A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

December 21, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, Interim 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. He said that the invocation would be given by Pastor Chase Allen, with First Baptist Church of Umatilla, and he then provided information about the veteran who would lead the Pledge of Allegiance. He explained that Mr. Kirk Armstrong joined the County’s Office of Veterans Services in November 2021 as an Assistant Veterans Services Officer, but he provided security services in the County Administration Building prior to his employment with the County. He said that Mr. Armstrong served in the United States (U.S.) Navy from September 1990 until December 1997 as an Auxiliary Machinery Mechanic, and that he trained to repair and maintain small boats, diesel generators, on board machinery, cargo weapon elevators, high/low pressure air systems, A/C and refrigeration units. He commented that Mr. Armstrong was stationed at the Naval Station Treasure Island and completed a Persian Gulf deployment on the USS McClusky FFG41 and USS Bunker Hill CG52; furthermore, during his military service, he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Southwest Asia Service Medal with bronze star, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Navy “E” Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal and the Humanitarian Service Medal. He added that Mr. Armstrong was also an honorary Shellback and Golden Dragon, and he thanked him for his service to the county and the country.

Pastor Allen gave the Invocation and Mr. Armstrong led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commr. Campione arrived at 9:06 a.m.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that the current 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 this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, said that Tab 25 was updated to include consideration for the nonprofits included in the City of Mascotte, and that Tab 27 was added as an addendum since the agenda was first published.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT UPDATE

Ms. Barker indicated that there would not be a traditional American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update at the current meeting; rather, they would have an update from Mr. Maurice Kurland, the County’s federal lobbyist, who would review some available federal funding and clarifications on the uses of ARPA funding. She indicated that this item could be addressed later in the meeting.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of August 24, 2021 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Pam Roustio, a resident of the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA) speaking via Zoom Webinar, hoped for action from the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to address urbanization of protected lands. She relayed that information from the City of Leesburg showed growth within the City of Leesburg interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) area of more than 25,000 housing units slated for current or future growth; furthermore, 3,391 homes would be in the RPA. She hoped that the Board could consider that the RPA was not a significant amount of land in the ISBA, and that over 3,000 houses in an area that was currently at five acres per unit should be considered for less density and keeping the rural character.

Commr. Parks commented that there would continue to be discussion on this issue.

Ms. Dina Ouellette, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills speaking via Zoom Webinar, said that she moved to this area due to its rural nature. She believed that the proposed annexations from the City of Leesburg were encroaching on their rural area, and she opined that the developments were too large to support Number 2 Road. She expressed concerns for traffic and well water, and she relayed that her community opposed this amount of growth and development. She also expressed support for keeping rural areas rural.

Ms. Christine Dedona, a resident of Yalaha speaking via Zoom Webinar, commented that she moved to this area because she liked living somewhere rural. She expressed concerns about small lot sizes, extra people, traffic, road safety and litter. She also indicated concerns for the ecosystem, water runoff, well water pollution and education for the children in these homes.

Ms. Kim Dobyns, a resident on Turkey Lake Road in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, stated that she had moved there from the City of St. Cloud due to increased traffic and rapid expansion, noting that she wanted to live in a rural area. She indicated concerns for rapid and poorly planned growth, runoff from impervious surfaces, added traffic, and taking away the rural nature of where she lived.

Ms. Kim Cronin, a resident on Dewey Robbins Road, recalled that she had addressed the Board in August 2021 with regards to the RPA and the City of Leesburg ISBA, opining that traffic was significant in that area. She mentioned the proposed Hodges Reserve and Whispering Hills developments, noting that residents had asked for the Board’s support and for them to meet with the City of Leesburg to review their ISBA. She opined that they were running out of time and that something needed to be done immediately, commenting that this item was on the Leesburg City Council agenda for January 3, 2022.

Commr. Parks asked if Ms. Barker and Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, could summarize what the Board had requested after the remaining comments. He noted that the Board had recently sent a letter to the City of Leesburg.

Mr. Reggie Thomas, a resident on Dewey Robbins Road, expressed concerns for unprecedented growth and for Cities doing this for tax revenue. He relayed his understanding that the RPA was created to address growth in these rural areas, noting that the RPA was already in place for the Yalaha-Lake Apopka area. He asked the Board to work with the City of Leesburg and to oppose this type of growth. He also expressed interest in ensuring that schools were not overcrowded.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, with Citizens for the Preservation of Rural, thanked the BCC for their work on a conservation design ordinance. She relayed concerns that the ordinance stated that it would apply to the RPAs, and that it was unclear how it would interact where there were ISBAs which overlapped the RPAs. She said that the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) reviewed the Whispering Hills development and called for full consideration regarding the impact of the development to the character of the area, along with cooperation between the County and the City of Leesburg. She added that FDEO also cited a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) letter discussing the trip generation potential of 31,000 daily trips. She opined that the areas proposed for annexation were not urban in character, as required by the ISBA rule, and she said it appeared that the law was not being followed. She relayed her understanding that in other areas with annexations, the County requested an opinion from the County Attorney, and she requested if this could be done for this area. She displayed a map of ISBAs overlaid with the RPAs, noting that a significant portion of the county was covered by ISBAs and subject to urban densities. She expressed a concern that the ISBAs were creating urban sprawl, and she relayed that her community would like to see the five year review as required by the ISBA; additionally, she hoped that the Board could work to modify the boundaries of the ISBAs or terminate them. She indicated that the County also had a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) policy stating that the County reserved the right to object to any changes which were inconsistent with the protection of rural character and density.

Commr. Parks commented that ISBAs were different from joint planning areas (JPAs), and that some ISBAs only regarded who would provide services.

Ms. Marsh explained that each of the ISBAs were slightly different, and that the South Lake ISBA, which included protection for Ferndale Preserve, was the first ISBA that the County had done; therefore, it was larger. She said that they seemed to have become smaller as the County did ISBAs for other Cities, and that this ISBA was the only one which referenced a specific area being preserved for rural and not allowing the other parties to annex into it. She stated that the City of Leesburg ISBA did not include any type of language similar to this.

Commr. Parks expressed concerns for high density in RPAs, and he hoped that they could do JPAs countywide in the following year.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Lake County, noted that there was no ISBA for the Wekiva-Ocala RPA, and she pointed out a JPA on a map near the City of Eustis. She noted a transitional area which she opined should be about one unit per acre; however, it was being designated up to five units per acre. She commented that this area was also the Wekiva Study Area, which included high retention soils, high recharge, and was favorable for specialty crops. She expressed concerns for losing a local food source, and indicated interest in the County reviewing some items that the Cities could do for revenue sources rather than utilities and taxes.

Dr. Ron Robinson, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, said that residents wanted to keep their community rural. He did not think that the City of Leesburg considered the impact of what they were doing to Lake County, and he relayed his understanding that it was two years past when then ISBA would be reviewed. He opined that before letting any ISBAs move forward, the Board needed to conduct a thorough review.

Ms. Jackie Mizak, a resident on Turkey Acres Lane in unincorporated Town of Howey-in-the-Hills and speaking via Zoom Webinar, opined that they were directly affected by the proposed Hodges Reserve development, noting that it would border their 10 acre property on both sides. She also opined that their lifestyle would be affected, and she relayed concerns for pollution, displacement of wildlife, traffic, safety, construction and the protection of the RPA and rural areas.

Commr. Parks asked the Board if there was anything they would want to do at the current meeting, and he opined that there was a respect that needed to be held for the RPAs.

Ms. Barker recalled that in June 2021, the BCC adopted a resolution requesting that the City of Leesburg participate in reviewing the ISBA and discuss a possible renegotiation of the terms. She stated that the County had proposed three different dates for a joint meeting; however, the City was not able to meet on those dates, and the County did not currently have another date identified. She mentioned that the Leesburg City Manager had contacted her on the previous day and that the City had received a request from the BCC to participate in the joint planning meeting on February 7, 2022. She added that the City had also received a request to review the current ISBAs, and if there was an RPA within the ISBA, then the County could propose that those be removed from the ISBA, or for the County and the City to possibly come to an agreement regarding stricter planning guidelines for those areas. She relayed that the City would be participating in the February 7, 2022 meeting, and that the City Manager had asked if the ISBA discussion would be part of the planning discussion; however, she believed that it was the will of the Board to keep it as a separate discussion. She said that if this was the case, then she could respond to the City Manager and indicate that the County would like to reschedule the ISBA meeting separate from the joint planning meeting.

Commr. Campione stated that the City of Leesburg had a hearing on January 3, 2022 for a second reading, and if the City adopted Hodges Reserve and Whispering Hills, then there was a 30 day appeal period. She said that it seemed like the County was in a situation where they either had to give notice that it was their intent to appeal unless the City was willing to meet with the County prior to this, along with postponing those items until after they had this meeting. She elaborated that if the County did not give notice, then they would have to decide whether they would have Ms. Marsh attend that meeting and present their reasons for why they did not believe that the annexation should move forward based upon the requested density. She opined that the language which Ms. Shelley had referred to about urban use could likely be one of the best arguments, noting that the County had requested that the ISBA be reviewed. She expressed concerns for the City not scheduling a meeting with the County, but going forward with the annexations, opining that this seemed to be a violation of the ISBA; furthermore, she opined that this could possibly be a basis for an appeal or taking it to dispute resolution. She said that it was not in anyone’s best interest to go through this if it could be worked out in advance.

Commr. Parks expressed concerns for not seeing the zoning application, and he opined that objecting and writing something should be done, but carefully. He said that he did not want an RPA area developed at a higher density.

Commr. Campione opined that the densities did not comport with the RPA, and that an alternative could possibly be negotiated as opposed to challenging the City’s decision. She also opined that the County’s goal was to avoid litigation or dispute resolution situations. She remarked that this was an annexation of property currently under the rules of the County, and the County had an agreement with the City of Leesburg where they were supposed to work together to merge their vision with the City’s; however, she opined the City was not willing to have this discussion.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that there had been some modifications to the design of Whispering Hills, and he thought that it would be prudent for the Board to review this. He added that this could possibly be discussed at the joint planning meeting.

Commr. Parks clarified that this issue was separate and should be addressed between the County and the City of Leesburg; furthermore, the February 7, 2022 meeting was an open invitation for all of the Cities in the county to participate in developing future JPAs. He added that this meeting would be after the City of Leesburg made a decision on these two properties; therefore, the County would have to be ready to attend the City meeting and voice their objections to get standing, or write something formally at the current time.

Ms. Marsh said that someone would have to attend the City of Leesburg meeting and put the evidence on the record so that it would be preserved if the Board chose to appeal. She added that there was a BCC meeting on January 4, 2022, and staff could add an agenda item to authorize them to file an appeal or not, depending on what the City did.

