staff could discuss the second floor of the library.

Commr. Shields thought that Mr. Taylor had this in his budget for two years later to do something with the top floor. He added that they had met with some property owners there regarding where they could place a community center, and he mentioned that the Osceola, Polk and Orange County Commissioners that bordered Four Corners were interested in doing something together; furthermore, they would have some joint meetings to define where Four Corners was, along with proposing it to the four BCCs to see if there was a consensus to move something forward as four Counties.

comments regarding wellness way

Commr. Parks showed a map of the Wellness Way area and thanked staff for doing this in a week. He noted that intense growth was being driven in South Lake and Wellness Way, and the Board would be hearing the Wellness Way final approval of the Comp Plan and the plan itself in September 2021. He added that they were receiving applications from people expressing interest in developing in Wellness Way, and he noted that the plan was unique and had incentives for density; furthermore, there were strict requirements for open space. He commented that currently, if a developer wanted to have some incentive for density that was built into the cap number, there was nothing that staff had to indicate what the plan was to a developer. He elaborated that this way, it would be more objective rather than subjective. He encouraged the Board to consider it, and he pointed out a clay trail, a potential opportunity on Conserv II with Orange County and the City of Orlando for a trail around Flat Lake, a pedestrian bridge connecting to Lake Louisa State Park across U.S. 27, and the Lake-Orange County Connector which was currently in engineering.

Commr. Campione asked if the land dedication from CEMEX for a park, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this, noting that it was factored in to connect it with a trail.

mt. plymouth-sorrento cra meeting

Commr. Parks commented that the BCC had to adjourn and then reconvene for their Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:24 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK