A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
August 23, 2022
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 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, 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 Brooks Braswell, with First Baptist Church of Umatilla, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. Tim Horton. He explained that Mr. Horton was a Licensing Supervisor in the Office of Building Services, a long-time Lake County resident, and a 1985 Eustis High School graduate. He elaborated that Mr. Horton served in the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps from August 1985 until October 1986, when he received an honorable discharge due to an injury. He commented that Mr. Horton became a City of Leesburg police officer in September 1995, and briefly served as a City of Fruitland Park police officer before joining the City of Eustis Police Department, from which he retired in 2014. He relayed that Mr. Horton’s police work included patrol, investigations, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and serving as a Firearms and Tactics Instructor, Academy Instructor, Field Training Officer and Department Armorer. He remarked that after retirement, Mr. Horton became a security officer, which brought him to the Lake County Administration Building as a Security Supervisor, ultimately leading to his current role for the Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BCC). He noted that Mr. Horton had been married to his high school sweetheart for over 32 years and they had three adult children. He thanked Mr. Horton for his service.
Pastor Braswell gave the Invocation and Mr. Horton led the Pledge of Allegiance.
historical fact
Commr. Parks stated that the first Lake County BCC meeting lasted two days and that it began on August 2, 1887. He mentioned that former Florida Governor Edward Perry appointed five men and women as Commissioners who started Lake County’s government, and that they had to be officially elected. He noted that the Commissioners were W.B. Denham, H.J.M. Porter, J.S. Mahoney, P.B. Weaver, and James M. Owens. He added that the meeting was held in the Mendenhall Store in Yalaha.
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 sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.
Agenda update
Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, requested that they pull Tab 26 to be brought back at a later date. She said that a public hearing noticed was attached to the agenda item for Tab 27, and that a signed contract was attached for Tab 30. She also requested that they move Tab 31 to the consent agenda, noting that they received an executed agreement. She mentioned that Tabs 36 and 37 were added as addendums after the agenda was first published, and she requested that Tab 36 be moved before the Citizen Question and Comment Period.
Commr. Parks said that he would like to move Tab 37 to
after the proclamation because a number of people with the City of Eustis were
in attendance.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of July 5, 2022 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
request regarding bond refunding
Ms. Barker said that Mr. Jay Glover, with PFM Financial Advisors, had contacted Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer, and herself to mention that there was an opportunity for the County to possibly refinance their Series 2015B bonds, providing a significant savings to the County if they were to move forward with this.
Mr. Glover, speaking via Zoom Webinar, said that his organization was continually monitoring the County’s debt to look for refunding opportunities, noting that there was currently an inverted yield curve. He elaborated that this meant that short term rates were higher than 10 and 30 year rates, which presented a unique opportunity to move forward with an advance refunding. He stated that under current tax law, advance refundings could only be done on a taxable basis, and they were proposing a unique structure that would allow the County to undertake a taxable advance refunding, noting that it would be exchanged for a tax exempt bond on the call date of the bonds they were refunding, which was June 1, 2025. He remarked that if the County wanted to pursue this opportunity, they would suggest to reach out to a number of lenders that had been willing to implement this structure to receive interest rate indications, and then bring this back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. He said that they were assuming based on current market conditions that the County could save about $3.6 million on the net present value basis, or over seven percent of the refunded bonds par amount. He mentioned that rates had increased slightly since they developed this presentation; however, the savings would still be well over $3 million. He indicated that the bonds they were proposing to refund were the County’s Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2015B, recalling that they were issued in August 2015 to advance refund prior bonds. He said that this transaction had saved the County $2.2 million, or 4.8 percent of the refunded bonds par amount. He added that these original bonds went back to 2007, and that the bonds were issued in the par amount of $50 million. He explained that the bonds had a final maturity of June 1, 2037, and had interest rates ranging from two to five percent. He reiterated that the bonds were callable at par on June 1, 2025, and he stated that they could do a current refunding or an advance refunding. He said that a current refunding could be done within 90 days of the call date on June 1, 2025, which could be done on a tax exempt basis; however, they were proposing an advance refunding which meant that it was refunded more than 90 days before the call date, noting that it must be done on a taxable basis under tax law considerations. He added that they were also proposing to do this with a structure that would allow them to exchange the taxable bond for a tax exempt bond through a bond purchase and exchange agreement on June 1, 2025. He summarized that the County could take advantage of the current interest rate environment to lock in a transaction that would save them funding currently, but would have increased savings once they got to the call date of June 1, 2025. He said that they wanted to move quickly with this opportunity because the nature of the yield curve being flat or inverted presented this opportunity; furthermore, the funds that would be put into an escrow to pay the bonds off on their call date over the next three years could earn a significantly higher rate than what they could earn historically. He stated that if they were given approval on the current day, PFM would reach out to a group of lenders that had been willing to implement this exchange structure to get interest rate indications, and if they were favorable, then they would bring this back to the Board for consideration. He commented that if the market trended away or if the indications were not as strong as they thought they would be, then they would not move forward with the transaction and there would be no cost to the County. He displayed what the savings on the proposed transaction might look like, pointing out the approximate $3.6 million worth of net present value debt service savings, and over $4.4 million on a cash flow basis over time. He indicated that if for any reason the exchange did not happen on the call date, the County would still save about $1.8 million. He mentioned that PFM had done this frequently with a number of other issuers such as Marion, St. Johns and St. Lucie Counties, and that it was a common structure. He requested direction from the Board to move forward with receiving interest rate indications and then to bring it back at a subsequent BCC meeting. He also mentioned that they recently had some good news related to the County’s credit ratings, and that Fitch Ratings just completed a review on the County’s Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds and their issuer credit rating. He commented that for the Capital Improvement Revenue Refunding Bonds, Fitch Ratings had upgraded the credit rating from AA- to AA with a stable outlook, and the issuer credit rating was affirmed at AA with a positive outlook. He showed information providing some of the rationale for why the credit rating was adjusted upward on the sales tax, as well as the positive outlook on the issuer credit rating, and he thought that the County had the full report that outlined these actions.
Commr. Smith asked to clarify if they have to accept it if the Board gave him direction to move forward and if it did not look positive for the County.
Mr. Glover clarified that the County would not have to accept it and that there would be no out of pocket cost to them; additionally, any transaction would have to come back to the Board for final approval.
Commr. Campione expressed support for pursuing this.
Commr. Parks said that this was an example of good fiscal policy for staff and the Board, noting that building up the reserves and promoting economic growth contributed to the bond rating.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for PFM Financial Advisors LLC to request interest rates from a group of lenders to determine the potential for Lake County to realize debt service savings by refunding the outstanding Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2015B.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Ben Paluhn, a resident of Orange County, commented on the work that was done with Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) and Lake County staff, noting that there was a significant amount of work done by a number of stakeholders. He relayed his understanding that this item was a foundation for a successful public/private collaboration while providing protections for the County and its taxpayers. He thanked those that had been involved, and he thanked the Board for the consideration of this item. He also opined that the balance was there and that they now had a platform to move forward together.
Commr. Parks said that he appreciated what Mr. Paluhn was doing, and that he was passionate about economic development and the community.
Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of Lake County, thanked the Board for the LEAD item, and she expressed support for economic development in Lake County; however, she expressed concerns for economic development at the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, noting that the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA) was close to the commerce park. She opined that as this area was being developed, it was important to consider the RPA.
Mr. Scott Christley, the owner of Skate World in the City of Leesburg, relayed a history of the property, and he said that they started resuming the project in January 2022. He listed the activities at Skate World, and he indicated that as they started their permitting process and their site plan with the City of Leesburg, there was an issue with Blackstarr Road, which was an old county road on the west side of the city. He elaborated that there was a 15 foot wide strip of land that belonged to no one, according to County records. He felt that the County could claim this right of way and give it to City of Leesburg, noting that the City wanted to use it for utility right of ways to come onto the property. He relayed his understanding that this item was going to be on the current agenda for approval from the County to move to the Leesburg City Commission; however, this did not happen and there were more issues. He asked the Board for their help.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, clarified that the County did not have a legal description for the 15 feet, and that the Lake County Public Works Department was going to write the legal description, noting that this would take about a week. She added that once this was done, staff could include it in the agreement, bring it back to the Board, and transfer it to the City of Leesburg.
Commr. Blake asked if it would be on the next regular
meeting agenda, and he expressed support for addressing this item quickly.
Ms. Marsh replied that it depended on when they had the legal description and when they could have it processed for signatures.
PROCLAMATION 2022-76 ORLANDO CAT café
Commr. Parks said that the County was passionate about animal welfare and services in Lake County, and that the Orlando Cat Café was another innovative tool implemented six or seven years prior in South Lake to help promote the adoption of cats.
Commr. Shields read and presented Proclamation 2022-76 to Ms. Jessica Whitehouse, with the Orlando Cat Café.
Ms. Whitehouse relayed that Ms. Sandy Cagan and Mr. Jeff Cagan were unable to attend but wanted to extend their gratitude to the BCC. She recalled that the Orlando Cat Café opened on September 6, 2016 in partnership with Minch Coffee and SPCA Florida, and that they had helped to adopt 1,800 cats and kittens into new homes. She added that they had hosted nearly 120,000 visitors from all over the world, and that they prided themselves on being the State of Florida’s first cat café. She indicated that their cozy environment allowed for a space for cats to feel comfortable enough to display their personalities, giving adopters the opportunity to select a cat that would be suitable as their next family member. She relayed that each year, this day came as an honor to the Cagans, herself, and their staff and volunteers who worked hard to save the lives of homeless animals. She thanked the Board for taking the time to present them with this honor.
recognition of commissoner shields in rowing event
Commr. Parks said that on the previous weekend, Commissioner Shields and his team won at the United States Rowing Association’s (USRowing) Masters National Championships. He mentioned that Commissioner Shields trained with his quad at the Lake County Rowing Association in the City of Clermont on Lake Minneola, and that three of the four team members were Lake County residents. He presented Commissioner Shields with a picture and a certificate of achievement, and said that the County was proud of him and appreciated what he was doing. He then displayed a video of the event.
discussion regarding partnership with city of eustis
Mr. Tom Carrino, Eustis City Manager, said that the City of Eustis was present to ask the County to be part of the exciting things happening there, opining that downtown City of Eustis was poised for positive transformative change. He said that the City of Eustis was interested in bringing the University of Central Florida (UCF) there, and that the Eustis City Commission had indicated that City staff had to build the funding and operational partnerships. He commented that they would be partnering with UCF for operations; additionally, the owner of the prospective building was a private sector partner. He added that businesses were also interested, and that the City Commission had asked them to contact Lake County educators, including Lake Technical College (Lake Tech) and Lake-Sumter State College. He relayed that these schools were interested and that they had several programs with entrepreneurial development, and that the City also had to coordinate with the small business development center (SBDC), LEAD, and other organizations, along with municipalities and the County. He stated that they had to coordinate with all of the business development and entrepreneurial service providers because they did not want to duplicate services; rather, they wanted to do this in a comprehensive way that was complimentary to everyone. He indicated that this project was moving forward quickly and that they would be thorough in building the partnerships.