Commr. Campione stated that generally, the County was asking the City of Leesburg to develop in accordance with the RPA, which was one unit per five acres; however, she opined that the City was not going to agree to this. She questioned if they could negotiate something that was closer to the conservation design subdivisions which the Board had previously discussed, or if they could create large buffers. She relayed that the plan was to have direct access to U.S. Highway 27 and not rely on rural roads, which she opined was positive but still did not get them to where they needed to be if they were going to preserve the character of the area. She proposed a possible joint meeting with Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, with a presentation for the Leesburg City Commission to see how they could achieve some of the densities they wanted while making the design of the neighborhood compatible with the surrounding area.

Commr. Parks thought that the County should speak at the City of Leesburg meeting on January 3, 2022.

Commr. Shields asked how the County could indicate that they disagreed with the path that the City was taking.

Commr. Parks replied that the County could say that they did not want the City of Leesburg to develop in the RPA at those densities, and that they would like to have a meeting with the City to discuss conservation subdivision design.

Commr. Campione added that if the City did not want to meet, then the County could consider potentially appealing their decision based upon the fact that they were annexing property that was not an urban land use. She added that the complaint for the ISBA could be that it was not in compliance and that the County could seek dispute resolution under the ISBA. She said that it could delay the project and that this was the only leverage the County would have at that point to negotiate something.

Commr. Parks hoped that by doing this on or before January 3, 2022, something could be worked out with the City of Leesburg and the developer.

Commr. Campione said that the County would not have influence to the extent of the area staying at one unit per five acres, but she questioned if the County could get them to come up with something more compatible and protective of the property owners that wanted to stay rural. She added that if the County succeeded at this, then it would be something negotiated. She urged the BCC Chairman or the County Manager to contact the City of Leesburg following the current meeting to let them know that this was the direction that the County was going, noting that a meeting could possibly be scheduled.

Commr. Smith inquired if the County could ask the City of Leesburg to table this item until the County could meet with them.

Ms. Barker responded that she could reach out to the Leesburg City Manager and make that request on behalf of the Board.

Commr. Blake asked about the timeline, and what would happen if the City of Leesburg went through with their January 3, 2022 meeting and if the County raised objections.

Ms. Marsh explained that if the City of Leesburg had the meeting on January 3, 2022 and the County objected, the County would already have an agenda item for January 4, 2022 where the Board could authorize her to file a writ of certiorari within 30 days to challenge the appeal; additionally, the County would also have to file a motion to abate because by law, they were required to go through the Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Act. She said that the process would include setting up joint meetings, etc. which were required by that statute. She asked the Board to add this to the current agenda as an emergency item and then vote on directing her to attend the January 3, 2022 meeting if the City did not postpone it.

Commr. Campione made a motion to add an emergency item to the current meeting for the purposes of authorizing the County Attorney to attend the January 3, 2022 City of Leesburg meeting to object to the annexation of Whispering Hills and Hodges Reserve.

Commr. Smith seconded the motion.

Commr. Parks said that he had asked to speak to all of the mayors individually before the February 7, 2022 meeting.

Ms. Barker said that staff would see if they could fast track Commissioner Parks’ meeting with the Mayor of Leesburg.

Commr. Blake stated that he was hesitant to engage in long term litigation against a City in Lake County. He also opined that the City of Leesburg was following State law in annexations.

Commr. Campione said that by law, dispute resolution is what the County would have to do, noting that they would be forced to work things out. She also said that the City of Leesburg was processing an application, but opined that the question of whether they were following the statute was open to interpretation. She asked if the County could use the services of Mr. Arendt and bring in that concept for their meeting with the City of Leesburg as a better alternative.

Ms. Barker said that she could let the Leesburg City Manager know about this and provide him with the presentation.

Commr. Parks added that he could discuss this with the Mayor of Leesburg. He stated that Leesburg was a great city, but to have the County’s input, this was the route they had to go to have discussions.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to add an emergency item to the current meeting for the purposes of authorizing the County Attorney to attend the January 3, 2022 City of Leesburg meeting to object to the annexation of Whispering Hills and Hodges Reserve. A separate agenda item will be placed on the January 4, 2022 BCC meeting to obtain direction as to whether to file litigation against the City of Leesburg if the City approves the annexation of those two properties.

Commr. Blake voted no.

ARPA UPDATE FROM MAURICE KURLAND

Ms. Barker said that Mr. Kurland was available to speak at the current time.

Mr. Kurland mentioned the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was a $1.2 trillion bill and was a reauthorization of transportation funding for the next five years. He mentioned that with this authorization, the County was looking at an increase of about 20 percent in federal funding coming to the State of Florida and the County for their various roadway projects. He added that it was an opportunity where the County’s projects were prioritized with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and that it also included safety issues, mobility, transit, water infrastructure, broadband, and electric vehicle charging. He said that the bill also included funding for bridge replacement and repair, and that the U.S. Department of Transportation would be providing guidelines and grant criteria that were anticipated in the first two quarters of the following year.

Commr. Parks said that the BCC was focused on infrastructure, and mentioned that Tab 11 on the consent agenda regarded the list of priority projects (LOPP). He expressed interest in what the County could do to position themselves for federal funding over the next five years, mentioning repairing their bridges, trails, and improving the roads to a standard which could help their growth. He stated that some items were added to the LOPP through the MPO process. He asked to confirm that the County was doing everything they needed to do to position themselves for this funding.

Mr. Kurland confirmed this and opined that the County was well positioned. He said that it was a question of continuing to have their LOPP planned out, and that federal projects typically required at least a 20 percent local match. He mentioned that $2 billion had been included for highway safety, and that there was also $2 billion set aside for rural surface transportation. He added that there was $6 billion for safe streets, noting that this was important in trying to address pedestrian safety, cycling and using trails. He said that funding for projects of larger regional significance could be up to $25 million per project, and that the State had done well with getting at least two projects each year, noting that the funding for this grant program had been raised from $1 billion per year to $1.5 billion per year, which could equate to another project being made available to the state.

Mr. Mike Woods, Executive Director for the Lake-Sumter MPO, said that much of this was formula funding based on population, opining that Lake County was well suited for this. He stated that a recommendation was to expand and have a capacity list, a strategic intermodal system (SIS) capacity list, an intelligent transportation list, and a bike pedestrian list. He remarked that there would be a significant amount of discretionary funding that would be grant related, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) wanted to ensure that they had projects in their priority list, supported by their long range plan that made them eligible and competitive. He also relayed that FDOT had recommended having grant writers available.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they were seeking assistance with State Road (SR) 50, U.S. Highway 27, and U.S. Highway 441.

Mr. Woods stated that the Lake-Sumter MPO would expand their list categories and projects, and would make sure that they were situated for as much funding as they could be.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:

List of Warrants

Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

City of Minneola Ordinance 2021-10

Notice is hereby provided of having received Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2021-10 from the City of Minneola, with the changes the DEO required.

City of Mascotte Ordinance 2021-10-621

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2021-10-621 from the City of Mascotte.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Parks indicated that he wanted to comment on Tab 11, but that he would not request for it to be pulled.

Commr. Smith asked to pull Tabs 6 and 13 for discussion.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 15, pulling Tabs 6 and 13 for discussion, as follows:

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval to:

1. Surplus County-owned property located north of Sorrento Avenue and northwest of Fourth Street in Sorrento (a/k/a Alternate Key 3855949); and

2. Authorize the County Manager to determine the best method of disposal of the property, which may include but not limited to retaining a realtor to market the property.

The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. Commission District 4.

Recommend acknowledgment of the Lake County Opioid Task Force as the group that will make recommendations to the County for the abatement of the opioid epidemic and accept the Opioid Abatement Plan. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Recommend approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Montverde for disbursement of American Rescue Plan Act funds for the purposes of assisting the Town with implementing a sewer infrastructure project.

The fiscal impact is $4 million (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Housing and Community Services

Recommend approval of Second Amendment for Disbursement of Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Funds with United Way of Lake & Sumter Counties. The fiscal impact is $1,000,000 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Public Works

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-169 accepting Crestavista Avenue “Part” (County Road No. 0654), Catania Loop (County Road No. 0655), Syracuse Drive “Part” (County Road No. 0656), and Taormina Way (County Road No. 0657) into the County's maintenance system. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-170 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a portion of a public non-exclusive easement located south of Florida Avenue and west of Adams Street. The closest municipality is the Town of Astatula. The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 3.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-171 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a portion of Adams Street. The closest municipality is Clermont. The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-172 supporting the Lake County list of projects to be included on the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) List of Priority Projects (LOPP). There is no fiscal impact.

Recommend:

1. Approval and execution of an interlocal agreement with the City of Groveland;

2. Approval to declare the specified county-owned right of way as surplus;

3. Adoption of associated Resolution 2021-173; and

4. Approval and execution of a County deed for the conveyance of public right of way to the City of Groveland for the construction and maintenance of a portion of South Lake Trail Phase 3.

The fiscal impact is $54 in recording fees (expenditure). Commission District 1.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-907 for solid waste engineering services on an as-needed basis to S2L, Incorporated. (Maitland, FL); and

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The annual fiscal impact is estimated at $100,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year Budget.

Transit Services

Recommend approval to:

1. Apply to the Florida Department of Transportation under the Section 5310 Capital and Operating Grant Program for Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriation Act and American Rescue Plan for Fiscal Year 2022.

2. Adopt supporting Resolution 2021-175authorizing the signing and submission of the grant application, supporting documents and assurances to the Florida Department of Transportation.

3. Accept and implement the grant if awarded.

4. Procure vehicles under the State’s bid list through the Transit Research Inspection Procurement Services (TRIPS) Program.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $430,582 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

tab 6: contracts for building plan review and inspection

Commr. Smith noted that this agreement was a public/private partnership with some other firms, and he asked if it was to help speed up their permit processes.