Mr. Al Latimer, Economic Development Director for the City of Eustis, stated that business incubators were part of a comprehensive economic development strategy, and that incubators worked together with all of the economic development programs to grow the economy. He elaborated that incubators grew jobs at the top, mid and entry levels, and that partnerships were critical to success, noting that they could leverage resources and each other’s strengths and knowledge; additionally, they could share costs and risks. He indicated that UCF was nationally recognized for their business incubator platform, and he displayed an overview of this opportunity which included the partners, their investments, and the client payments. He also explained that UCF would provide staff, expertise, guidance, services and boot camps. He added that Mega Properties was a private sector member that was part of this, and said that they would provide the incubator space, along with free rent to incubator clients in the first year. He stated that the City of Eustis would be part of a municipal partnership that would pay for the operating cost, and he relayed the following reasons why communities were interested in incubators: provide a resource to entrepreneurs; nurture young businesses; start more businesses in targeted sectors; diversify the economy; and create jobs. He displayed a slide which outlined the possibilities in terms of partnerships, noting that having partners working together minimized risks that challenged incubator success. He commented that when considering the short term, the County should expect results in the following areas: the number of start-ups graduating from the incubator; the number of businesses that scale up; the amount of funding secured from outside investment; the number of jobs created; and the number of businesses that are retained in the community after they graduate. He added that when they were certain that they had a steady supply of entrepreneurs in the pipeline, there would be less emphasis on the short term results and more emphasis on sustaining the incubator because it focused on the creation of new companies.
Mr. Rob Panepinto, one of the Directors for the UCF Business Incubation System, said that they viewed these items as only being successful if they are part of a broader economic development strategy. He indicated that this was part of the university’s support for their broader community from an economic development standpoint, and they only wanted to go places where they felt they could make an impact and have support. He relayed that UCF had been doing this for over 22 years and that they started in Orange County and then in the City of Orlando, and had since expanded across the region. He commented that their job was to help scalable entrepreneurs grow and that the survival rate was five, six or seven times more likely if they came through a program like this. He explained that UCF provided them with mentorship, business development, business operations, assistance managing their financials, legal development of documents, public relations (PR), capital, leadership development, and specialized space. He said that UCF broke the incubators up into clusters, with one being the innovation district incubators, noting that they were near where UCF had a physical presence. He elaborated that the other cluster was regional business growth centers, which would include the proposed incubator, mentioning that this was where UCF had been brought in to help serve the needs of local communities and support a broader range of scalable businesses. He commented that for the innovation district cluster, they could bring the services and expertise of those incubators to Lake County by allowing virtual participation in the program. He showed a slide detailing how they clustered companies in the innovation districts, and he said that they had three programs in the incubator which included the traction program, which was for an earlier company, noting that they would offer the company all of incubation programs for a year and then decide if they would move on to the main program or be on their own. He added that the growth program was the core program of the incubator, noting that most companies stayed in the program for three to four years and that UCF’s goal would be to have them exit and move into commercial space on their own. He commented that their soft landing program was a way for a company to test if they wanted to come into the region, noting that this was generally done in partnership with local economic development agencies. He showed a slide with client metrics for UCF’s incubators, mentioning that these types of reports would be supplied to the City of Eustis and Lake County. He relayed that UCF’s stakeholders were largely county and municipal governments, and that for every public dollar invested, there was an average of over $12 in economic impact. He showed a slide with a summary of what UCF had proposed for the City of Eustis, and he clarified that they were not committing to a host of offices because they wanted to see what was there first. He commented that they were seeing individuals who wanted to participate virtually, and that they were cautious about real estate needs until they understood what was needed. He explained that they would have an office and a full time resource whose responsibility it would be to start to build local partnerships; additionally, a recruited individual would work with the entrepreneurs who came through the program, supplemented by UCF’s core staff at their other incubators. He commented that the SBDC was in the area and that there was sometimes some overlap in what they did, noting that the SBDC was also under the UCF umbrella and that they would work closely to help determine which item was correct for the entrepreneurs. He elaborated that they would launch the virtual incubator and that companies who needed space would be able to use the private developer’s space; additionally, business bootcamps could help small businesses who had been struggling. He elaborated that the bootcamps were 10 week programs and offered the curriculum and programming that UCF offered in the incubator. He said that this would give UCF the opportunity to assess and build their core incubator program while also providing value to small businesses across the region. He relayed that UCF had asked for a three year commitment of $200,000 per year, noting that most of this would be for labor to bring the resources to the City of Eustis. He added that if they then decided to move forward with a more traditional incubator with a specific lease and space, then they would revisit this; however, he thought that this funding would help them get to where they needed to be for a successful launch.