Mr. Tom Allen, Director for the Office of Building Services, explained that this was a continuation of contracts that the County had for a number of years. He elaborated that when the County had an excess of plans or inspections that their current staff could not address in a timely fashion, they could reach out to a private company to provide the service. He clarified that it was not for the private company to take over the Office of Building Services or do permitting, and that it was solely for plan review and inspections overflow.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items: Contracts 21-0937A, 21-0937B, and 21-0937C for building plan review and inspection services on an as-needed basis to American Building Safety Associates, Inc. (Clermont, FL), C.A.P Government, Inc. (Coral Gables, FL), and Joe Payne, Inc. d/b/a JPI (Tampa, FL); and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

tab 13: unanticipated revenue for keep lake beautiful program

Commr. Smith thanked Publix for donating $1,000 to Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB), and he thought that anytime that a private organization donated funding to a public worthy cause, it needed to be celebrated.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-174 adding $1,000 to the Stormwater MSTU for the Keep Lake Beautiful Program.

comments on tab 11 regarding the list of priority projects

Commr. Parks said that the LOPP was important in the process of how the County positioned themselves for federal funding. He noted that some of his constituents had asked him about projects on the LOPP, and he displayed maps showing the following projects: Citrus Grove Road improvements; the County Road (CR) 455 alignment which included bike shoulders and bike lanes; the roundabout at Jalarmy Road and Lake Minneola Shores, including the trail project which would connect to an existing trail and the City of Groveland; improvements to Lakeshore Drive; Hancock Road, noting that the feasibility study for widening the road to four lanes from Hartwood Marsh Road to SR 50 had been completed; and Hancock Road improvements north through the City of Minneola with the trail to CR 455.

option agreement for supervisor of elections/sheriff facility

Ms. Marsh commented that Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, was available on Zoom Webinar, and she asked if this item could be addressed at the current time. She recalled that staff had brought this item to a recent meeting to provide an update, and that they had a purchase agreement with a purchase price of $1 million, noting that they were conducting due diligence. She added that the City of Tavares had approved the rezoning, and that they were working with SECO regarding the blanket easement. She indicated that they had conducted a phase one and phase two environmental study, and had found copper and arsenic in a location on the property; therefore, the Board had wanted the phase three environmental study to be done to ensure that the copper and arsenic did not affect the water table. She elaborated that the results were received and that it was not in the water table, and that remediation would only be surficial and would be estimated at about $15,000. She also said that the County would have to do a sand skink survey, which could not be done until March or April 2022. She mentioned that there were gopher tortoises on the property and that a previous study showed 13 burrows with nine tortoises on the property in 2018. She added that the County would not know how much this mitigation would cost until they were ready to do construction, but she believed that it was about $10,000 per gopher tortoise. She added that to remediate for sand skinks, their consultant had indicated that it would cost around $620,000 to $786,000. She mentioned that the seller had offered a closing credit of $500 per day for each day that the County closed early, up to $90,000, and if the County closed the property by January 14, 2022, it would be an approximately $71,000 credit. She commented that to date, the County had spent approximately $45,000 in due diligence on this property, and staff was seeking the Board’s approval to move forward to closing and accept these conditions, or to terminate the purchase agreement, noting that the Board would have to find another location for the property.

Commr. Parks asked for her to summarize the total estimated cost for development before construction.

Ms. Marsh replied that it could be $620,000 to $780,000 for sand skinks, $100,000 for gopher tortoises, and approximately $15,000 to remediate the area of contaminated fill.

Commr. Smith inquired if it would definitely be $620,000 to $780,000 for sand skinks, and if it could possibly be zero.

Ms. Marsh clarified that it could possibly be zero, adding that the sand skink study would be about another $28,000. She commented that there was a price per acre that the County had to pay if they found the lizards on the property, and the maximum would be up to $780,000 assuming that they had to mitigate the entire property of about 13 acres.

Commr. Smith asked if they could delay the purchase until after the survey was complete.

Ms. Marsh responded that they could ask the seller to give an extension on the due diligence.

Commr. Smith said that he would be willing to do this, but not to risk $1 million.

Ms. Marsh asked for direction to authorize staff to make this offer, but if the seller refused to extend it, she asked if the Board wanted to terminate the agreement at that point.

Commr. Smith expressed support for terminating the agreement at that point.

Commr. Parks agreed, and he described the study process.

Ms. Marsh requested a motion since it was involving a potential termination, and she noted that Senator Hays was available on Zoom Webinar.

Senator Hays expressed concerns for the sand skink fees, but noted that if the agreement was terminated, they would have to do something else. He questioned how much it could cost to purchase another piece of property, commenting that his office needed a new building and would prefer to have it before the 2024 election. He mentioned that they were discussing about $2 million total for this property if they incurred the penalty regarding the sand skinks, and he questioned if the County would spend $2 million on this property and house the Sheriff and the Supervisor of Elections, or if they would find another piece of property, asking how much they would spend for this.

Commr. Parks said that the County had a backup plan, relaying his understanding that there was land available with enough room at their existing County property near the Office of Animal Services and the renaissance faire.

Ms. Marsh displayed a map of this area and explained that it was where the landfill was located, and she pointed out where the renaissance faire had a lease. She mentioned that the County had a 50 year lease for the 41 acres for the fairgrounds area, and if the Board determined that it was in the public interest to use this property for something else, they could terminate that lease under the condition that the County would have to relocate the fair to another suitable property. She added that they also had 20 acres below the fairgrounds property, and she was unsure if they could possibly shift the fairgrounds down and use a portion near the animal shelter. She also said that if the Board chose to terminate the purchase agreement, the County would have to spend slightly more because they would have to rezone it back.

Senator Hays stated that he would be happy in that location near the fairgrounds as long as they could make it happen as quickly as possible.

Ms. Marsh commented that they would also have to annex this property into the City of Tavares because the Supervisor of Election was required to have an office in the city limits.

Commr. Smith made a motion to authorize the County Attorney to ask the seller for an extension past April 2022 for the County to do their due diligence for sand skinks, and to authorize the County Attorney to terminate the agreement if the seller was not willing to go past that date.

Commr. Blake seconded the motion.

Senator Hays asked that if the extension was granted, did this mean that the County was willing to spend the $600,000 or $700,000 on remediation. He suggested to terminate the agreement at the current time if this would be a hurdle.

Commr. Parks thought that if the study came back and there were sand skinks on the site, it sounded like the Board would not want to move forward with purchasing that property.

Commr. Shields noted that they would have lost five months.

Ms. Marsh stated that the County was in negotiations with a design professional; therefore, they would not want to enter into a contract until they knew what the site was going to be.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that Senator Hays’ desire was to not lose additional time, noting that no design could be done on the property until they knew that there were no issues.

Commr. Blake inquired about the cost of the property without the sand skinks, and Ms. Marsh replied that the purchase price was $1 million for 13 acres. Commissioner Blake then said that they could save $1 million if everyone preferred the other option, and he relayed an understanding that the idea was to shift the fairgrounds property down so that the Supervisor of Elections Office would have some road frontage between the fairgrounds and the Office of Animal Services. He inquired about how many acres would be needed.

Ms. Marsh stated that they could use 13 acres as the number.

Commr. Parks clarified that this did not affect the County’s plan for the fairgrounds/expo center.

Ms. Marsh indicated an understanding that the County was doing some type of design on the fairgrounds property, noting that there was also a one year termination for that lease; however, she assumed that the County could work with the fairgrounds on this since the County would only be moving them down.

Commr. Campione felt that the land to the west near SR 19 would make sense if the County could work something out with that owner so a road could be constructed off SR 19 to the fairgrounds for direct access.

Ms. Marsh relayed that it was an out of state owner and that they had not been responsive to the County’s requests.

Commr. Campione expressed support for reaching out to the landowner again, noting that the County could use a third party.

Commr. Parks said that there was plenty of room for the Supervisor of Elections and the Sheriff, and to continue with the County’s fairgrounds/expo center plans, except for good access; however, he opined that this would be an issue with the fairgrounds anyway. He said that the fairgrounds property could be a backup plan, and possibly within the next month the County could have a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) opinion regarding sand skinks.

Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that sand skinks had been found on other properties in the area.

Commr. Parks expressed interest in considering this item again in one month, and Ms. Marsh said that they could add it to the second BCC meeting in January 2022.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board authorized the County Attorney to ask the seller for an extension past April 2022 for the County to do their due diligence for sand skinks, and to authorize the County Attorney to terminate the agreement if the seller was not willing to go past that date.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:40 a.m. for eight minutes.

PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION PETITION IN CLERMONT AREA

Mr. Dean Delong, Right of Way Supervisor for the Public Works Department, presented vacation petition #1262. He explained that the applicant was Mr. Kenny M. Lord, the property owner, and that the site was located southwest of Lake Minnehaha in the City of Clermont area, within Commission District 1. He specified that the proposed vacation was located on the west side of CR 561, south of Ruby Lee Road and north of CR 565B/Pine Island Road. He noted the proposed vacation area on a map, which was part of tract C of the Windscape subdivision, originally platted as open space. He elaborated that Mr. Lord had purchased tract C for legal access to his 10 acre tract, and that the intent was to build a single family home in the area. He recommended adoption of the resolution to vacate.

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.

Commr. Smith noted that it was in the resolution that this tract would never be used to build anything on its own, and that it was just for ingress and egress.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2021-176 to vacate and annul a Platted Tract located in the Clermont area.

PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 2021-53 TO EXPAND AVALON GROVE CDD

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, said that this public hearing was in regards to the Avalon Groves Community Development District (CDD), explaining that a CDD was a funding mechanism for infrastructure and maintenance purposes. He mentioned that this CDD was located in South Lake on Sawgrass Baw Boulevard, and he displayed this on a map. He commented that the existing CDD was established in 2016 by Ordinance 2016-16, and that it contained about 975 acres. He stated that the total buildout of the Avalon Groves CDD was about 1,700 dwelling units, 350,000 square feet of nonresidential uses, and 175,000 square feet of civic uses. He commented that the current request was to expand the CDD by 40 acres and include the displayed parcel in the crosshatched area. He elaborated that this specific property had been rezoned in 2018, and that it was known as the Walker Planned Unit Development (PUD), which consisted of 92 dwelling units. He stated that the request was to add this 40 acres and additional 92 dwelling units to the CDD. He mentioned that this public hearing was advertised properly per Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and that staff determined that the request met the standards of review established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; furthermore, staff was recommending approval of this request.

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. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2021-53, an amendment to Ordinance 2016-16 to expand the Avalon Grove Community Development District to include an additional 39.97 acres.

regular agenda

PRESENTATION ON ANIMAL CONTROL FUNCTIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES

Ms. Cari Branco, Assistant County Manager, presented information regarding the City of Mount Dora’s request for the County to take over the City’s animal control functions. She explained that the County provided animal control services to 12 municipalities at no charge, with the exceptions of the City of Mount Dora and the Town of Lady Lake, and that prior to October 2014, the County had full responsibility for animal control functions, including enforcement and sheltering. She said that after October 2014, the Lake County Sheriff entered into an interlocal agreement with the County to provide the services within all of the municipalities except for the City of Mount Dora and the Town of Lady Lake, and in 2017 the County became responsible for the operation of a Lake County animal shelter for all municipalities. She commented that over the previous summer, the City of Mount Dora requested that the County assume all animal control functions, relaying that the City of Mount Dora Police Chief’s reason for the request was that he wanted to stay consistent with the County. She relayed that the Lake County Sheriff’s estimated first year costs to provide animal control services for the City of Mount Dora is $238,000 which included two animal control officers, two vehicles, and some miscellaneous operating expenses. She indicated that in the previous year, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) had taken over 9,000 calls, and that the department had 12 full time staff which included officers, investigators and two dispatchers. She also added that if the County took over services for the City of Mount Dora, the calls were estimated to increase by over 1,000. She listed the types of services provided: animal cruelty case management where the LCSO worked with the County’s shelter to provide care for animals that were seized or held as evidence; responding to seriously injured animals; corralling livestock on the loose; nuisance animals, or animals at large; tethering of dogs; animal attacks; and quarantining animals and overseeing the pre-exposure rabies shot program. She displayed the following two options: option one for the County to provide service to the City of Mount Dora at no charge; and option two for County to consider imposing a service fee to all municipalities in a future fiscal year to allow the Cities time to budget for the cost.