Commr. Shields mentioned that accounting services was a significant challenge for most people, and he praised UCF for offering this.
Commr. Parks said that he liked what UCF had done for the region, and he expressed interest in moving forward with the partnership with the City of Eustis. He added that he was impressed with the incubator program, and stated that the Board could direct staff to move forward with seeing what a partnership could look like.
Commr. Campione thought that LEAD could be an important part of this, and noted that Lake Tech had many relationships with the defense industries in the Metro Orlando area. She mentioned that when considering their overall economic development strategy countywide, having a successful incubator seemed to be one of those components. She commented that they had an opportunity to pull together the right stakeholders and participants, and that a City coming forward and having someone from the private sector who was invested went a long way for the potential success. She said that she was interested in moving forward so that they could determine the potential details of how they could do this, and she thought that it was critical, since the County was involved, that it would be something open and available in the Lake County area.
Commr. Smith said that he was in full support of this item, noting that it could help all of Lake County. He also agreed that the partnership between the County and a municipality was important.
Commr. Campione recalled that the County had previously leased space for the small business program on U.S. Highway 441 in the City of Eustis area.
Ms. Barker confirmed this and related that they may be looking to rent the space on their own.
Commr. Campione commented that if there was sufficient space, it could possibly be located at the subject property as well.
Commr. Parks thought that this was also a good opportunity for the rural parts of the County.
Mr. Panepinto stated that he expected to see companies from not just the City of Eustis.
Commr. Campione remarked that with the Wekiva Parkway completion, Lake County was near Metro Orlando and Seminole County.
Mr. Panepinto added that UCF did not have their City of Apopka incubator anymore, and that it was likely easier to travel to Lake County than south to Orange County.
Commr. Shields indicated that his son’s business was the product of an incubator in Greenville, South Carolina, and that his son’s network was strong there. He opined that this would be positive for Lake County.
Commr. Parks mentioned that a network and people staying there would be positive, noting that they liked to see more people staying in Lake County.
Commr. Campione pointed out that the building would be on Bay Street in the City of Eustis.
Ms. Pam Rivas, with Mega Properties, said that they were working with UCF and the City of Eustis, and indicated that the Lake Mechanical building had a large loft and open space, with office spaces. She added that they had the permits to modernize the building, and that there would be around 20 offices, along with large and small conference rooms. She elaborated that it would also have virtual offices and virtual mailboxes, and that her company saw this as including UCF, SBDC, and other organizations so that there would be different avenues for people who came there. She said that it would be a hub for businesses to work and collaborate with each other, and she relayed her understanding that a high percent of companies that graduate from an incubator program stay in the community where they started. She also indicated an understanding that 85 percent of businesses that go through an incubator program are still in business five years later. She mentioned that they wanted to have this retention of businesses in North Lake.
Mr. George Asbate, with Mega Properties, added that they had been working in the Cities of Mount Dora, Eustis and Tavares for over 12 years providing office space, and that they had mentored young businesses to become successful. He relayed that the business stayed in the general North Lake area, and he opined that it was a proven model.
Commr. Blake asked how much of the $600,000 over three years would be funded by the County versus the City of Eustis.
Mr. Carrino clarified that the initial request was for $200,000 per year for three years from the County, noting that there were currently no formal agreements in place. He added that he considered this proposal to be “incubator light” because UCF needed to perform a needs assessment and test the market for Lake County; furthermore; he thought that this initial proposal allowed UCF to perform this needs assessment as they were providing entrepreneurial development services. He mentioned that it could grow over time, and that the financial commitment could also grow over time.
Commr. Smith inquired