Commr. Campione noted that this item came out of the General Fund and that taxpayers within the City of Mount Dora limits were paying arguably the same amount as any other taxpayer in any other city in the county, but they were not receiving the animal control services. She commented that for option two, the County would have to consider if they would take this additional fee and spread it across the board, or if they would consider the entire budget. She said that they had to consider the fairness and the volume of calls.

Commr. Parks stated that when an urban area was included, there was more density and animals. He relayed his understanding that the additional cost would be $238,000 for the first year, and Ms. Branco confirmed this.

Commr. Smith recalled that the Lake County Sheriff wanted two additional animal control officers, and he asked how many officers the City of Mount Dora currently had.

Ms. Branco replied that the City had one officer.

Commr. Smith then inquired why the County could not just replace the one officer, asking what this could cost. He also recalled asking if the City was willing to provide their animal control truck, but noted that they were going to keep it for wildlife rescue. He inquired what could this cost if the County reduced this to one animal control officer and one vehicle.

Ms. Branco stated that the cost for one position was $54,000, and Ms. Barker believed that the vehicle cost $60,000.

A representative from the LCSO explained that they would fill it with one officer so that there would be an officer each day. He specified that it would be one officer per shift, and that the City of Mount Dora used police officers to take calls at night. He commented that the LCSO was essentially using one officer; however, it required two officers.

Commr. Smith said that this was an unanticipated budget impact, and he asked what this did for the County; additionally, he inquired if the County could take this over in the next fiscal year.

Ms. Barker replied that the County could talk to the City of Mount Dora about the possibility of waiting until the new fiscal year, and they could work with the LCSO as they prepared their budget in June 2022.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the $238,000 included a new truck and equipping it, and after that it would drop to $147,000 per year.

Commr. Parks mentioned the possibility of the other Cities requesting the same level of service as the City of Mount Dora was asking for.

Ms. Branco clarified that the County already had this for the other Cities, but they would need an additional truck if they took over services for the City of Mount Dora.

Commr. Campione noted that the truck would also be available to other parts of the county.

Ms. Barker stated that if the Board approved this to take effect immediately, some salary costs would be reduced because it would not be for a full year. She added that if they wanted to consider postponing it until October 1, 2022 when they could better plan for the expense, then it would be the full $238,000.

Commr. Blake commented that the $147,000 could possibly be offset by charging a small annual fee to the Cities.

Commr. Smith thought that it would be fair for the County to budget this properly to make sure that everything was smooth.

Commr. Campione wondered if the City of Mount Dora would possibly consider splitting the difference, or a hybrid program for the remainder of the year.

Ms. Barker said that she could check on this, and that she could also make a proposal that if the Board wanted to wait until April 2022, the County had a mid-year adjustment at that time. She elaborated that at that point, they could consider where they ended the prior year, noting that they could possibly have some extra funding left over at the end of the fiscal year which they could include in the budget in April 2022 toward this service for the remaining six months. She added that the City of Mount Dora would have to make a change to their ordinance so that they would be the same as the County, which could take a couple of months.

Commr. Campione assumed that similar to any countywide system, as a general rule it was better when they were all doing the same thing. She said that it could help the shelter as well, and she then asked about the City of Mount Dora’s wildlife vehicle, if they were coordinating with FWC, and if there was an emergency shelter.

Ms. Branco relayed that the City of Mount Dora preferred to provide this higher level of service to their residents, commenting that it was mostly calls for picking up raccoons, snakes and other small wildlife.

Ms. Whitney Boylston, Director for the Office of Animal Services, explained that this service was nuisance wildlife removal, and that when individuals called the County, they would refer them to a nuisance wildlife removal service; additionally, this was not a function that FWC provided.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to include this item in the budget for the following year, noting that it could possibly be started early if the Board found some funding in the interim, or if the City of Mount Dora wanted to contribute funding.

Adoption of resolution regarding redistricting

Ms. Marsh said that this was the final adoption of the Board’s new commission district boundary map. She explained that this was version seven, which they discussed at two previous public meetings, and that the numbers balanced out correctly. She relayed that staff recommended that the Board approve this on the current day, noting that it would also become effective on the current day. She stated that the only remaining part of this process was that the County had to publish this portion of the minutes of the current meeting in the newspaper, noting that the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Office could expedite it so that the Board could approve it in January 2022; furthermore, the County would then have it advertised to complete the process. She mentioned that the Board’s adoption at the current meeting satisfied the intent of the statute, which was to adopt it before the end of an odd numbered year.

Commr. Parks thanked staff for assisting with this item.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2021-177 changing commission district boundaries.

Accurate descriptions of the five County Commission Districts are as follows:

EXHIBIT A

Lake County Commission District No. 1 – Legal Description

BEGIN at the southwest corner of Lake County, Florida, being also the southwest corner of Township 24 South, Range 24 East, as referenced to the Tallahassee Meridian; thence northerly, along the west boundary of said Lake County, to the centerline of County Road 470; thence easterly, along the centerline of said County Road 470, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along said centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly along said centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along said centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along said centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the easterly extension of the centerline of Bridges Road; thence northeasterly, to the intersection of west boundary of the southwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 21 South, Range 25 East with the westerly water’s edge of Fishhook Lake; thence northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly, along the westerly water’s edge of said Fishhook Lake to the north boundary of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence westerly, along the north boundary of said southwest 1/4, to the northwest corner of said southwest 1/4 of Section 6; thence northerly, along the east boundary of Township 21 South, Range 24 East, to the centerline of Dewey Robbins Road; thence easterly, along said centerline of Dewey Robbins Road, approximately 1.6 miles, to the centerline of a high voltage electric transmission line; thence southeasterly along said centerline of a high voltage electric transmission line, to the centerline of South Dewey Robbins Road; thence southerly, along said centerline of South Dewey Robbins Road, to the intersection with the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road, approximately 1.7 miles, to the northwest corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, to the southwest corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, to the southeast corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northeast corner of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence S00°18’52”W, along the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, 1804.91 feet; thence N89°41’08”W, 1289.63 feet, to the west boundary of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence, northerly, to the northeast corner of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, to the northwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, to the southwest corner of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4723, page 1404; thence southerly, easterly and northerly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4723, page 1404, to the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4266, page 1321; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4266, page 1321, to the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, to the southeast corner of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the westerly right-of-way of an electrical transmission line; thence southeasterly, along said westerly right-of-way of an electrical transmission line, to the centerline of State Road 19; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of State Road 19, to the northerly projection of the westerly boundary of the plat of Arrowtree Reserve Phase II, as recorded in Plat Book 50, page 48; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of the plat of Arrowtree Reserve Phase II, as recorded in Plat Book 50, page 48, to the north boundary of the plat of Blue Spring Reserve, as recorded in Plat Book 58, page 93; thence easterly and southerly, along the boundary of Blue Spring Reserve, as recorded in Plat Book 58, page 93, to the northeasterly right-of-way of Florida’s Turnpike; thence northwesterly, along the northeasterly right-of-way of Florida’s Turnpike, to the west boundary of the east 1/4 of Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence south, along the west boundary of the east 1/4 of Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the south boundary of Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence west, along the south boundary of Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the northeasterly projection of the northwesterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 189; thence southwesterly, along the northwesterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 189, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Vineyard Way; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of Vineyard Way, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly, along the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the easterly projection of the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 2245, page 1801; thence westerly, southerly and easterly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 2245, page 1801, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Lake Minneola Shores; thence westerly, along the centerline of Lake Minneola Shores, to the centerline of Jalarmy Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Jalarmy Road 986 feet; thence east 53 feet; thence northerly, parallel with the centerline of Jalarmy Road, to the centerline of Cherry Lake Road; thence westerly, along the centerline of Cherry Lake Road, to the southerly projection of the easterly boundary of the plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8; thence northerly, westerly and southerly, around the 38 feet by 30 feet utility easement in the southeast corner of Tract B of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8, to the centerline of Cherry Lake Road; thence westerly along the centerline of Cherry Lake Road, to the southeast corner of the “Out Parcel” shown on plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8; thence westerly and northerly, along the boundary of the “Out Parcel” shown on plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8, to the southerly right-of-way of Cherry Lake Road; thence northwesterly, along the southerly right-of-way of Cherry Lake Road, to the upland/wetland boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4015, page 1347; thence westerly, along the upland/wetland boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4015, page 1347, to the east boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the east boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the southeast corner of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the south boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4657, page 990; thence southerly and easterly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4657, page 990, to the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, 1724 feet; thence S01°55’26”W, 1138 feet, more or less, to the boundary of the plat of Marsh Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 71, page 28; thence easterly and southerly, along the boundary of the plat of Marsh Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 71, page 28, to the boundary of the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase III, as recorded in Plat Book 48, page 57; thence easterly, southerly, westerly and southerly, along the easterly boundaries of the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase III, as recorded in Plat Book 48, page 57 and the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase I, as recorded in Plat Book 45, page 10, to the centerline of County Road 565A; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 565A, to the northerly projection of the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5152, page 1812; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5152, page 1812, to the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69; thence northeasterly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69, to the southwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 2391; thence northeasterly, along the southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 2391, to the upland/wetland boundary of the large swamp to the west of Lake Hiawatha; thence easterly, along said upland/wetland boundary, to the intersection with the northerly projection of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69; thence southerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69, to the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the northeast corner of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the east boundary of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southeast corner of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence westerly, along the north boundary of Tracts 45 and 46 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the northwest corner of Tract 46 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 46, 51 and 62 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the north boundary of the plat of Waterside Pointe Phase 3, recorded in Plat Book 67, page 20; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the plat of Waterside Pointe Phase 3, recorded in Plat Book 67, page 20, 375 feet, more or less, to the northerly projection of the centerline of an existing canal; thence south, along the centerline of an existing canal and the southerly projection thereof, to the south line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 22, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the south line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 22, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of Max Hooks Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Max Hooks Road, to the north boundary of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the northeast corner of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 17 and 32, of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southwest corner of Tract 32, of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence easterly, along the south boundary of Tracts 31 and 32 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southeast corner of Tract 31 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 35, 46, 51 and 62 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, 2148 feet, more or less, to the southerly boundary of the unnamed swamp located to the northwest of Lake Minnehaha; thence easterly, along the southerly boundary of the unnamed swamp located to the northwest of Lake Minnehaha, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence southerly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the centerline of Bronson Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Bronson Road, 0.8 miles, more or less, to the southerly projection of the westerly boundary of Lot 7 of the plat of Lake Minnehaha Shores as recorded in Plat Book 20, page 27; thence north, along the westerly boundary of Lot 7 of the plat of Lake Minnehaha Shores as recorded in Plat Book 20, page 27, to the boundary of Lake Minnehaha; thence easterly, along boundary of Lake Minnehaha (including any man-made canals) and along the westerly boundary of the inlet into Lake Susan, to the centerline of Lakeshore Drive; thence easterly and southerly around a curve to the right being the centerline of Lakeshore Drive transitioning to Hammock Ridge Road, to the historic centerline of Lake Louisa Road; thence southerly, along the historic centerline of Lake Louisa Road to the current centerline of Lake Louisa Road; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of Lake Louisa Road, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, 3 quarters (3/4) of a mile; thence northeasterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road, to the east boundary of Lake County; thence southerly, along the east boundary of Lake County, to the southeast corner of Lake County, being the southeast corner of Township 24 South, Range 26 East; thence westerly, along the south boundary of Lake County, to the point of beginning.

Lake County Commission District No. 2 – Legal Description

BEGIN at the intersection of the east boundary of Lake County and the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road; thence northerly, along the east boundary of Lake County, to a point 2.5 miles south of the northeast corner of Township 21 South, Range 26 East, as referenced to the Tallahassee Meridian; thence N81°45’00”W, across the open waters of Lake Apopka, 8770 feet, to the intersection of two unnamed trails; thence westerly, meandering along the centerline of an unnamed trail to the intersection with Ranch Road; thence westerly and southerly, along the centerline of an unnamed trail, to the south line of the north 1/2 of Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence west along the south line of the north 1/2 of Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the southwesterly right-of-way of the abandoned Tavares and Gulf Railroad; thence westerly, along the southwesterly right-of-way of the abandoned Tavares and Gulf Railroad, to the south boundary of the north 165.00 feet of the south 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence west, along the south boundary of the north 165.00 feet of the south 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the centerline of County Road 455; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of County Road 455, to the north boundary of south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence west, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the northwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence south, along the west boundary of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the southwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence south, along the west boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the southwest corner of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence west, along the centerline of Sugarloaf Mountain Road, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the centerline of Howey Cross Road; thence west, along the centerline of Howey Cross Road, to the centerline of South Buckhill Road; thence south, along the centerline of South Buckhill Road, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the northeasterly projection of the northwesterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 189; thence southwesterly, along the northwesterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 189, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Vineyard Way; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of Vineyard Way, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly, along the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the easterly projection of the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 2245, page 1801; thence westerly, southerly and easterly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 2245, page 1801, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Lake Minneola Shores; thence westerly, along the centerline of Lake Minneola Shores, to the centerline of Jalarmy Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Jalarmy Road 986 feet; thence east 53 feet; thence northerly, parallel with the centerline of Jalarmy Road, to the centerline of Cherry Lake Road; thence westerly, along the centerline of Cherry Lake Road, to the southerly projection of the easterly boundary of the plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8; thence northerly, westerly and southerly, around the 38 feet by 30 feet utility easement in the southeast corner of Tract B of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8, to the centerline of Cherry Lake Road; thence westerly along the centerline of Cherry Lake Road, to the southeast corner of the “Out Parcel” shown on plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8; thence westerly and northerly, along the boundary of the “Out Parcel” shown on plat of Cherry Lake Oaks, as recorded in Plat Book 60, page 8, to the southerly right-of-way of Cherry Lake Road; thence northwesterly, along the southerly right-of-way of Cherry Lake Road, to the upland/wetland boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4015, page 1347; thence westerly, along the upland/wetland boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4015, page 1347, to the east boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the east boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the southeast corner of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the south boundary of Section 3, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4657, page 990; thence southerly and easterly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4657, page 990, to the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 10, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, 1724 feet; thence S01°55’26”W, 1138 feet, more or less, to the boundary of the plat of Marsh Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 71, page 28; thence easterly and southerly, along the boundary of the plat of Marsh Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 71, page 28, to the boundary of the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase III, as recorded in Plat Book 48, page 57; thence easterly, southerly, westerly and southerly, along the easterly boundaries of the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase III, as recorded in Plat Book 48, page 57 and the plat of Marsh Hammock Phase I, as recorded in Plat Book 45, page 10, to the centerline of County Road 565A; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 565A, to the northerly projection of the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5152, page 1812; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5152, page 1812, to the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69; thence northeasterly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69, to the southwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 2391; thence northeasterly, along the southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1827, page 2391, to the upland/wetland boundary of the large swamp to the west of Lake Hiawatha; thence easterly, along said upland/wetland boundary, to the intersection with the northerly projection of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69; thence southerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 1263, page 69, to the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the northeast corner of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the east boundary of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southeast corner of the west 334.95 feet of Tract 36 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence westerly, along the north boundary of Tracts 45 and 46 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the northwest corner of Tract 46 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 46, 51 and 62 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 15, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the north boundary of the plat of Waterside Pointe Phase 3, recorded in Plat Book 67, page 20; thence westerly, along the north boundary of the plat of Waterside Pointe Phase 3, recorded in Plat Book 67, page 20, 375 feet, more or less, to the northerly projection of the centerline of an existing canal; thence south, along the centerline of an existing canal and the southerly projection thereof, to the south line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 22, Township 22 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the south line of the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 22, Township 22 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of Max Hooks Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Max Hooks Road, to the north boundary of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the northeast corner of Tract 24 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 28, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 17 and 32, of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southwest corner of Tract 32, of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence easterly, along the south boundary of Tracts 31 and 32 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, to the southeast corner of Tract 31 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10; thence southerly, along the west boundary of Tracts 35, 46, 51 and 62 of the plat of Groveland Farms, Section 27, Township 22 South, Range 25 East as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 10, 2148 feet, more or less, to the southerly boundary of the unnamed swamp located to the northwest of Lake Minnehaha; thence easterly, along the southerly boundary of the unnamed swamp located to the northwest of Lake Minnehaha, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence southerly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the centerline of Bronson Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Bronson Road, 0.8 miles, more or less, to the southerly projection of the westerly boundary of Lot 7 of the plat of Lake Minnehaha Shores as recorded in Plat Book 20, page 27; thence north, along the westerly boundary of Lot 7 of the plat of Lake Minnehaha Shores as recorded in Plat Book 20, page 27, to the boundary of Lake Minnehaha; thence easterly, along boundary of Lake Minnehaha (including any man-made canals) and along the westerly boundary of the inlet into Lake Susan, to the centerline of Lakeshore Drive; thence easterly and southerly around a curve to the right being the centerline of Lakeshore Drive transitioning to Hammock Ridge Road, to the historic centerline of Lake Louisa Road; thence southerly, along the historic centerline of Lake Louisa Road to the current centerline of Lake Louisa Road; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of Lake Louisa Road, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, 3 quarters (3/4) of a mile; thence northeasterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Hartwood Marsh Road, to the point of beginning.

Lake County Commission District No. 3 – Legal Description

BEGIN at the northeast corner of Township 21 South, Range 26 East, as referenced to the Tallahassee Meridian; thence northerly, along the east boundary of Lake County, to the south boundary of Lake Beauclair; thence northeasterly, along the easterly boundary of Lake Beauclair and the easterly boundary of an inlet into Lake Dora, to the south boundary of Township 19 South, Range 27 East, being also on the Lake County boundary; thence N30°W, across the open waters of Lake Dora, 3300 feet; thence west, across the open waters of Lake Dora, 4000 feet; thence N40°30'W, across the open waters of Lake Dora, to the northerly boundary of Lake Dora; thence southwesterly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Dora, to the southernmost point of those lands described in Official Records Book 135, page 525; thence northwest and then southwest, along the southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 135, page 525, to the west boundary of Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 26 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 26 East, to the centerline of the Florida Central Railroad; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of the Florida Central Railroad, 550 feet; thence north, to the northerly right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway 441; thence westerly, along the northerly right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway 441, to the southeast corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702; thence northerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702, to the northeast corner thereof; thence westerly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702, to the northwest corner thereof; thence northerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5716, page 2307, to the southwesterly right-of-way of County Road 19A; thence northwesterly, along the southwesterly right-of-way of County Road 19A, to the south boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 26 East; thence west, to the easterly shoreline of Lake Saunders; thence northerly, along the easterly shoreline of Lake Saunders, to the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5580, page 105; thence easterly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5580, page 105, to the centerline of County Road 19A; thence northerly, along the centerline of County Road 19A, 950 feet; thence northeasterly to the southwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 3647, page 1696; thence easterly, northerly and westerly, along the southerly, easterly and northerly boundaries of those lands described in Official Records Book 3647, page 1696, to the southeasterly right-of way line of the U.S. Highway 441, State Road 19 and County Road 19A interchange; thence northeasterly, along said southeasterly right-of-way, to the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441; thence southeasterly, along the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441, to the northwest corner of the plat Lake Business Park as recorded in Plat Book 37, page 44; thence northeasterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441, to the intersection with the centerline of Eudora Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Eudora Road, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441; thence easterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of East Crooked Lake Drive; thence northerly, along the centerline of East Crooked Lake Drive, to the centerline of Country Club Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Country Club Road, to the centerline of Washington Avenue; thence easterly, along the centerline of Washington Avenue, to the centerline of Abrams Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Abrams Road, to the centerline of East Orange Avenue; thence westerly, along the centerline of East Orange Avenue, to the centerline of Kensington Street; thence northerly, along the centerline of Kensington Street, to the centerline of East McDonald Avenue; thence northerly, along the centerline of Palmetto Street, to the centerline of Getford Road; thence westerly, along the centerline of Getford Road, to the beginning of Hicks Ditch Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Hicks Ditch Road, to the centerline of East County Road 44; thence westerly, along the centerline of East County Road 44, to the centerline of North State Road 19; thence westerly, along the centerline of County Road 44, approximately 6 miles, to the intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5377, page 795; thence southerly and westerly, along the easterly and southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5377, page 795, to the centerline of Radio Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Radio Road, to the intersection with the centerline of Treadway School Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Treadway School Road, to the centerline of County Road 473; thence southerly, along the centerline of County Road 473, to the intersection with the centerline of Crossen Street; thence easterly, along the centerline of Crossen Street, to the northerly extension of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 3606, page 1946; thence southerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 3606, page 1946 to the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline thereof; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the east boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence south, along the east boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441; thence northwesterly, along the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of Kinne Pearce Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Kinne Pearce Road, to the end of said road; thence south, to the northerly boundary of Lake Harris; thence westerly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Harris, to the east boundary of vacated Block 50, Silver Lake Estates, recorded in Plat Book 10, page 66; thence southwesterly, along the southeasterly boundary of vacated Block 50, Silver Lake Estates, recorded in Plat Book 10, page 66, to the northerly boundary of Lake Harris; thence southwesterly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Harris, to the southwest corner of Government Lot 1, Section 22, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence S01°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 6300 feet; thence S87°E, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 2,700 feet; thence S3°30'W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 580 feet; thence S88°30'E, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 625 feet; thence S35°10'W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 7,200 feet; thence N11°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 740 feet; thence S79°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 23,500 feet; thence southwesterly, across the open waters of Lake Harris, to the mouth of Helena Run; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of Helena Run, to the centerline of U.S. Highway 27; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of U.S. Highway 27 transitioning to the centerline of County Road 33, to the intersection with County Road 48 and County Road 470; thence continue south, along the centerline of County Road 33, to the intersection with County Road 48; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 48, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along said centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence southerly along said centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along said centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27; thence northerly, along said centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 27, to the easterly extension of the centerline of Bridges Road; thence northeasterly, to the intersection of west boundary of the southwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 21 South, Range 25 East with the westerly water’s edge of Fishhook Lake; thence northeasterly, northerly, and northwesterly, along the westerly water’s edge of said Fishhook Lake to the north boundary of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence westerly, along the north boundary of said southwest 1/4, to the northwest corner of said southwest 1/4 of Section 6; thence northerly, along the east boundary of Township 21 South, Range 24 East, to the centerline of Dewey Robbins Road; thence easterly, along said centerline of Dewey Robbins Road, approximately 1.6 miles, to the centerline of a high voltage electric transmission line; thence southeasterly along said centerline of a high voltage electric transmission line, to the centerline of South Dewey Robbins Road; thence southerly, along said centerline of South Dewey Robbins Road, to the intersection with the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of East Dewey Robbins Road, approximately 1.7 miles, to the northwest corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, to the southwest corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, to the southeast corner of the east 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northeast corner of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence S00°18’52”W, along the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, 1804.91 feet; thence N89°41’08”W, 1289.63 feet, to the west boundary of the southeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence, northerly, to the northeast corner of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, to the northwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, to the southwest corner of Section 10, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4723, page 1404; thence southerly, easterly and northerly, around the boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4723, page 1404, to the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the north boundary of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 4266, page 1321; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 4266, page 1321, to the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, to the southeast corner of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 15, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the westerly right-of-way of an electrical transmission line; thence southeasterly, along said westerly right-of-way of an electrical transmission line, to the centerline of State Road 19; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of State Road 19, to the northerly projection of the westerly boundary of the plat of Arrowtree Reserve Phase II, as recorded in Plat Book 50, page 48; thence southerly, along the westerly boundary of the plat of Arrowtree Reserve Phase II, as recorded in Plat Book 50, page 48, to the north boundary of the plat of Blue Spring Reserve, as recorded in Plat Book 58, page 93; thence easterly and southerly, along the boundary of Blue Spring Reserve, as recorded in Plat Book 58, page 93, to the northeasterly northwesterly, along the northeasterly right-of-way of Florida’s Turnpike, to the west boundary of the east 1/4 of Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence south, along the west boundary of the east 1/4 of Section 22, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the south boundary of Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 25 East; thence west, along the south boundary of Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence northeasterly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike, to the intersection with the southerly projection of the centerline of South Buckhill Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of South Buckhill Road, to the intersection with the centerline of Howey Cross Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Howey Cross Road, to the centerline of County Road 561; thence northeasterly, along the centerline of County Road 561, to the intersection with the centerline of Sugarloaf Mountain Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Sugarloaf Mountain Road, to the southwest corner of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the southwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the northwest corner of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence easterly, along the north boundary of the south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the centerline of County Road 455; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 455, to the south boundary of the north 165.00 feet of the south 1/2 the northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence easterly, along the south boundary of the north 165.00 feet of the south 1/2 the northeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the southwesterly right-of-way of the abandoned Tavares And Gulf Railroad; thence easterly, along the southwesterly right-of-way of the abandoned Tavares And Gulf Railroad, to the south line of the north 1/2 of Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 26 East; thence easterly, along the south line of the north 1/2 of Section 16, Township 21 South, Range 26 East, to the centerline of an unnamed trail; thence northeasterly, along the centerline of an unnamed trail, to the intersection with Ranch Road; thence continue easterly, meandering along the centerline of an unnamed trail approximately 7,100 feet, to the intersection of two unnamed trails; thence S81°45'E, across the open waters of Lake Apopka, 8770 feet, to a point on the east boundary of Lake County being 2.5 miles south of the point of beginning; thence northerly, along the east boundary of Lake County, to the point of beginning.

Lake County Commission District No. 4 – Legal Description

BEGIN at the northeast corner of Township 18 South, Range 26 East, as referenced to the Tallahassee Meridian, being a corner on the boundary of Lake County, Florida; thence northerly, along the northwesterly boundary of Lake County, to the northernmost point of Lake County; thence southeasterly, along the northeasterly boundary of Lake County, to the south boundary of Township 19 South, Range 29 East, being at a corner on the boundary of Lake County; thence westerly, along the boundary of Lake County, to the intersection of the easterly boundary of an inlet into Lake Dora from Lake Beauclair; thence N30°W, across the open waters of Lake Dora, 3300 feet; thence west, across the open waters of Lake Dora, 4000 feet; thence N40°30'W, across the open waters of Lake Dora, to the northerly boundary of Lake Dora; thence southwesterly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Dora, to the southernmost point of those lands described in Official Records Book 135, page 525; thence northwest and then southwest, along the southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 135, page 525, to the west boundary of Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 26 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of Section 25, Township 19 South, Range 26 East, to the centerline of the Florida Central Railroad; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of the Florida Central Railroad, 550 feet; thence north, to the northerly right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway 441; thence westerly, along the northerly right-of-way of Old U.S. Highway 441, to the southeast corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702; thence northerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702, to the northeast corner thereof; thence westerly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5290, page 1702, to the northwest corner thereof; thence northerly, along the westerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5716, page 2307, to the southwesterly right-of-way of County Road 19A; thence northwesterly, along the southwesterly right-of-way of County Road 19A, to the south boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 26 East; thence west, to the easterly shoreline of Lake Saunders; thence northerly, along the easterly shoreline of Lake Saunders, to the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5580, page 105; thence easterly, along the northerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5580, page 105, to the centerline of County Road 19A; thence northerly, along the centerline of County Road 19A, 950 feet; thence northeasterly to the southwest corner of those lands described in Official Records Book 3647, page 1696; thence easterly, northerly and westerly, along the southerly, easterly and northerly boundaries of those lands described in Official Records Book 3647, page 1696, to the southeasterly right-of way line of the U.S. Highway 441, State Road 19 and County Road 19A interchange; thence northeasterly, along said southeasterly right-of-way, to the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441; thence southeasterly, along the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441, to the northwest corner of the plat Lake Business Park as recorded in Plat Book 37, page 44; thence northeasterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of the southbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441, to the intersection with the centerline of Eudora Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Eudora Road, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441; thence easterly, along the centerline of the northbound lanes of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of East Crooked Lake Drive; thence northerly, along the centerline of East Crooked Lake Drive, to the centerline of Country Club Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Country Club Road, to the centerline of Washington Avenue; thence easterly, along the centerline of Washington Avenue, to the centerline of Abrams Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Abrams Road, to the centerline of East Orange Avenue; thence westerly, along the centerline of East Orange Avenue, to the centerline of Kensington Street; thence northerly, along the centerline of Kensington Street, to the centerline of East McDonald Avenue; thence northerly, along the centerline of Palmetto Street, to the centerline of Getford Road; thence westerly, along the centerline of Getford Road, to the beginning of Hicks Ditch Road; thence northerly, along the centerline of Hicks Ditch Road, to the centerline of East County Road 44; thence westerly, along the centerline of East County Road 44, to the centerline of North State Road 19; thence westerly, along the centerline of County Road 44, approximately 6 miles, to the intersection with the centerline of Hickory Hollow Road; thence westerly, along the centerline of Hickory Hollow Road, to south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence westerly, along the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the southwest corner of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence northerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of Haynes Creek; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of Haynes Creek, approximately 2.4 miles to mouth of Haynes Creek into Lake Griffin; thence N74°W, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 0.5 miles; thence N48°E, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 1800 feet; thence N8°W, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 2 miles to the mouth of the Ocklawaha River; thence northerly, along the centerline of the Ocklawaha River, to the north boundary of Township 18 South, Range 25 East, being also on the boundary of Lake County; thence easterly, along the boundary of Lake County, to the point of beginning.

Lake County Commission District No. 5 – Legal Description

BEGIN at the northwest corner of Township 18 South, Range 24 East, as referenced to the Tallahassee Meridian, being a corner on the boundary of Lake County, Florida; thence easterly, along the boundary of Lake County, to the centerline of the Ocklawaha River; thence southerly, along the centerline of the Ocklawaha River, to the mouth thereof into Lake Griffin; thence S8°E, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 2 miles; thence S48°W, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 1800 feet; thence S74°E, across the open waters of Lake Griffin, 0.5 miles, to the mouth of Haynes Creek; thence southeasterly, along the centerline of Haynes Creek, approximately 2.4 miles, to the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 25 East, to the northwest corner of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence southerly, along the west boundary of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the southwest corner of the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence easterly, along the south boundary of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the centerline of Hickory Hollow Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Hickory Hollow Road, to the centerline of County Road 44; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 44, to the intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5377, page 795; thence southerly and westerly, along the easterly and southerly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 5377, page 795, to the centerline of Radio Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Radio Road, to the intersection with the centerline of Treadway School Road; thence easterly, along the centerline of Treadway School Road, to the centerline of County Road 473; thence southerly, along the centerline of County Road 473, to the intersection with the centerline of Crossen Street; thence easterly, along the centerline of Crossen Street, to the northerly extension of the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 3606, page 1946; thence southerly, along the easterly boundary of those lands described in Official Records Book 3606, page 1946 to the southeast corner thereof; thence southwesterly, perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline thereof; thence northwesterly, along the centerline of U.S. Highway 441, to the east boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence south, along the east boundary of Section 23, Township 19 South, Range 25 East, to the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441; thence northwesterly, along the southerly right-of-way of U.S. Highway 441, to the centerline of Kinne Pearce Road; thence southerly, along the centerline of Kinne Pearce Road, to the end of said road; thence south, to the northerly boundary of Lake Harris; thence westerly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Harris, to the east boundary of vacated Block 50, Silver Lake Estates, recorded in Plat Book 10, page 66; thence southwesterly, along the southeasterly boundary of vacated Block 50, Silver Lake Estates, recorded in Plat Book 10, page 66, to the northerly boundary of Lake Harris; thence southwesterly, along the northerly boundary of Lake Harris, to the southwest corner of Government Lot 1, Section 22, Township 19 South, Range 25 East; thence S01°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 6300 feet; thence S87°E, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 2,700 feet; thence S3°30'W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 580 feet; thence S88°30'E, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 625 feet; thence S35°10'W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 7,200 feet; thence N11°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 740 feet; thence S79°W, across the open waters of Lake Harris, 23,500 feet; thence southwesterly, across the open waters of Lake Harris, to the mouth of Helena Run; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of Helena Run, to the centerline of U.S. Highway 27; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of U.S. Highway 27 transitioning to the centerline of County Road 33, to the intersection with County Road 48 and County Road 470; thence continue south, along the centerline of County Road 33, to the intersection with County Road 48; thence southwesterly, along the centerline of County Road 48, to the centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike; thence northwesterly, along said centerline of the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike, to the centerline of County Road 470; thence westerly, along the centerline of County Road 470, to the west boundary of Lake County; thence northerly, along the west boundary of Lake County, to the point of beginning.

APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING EXAMINERS

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Thomas Grayford to the Board of Building Examiners to fill an unexpired term ending January 14, 2023 as a member who is a Licensed Contractor in the following areas: Sheet Metal, Roofing, Class A Air Conditioning, Class B Air Conditioning, Class C Air Conditioning, Mechanical, Commercial Pool/Spa, Residential Pool/Spa, Swimming Pools/Spa, Plumbing, Underground Utility and Excavation, or Solar in accordance with section 489.105(3)(d)-(o), Florida Statutes.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL

Commr Blake requested to postpone the District 5 appointment, noting that he had a conversation on the current morning about a candidate that he thought would be interested in doing this.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint Ms. Monica Hite to the Children's Service Council as a member representing the Lake County School Board, along with approval of applicable waiver, and to postpone the appointment of the District 5 candidate.

reports

county manager

happy holidays

Ms. Barker wished everyone Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

annual school concurrency meeting

Commr. Shields relayed that he had chaired the annual school concurrency meeting.

league of cities luncheon

Commr. Shields said that he had attended a League of Cities luncheon, noting that Commissioner Campione had been a speaker.

merry christmas

Commr. Shields wished everyone a great Christmas.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

discussion regarding creating MSBU for sheriff

Commr. Smith expressed support for the LCSO; however, he liked as much transparency as possible. He thought that the idea was that if the County could have the Sheriff break his costs out to his own municipal service benefit unit (MSBU), then the public would understand what was involved with the LCSO.

Commr. Blake thought that it was a great idea and that it was worth exploring to see what it could look like.

Commr. Parks agreed and expressed support for this. He suggested that Commissioner Smith and Ms. Barker could discuss this with the Lake County Sheriff.

Commr. Campione questioned if there would still be General Fund funding for the Lake County Sheriff, relaying her understanding that there would be a combination.

Commr. Smith confirmed that it was a combination.

Commr. Campione said that the vetting period could allow the Board to understand how much funding came out of the General Fund versus what could be an MSTU.

Ms. Barker explained that this could be considered and that Lake County could receive assistance from other Counties that were doing this, as well as the possibility of bringing in a consultant to consider the Sheriff’s funding streams. She noted that they had countywide services through the corrections facility, that they provided bailiffs for court services, and that they had unincorporated only services which was primarily road patrol.

Commr. Campione mentioned services provided on a countywide basis such as crime investigation, the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team, and animal control.

Commr. Blake indicated that understanding that the jail operation would continue to be funded out of the General Fund.

Commissioner Campione confirmed that it would have to be separated out. She added that the County had the obligation, but that they essentially contracted with the Lake County Sheriff. She inquired if they could pay for this out of the municipal service taxing unit (MSTU).

Ms. Barker denied this and said that this was because it was the only corrections facility for the county.

Commr. Blake said that roughly half of the Sheriff’s annual budget was jail operations.

Commr. Parks stated that they may also want to discuss a percentage based budget, noting that Columbia County did this.

Happy holidays

Commr. Smith wished everyone Merry Christmas and a happy and safe New Year.

commissioner campione –district 4

league of cities luncheon

Commr. Campione stated that she had attended a League of Cities luncheon to discuss homelessness mitigation and the MSTU idea for new subdivisions to address ongoing upkeep on the maintenance of roads. She mentioned that Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator, had sent her an email asking whether Cities could use an MSTU or an MSBU because they were mechanisms intended for Counties. She questioned if the County could coordinate with a City so that the County would impose it, noting that the City could receive the benefit of those funds if a property was being annexed into the city.

Ms. Marsh explained that MSTUs and MSBUs were a function of County government and that Cities could not impose them; additionally, there would be a presentation in January 2022 regarding using this for subdivisions in the unincorporated area. She said that if the County imposed it in the unincorporated area but a City then annexed it, they had to opt in or it would be eliminated. She said that she did not see why the Board could not impose an MSTU or MSBU at the request of the City, though the City would have to pass an ordinance authorizing the Board to impose it and collect the fee. She was also unsure whether the County could turn that funding over to the City, and it would depend on what it was being used for.

Commr. Campione stated that when subdivisions come in and roads were in good shape, within a few years they started to degrade and were in the city road system. She commented that Cities could possibly have more expenses that they had not foreseen, and this could be a mechanism to help them cover those costs, similar to what the County was considering doing for subdivisions in the unincorporated area so that they would not have to include it in General Fund expenses.

discussion regarding special purpose district for utilities

Commr. Campione said that this item was in regards to the creation of a special purpose district for utilities under Chapter 189, Florida Statutes. She commented that the County had ARPA funding that they were going to use for septic tank enhancements, transition to sewer, and the Onsyte distribution system. She elaborated that they received a $1 million grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for Onsyte distribution, and they had to have a utility to provide this service. She remarked that there could be instances where they could contract or have an interlocal agreement with a City and let them serve as the utility, but then the County would lose the influence of operating it; additionally, since this was a pilot program, she felt that the County needed to oversee it. She hoped that it would be something that county residents on septic systems would utilize, and she relayed her understanding that the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) did not seem interested in being the utility.

Commr. Shields thought that Onsyte was addressed by the State for inspections and maintenance.

Commr. Campione clarified that there had to be someone who was the utility provider. She indicated her understanding that with the special purpose district, it would be an entity dependent on the County, but it would not be the BCC.

Commr. Smith expressed concerns for if they would be growing government to have this extra utility program, and he asked if they needed extra people to manage it.

Commr. Campione explained that it would be similar to an enterprise fund and would be paid for by the service provided. She opined that it was not an expansion of government, indicating that it was an expansion of service.

Commr. Smith inquired about FGUA not being interested in this, opining that this was what they were supposed to be doing.

Commr. Campione replied that FGUA had a board of directors and that they had taken over many private systems, which was the function that they were asked to fill. She thought that if the County did the special purpose district, then there was a good likelihood that FGUA could take it over.

Commr. Shields asked about Utilities, Inc.

Commr. Parks said that Utilities, Inc. would be running their sewer lines into their area, and any City could still provide service in that area.

Commr. Campione clarified that Utilities, Inc. was in the business of running sewer lines and a sewer plant, and while this was not in competition, it was a different concept.

Commr. Parks stated that there were also areas where they would go to septic tanks. He opined that septic tanks were not where the county needed to be from a water quality standpoint, with the exception of larger tracts.

Commr. Campione opined that this was a way to increase water quality and that the County could be the utility provider using this new system. She added that they only had a certain amount of time to use the $1 million from FDEP and offer this to residents, and that it would be in place to be used in the future.

Commr. Parks mentioned the areas where the County would not compete with Cities, noting that this was just for small areas that were in-between or left over. He reiterated that the cost for the administrative side would be included in what individuals would be charged.

Commr. Blake expressed that he did not want the County to be in the utility business, opining that there were likely other ways to address water quality.

Commr. Smith expressed support for the idea of the County preparing for a pilot program, but noted that he would not like to see the County be in the utility business; rather, he indicated support for finding a company that would be willing to take this over as the County got it started.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that Commissioner Campione’s request was to discuss setting up the special purpose district.

Commr. Campione said that they could have the County Attorney work on the mechanism to adopt it, noting that they had to have something to utilize the FDEP grant.

Commr. Shields asked about putting out a request for proposal (RFP) to see if this was what someone wanted to do.

Commr. Parks thought that the Board could ask staff to prepare something, and during the presentation they could see if there was another option.

Commr. Campione stated that there was an RFP out for someone to use the grant funding, and once that company was selected, they could possibly assist the County with this part of it. She added that they could possibly use an RFP process to hire a company to do the actual operations as opposed to the district.

Commr. Shields agreed with Commissioner Blake and Commissioner Smith about not wanting to be in the utility business, but noted that he would be in favor of this for water quality; however, he expressed support for looking for a better solution.

Commr. Parks said that they would not be a large utility, opining that there was not enough area for this to be possible. He added that the County would not be building sewer plants or installing large transmission lines.

Commr. Campione added that they would be trying to retrofit areas that no one would address because they were too far outside the reach of Cities.

Ms. Barker summarized that the Board wanted a presentation with an ordinance, and a second option was an RFP to find a utility provider; additionally, they were looking at a February 2022 timeframe for the presentation.

merry christmas

Commr. Campione wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

fire assessment fee in fruitland park and mascotte

Commr. Blake said that this was a follow up to an item discussed two weeks prior, and after that meeting, they realized that some nonprofit entities in the City of Mascotte were also affected by this transition. He stated that it would cost $46,038 to include the City of Mascotte entities.

Commr. Parks expressed support for this.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to pay the fire assessment fee for institutional land uses within the municipal limits of the Cities of Fruitland Park and Mascotte to provide the organizations with an additional year to budget for the expense.

merry christmas

Commr. Blake wished everyone Merry Christmas.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

resolution opposing senate bill 620

Commr. Parks expressed support for small businesses, but indicated concerns about Senate Bill 620 because of vagueness and how it could affect the county locally once attorneys interpreted it. He opined that there would have to be a significant amount of clarification if the bill was passed in its current form before the Board could make policy decisions such as with zoning. He expressed respect for what they were trying to do; however, he asked that the Board write a letter expressing their concerns with it and requesting to have questions answered.

Ms. Marsh stated that Mr. Chris Carmody, with GrayRobinson, P.A., had requested that if the County had suggestions regarding how to make the legislation better, to include this in the resolution of opposition. She relayed concerns that under the pre-suit procedures under the current legislation, it allowed an owner only to file a statement of monetary damages, noting that they may not be able to provide a good idea of the damages and how it related to the County’s ordinance; furthermore, she suggested a change that it require a business damage expert to submit that estimate of cost because they would likely be more in a position to determine whether the County’s ordinance created those damages. She explained that the bill created a new claim for business damages under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act which would allow businesses that had been in operation for at least three years, if they could prove a 15 percent loss of profit or revenue tied to any ordinance that a local government would pass, to seek damages from County government. She stated that especially in the past year, there was a large amount of extraneous factors which had impacted business and had nothing to do with local government ordinances, it would seem that if they could make a claim based on three years’ worth of their business, then there should also be a defense or mitigating factor that if their profits or revenues continued to decreased over that three years, then there was possibly something going on with that business which was not associated with an ordinance. She said that it seemed like it should be clarified that there may be economic conditions outside of what local government did which was impacting their business, and the County should not be held accountable for this. She stated that the majority of the bill focused on attorney’s fees, but there was no provision which would allow attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to the local government if the government was successful in showing that either the claim was unsubstantiated, or was caused by other factors. She suggested to at least add an equalizing clause that whoever was successful would be able to recover their attorney’s fees and costs, opining that this would also help reduce a potential industry to find businesses and sue local governments. She elaborated that if they had to pay attorney’s fees, this would be an incentive for a lawyer taking that case to make sure that they had a valid case. She mentioned that currently, the only item that the legislation exempted was that if the State mandated local government to make an ordinance change, then businesses could not make a claim against the County. She added that another item they would want to be exempt was zoning ordinances, noting that whether it was approved or denied, the County could possibly get claims under this legislation from adjoining property owners; additionally, if the Board approved a commercial business, then the adjoining commercial business could indicate that they had lost profit because the County allowed them to come in and undercut the other business, etc. She said that they would also want budget MSTU and MSBU levies, assessments and millage changes to be exempt.

Ms. Barker explained that unless the BCC went to rollback with each one of their millages, then they were affecting the bottom line of a business. She added that because the current form of the bill was written as affecting revenues or profits, it meant that any increase in expenses would reduce their revenue; furthermore, if it reached the 15 percent threshold and the Board did not do a rollback on their millage, then it left an opening for the business to say that the County had an effect on their bottom line.

Ms. Marsh noted that the budget was done by ordinance, and also expressed concerns for an idea which could be an issue with this bill when local government wanted to regulate certain industries. She elaborated that there was nothing to say that the business could not come back and claim that the County had impacted their business. She then stated that the bill was not clear that if the Board had a procurement action and selected one business over another, could they come back and make a claim that the Board had impacted their revenue or profits. She said that the Board could include any or all of these items in the resolution, and that there could be other items that the Board would like to see as well.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that that there was an instance in South Florida where bars were open until 5:00 a.m. selling alcohol, and an ordinance was passed indicating that they could only be open until 2:00 a.m. selling alcohol; additionally, this was one of the instances where this bill came from. He stated that there was some concern about how it might affect Lake County, and that the County was trying to do its due diligence. He clarified that they were not being adamantly opposed to something that may help businesses, but they had concerns about how it might affect them. He also indicated his understanding that currently, Lake County would possibly be the only County in the state to have some questions and suggestions.

Commr. Campione said that they could possibly offer a suggestion that the bill could require local governments to conduct a business impact analysis when adopting certain types of regulations. She opined that this was a home rule issue and that it was vague, arbitrary and potentially far reaching. She opined that if there was an issue in the other county because they adopted a regulation that had an effect on businesses, then the businesses needed to get involved in the electoral process and participate locally on who was sitting on their boards. She opined that a blanket ordinance could punish any County for any regulation and subject them to lawsuits, and that it could be an unintended consequence to cost everybody more funding for defending lawsuits. She did not think that Lake County being opposed to this was anti-business, but she thought that the way the regulation was written could do more harm to businesses and taxpayers than good.

Commr. Shields relayed his understanding that Cities could be sued as well, and he proposed the possibility of having the Cities support the Board’s letter.

Ms. Marsh relayed that staff could reach out to the Cities, and that she sent it to the City Attorneys when the legislation first came to her attention. She then stated that there was also Senate Bill 280, which would authorize courts to assess and award attorney’s fees and costs in certain litigation against local government, noting that it required a business impact statement before the adoption of a proposed ordinance, and requiring the governing body or municipality to do the same.

Commr. Campione asked if it limited which type of ordinance, or if it was any ordinance which could have an impact, and Ms. Marsh believed that it was any ordinance.

Commr. Blake thought that the intent of the bill was pure, but he agreed about the attorney’s fees and having an expert perform verification. He commented that he was not opposed to the bill, but he thought that they could make some suggestions to target what they were trying to do without having adverse effects.

Commr. Smith stated that he liked the bill on the surface, but noted that there were many items that businesses could claim that caused this. He opined that some businesses may not be as honest as others, and that it would be good if the County had some suggestions.

Commr. Parks noted that the BCC had small business experience, and he did not think that they wanted to be against small business. He commented that this item would be a request to write a letter indicating opposition to the bill in its current form, but that the County wanted to discuss the item and provide some suggestions. He indicated interest that if the bill passed, to at least include Ms. Marsh’s concerns that had been provided for the Board, and for this to be clarified in the bill.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns that the taxpayers of Lake County would be funding these damages whether businesses could prove if an ordinance affected them or not. She opined that they would have no local government influence, and she mentioned the possibility of other Counties adopting certain rules and potentially losing businesses to Lake County because Lake County was pro-business.

Ms. Marsh said that before the Board was a resolution expressing opposition, and she asked if the Board wanted to change this to a letter from the Chairman.

Commr. Parks expressed interest in saying “opposition to how it was currently worded.”

Ms. Marsh stated that she could do this, or she could remove “opposition” and soften it.

Commr. Blake expressed support for the suggested changes.

Commr. Smith thought that the Board could send a letter first with suggested changes.

Commr. Parks added that if they had to, the Board could do a resolution in February or March 2022.

Ms. Marsh summarized that they would change it to a letter and include the items as listed.

Commr. Blake asked about the items.

Ms. Marsh replied that it would include the use of a business damage expert to tie the loss of revenues and profits to an actual ordinance, attorney fee provisions on behalf of a successful local government, and exclusions for items such as the County’s budget and zoning, and procurement. She added that the County would direct the letter to both the State of Florida House of Representatives and Senate representatives.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to allow the Chairman to send a letter with suggested changes, and to emphasize that they were a pro-business BCC and that they appreciated the concept; however, they were looking for changes to improve the legislation and ensure that it was not abused.

merry christmas

Commr. Parks wished everyone Merry Christmas, and he thanked staff for their hard work in the current year.

discussion and update on city of eustis jpa

Commr. Campione recalled that the Board had discussed this item with the Eustis City Commission, and that Commissioner Parks had been working with the Mayor of Eustis. She said that she wanted to see if they could possibly reach some resolution, noting that there seemed to be a desire from the City to have a meeting with the BCC. She commented that the County had been working with Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, on a conservation design, and she proposed possibly offering to have Mr. Arendt to make a presentation to the City so that they could ask him about how this would affect density and their vision, along with if Mr. Arendt could incorporate the City’s vision into his proposed ordinance which could be used by the City and the County. She said that they could then have a joint meeting and have Mr. Arendt available so that they could possibly discuss a resolution. She suggested paying Mr. Arendt nominal fees to make a presentation and be available to the City. She commented that possibly about a week later, the Board could follow up with a meeting with the Eustis City Commission. She added that in-between that time, they could have Mr. Arendt start drafting a model ordinance.

Commr. Parks thought that it was a great suggestion, noting that County staff and the City of Eustis were working hard; however, to have a finished product, he thought that they would need Mr. Arendt to help write an ordinance. He also asked about the BCC meeting with the City Commission.

Ms. Barker replied that they were working on a date for the joint meeting and that they were originally considering January 13, 2022; however, this would be in conflict with the City’s calendars. She commented that staff would be working with the City to find a date as soon as possible.

Commr. Campione proposed seeing if Mr. Arendt was available and whether there was another date where he could provide a presentation to the City of Eustis to see whether this could work. She relayed that the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) currently had a conservation design, but a developer may not avail themselves of this if it was easier to use a straight land use designation, noting that in this case they were asking for up to five units per acre. She opined that if the code was changed so that it was easier to use the conservation design, then developers would use it. She added that the City could also consider using an impact fee waiver if developers used the conservation design, and she mentioned that the City had a planned development overlay; furthermore, they could possibly take Mr. Arendt’s design and it could be part of a joint planning area (JPA) agreement between the County and the City to use his ordinance and plan within that overlay so that anything new within the JPA would have to have the overlay and Mr. Arendt’s plan.

Commr. Parks recalled that he had suggested for the Eustis City Commission to hear the presentation, and he expressed support for having Mr. Arendt help write an ordinance. He then asked if they could have the meeting with Mr. Arendt as the same time as the BCC meeting with the City Commission.

Commr. Campione thought that the County could offer to cover the cost to have Mr. Arendt available so that the City could meet with him, noting that they could discuss density. She expressed that she liked lower densities in that area, along with the County’s rural transition with 50 percent open space, but Mr. Arendt was suggesting that if this was done as a master plan, then they could have the densities they sought as long as they implemented the design with larger open space areas. She relayed that according to Mr. Arendt and some items she had seen, it could be a higher end and more desirable product that protected rural areas with larger buffers, large areas of green space, and wildlife corridors. She reiterated that the offer was to see if Mr. Arendt could spend time with the City of Eustis, and then the Board could meet with the City Commission and ask Mr. Arendt to also be available for this to see if they could reach an agreement on a new JPA or interlocal agreement.

Commr. Parks expressed support for paying Mr. Arendt to present to the Eustis City Commission, noting that it had not cost much for him to do this for the BCC.

Commr. Campione suggested that it be a dialogue and for them to discuss how they could make their vision fit with Mr. Arendt’s.

Commr. Parks said that they would also work on the meeting with the BCC and the Eustis City Commission, and said that they could possibly start over on a new JPA in good faith after they moved past an overlay and crafting an ordinance through Mr. Arendt’s suggestions.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK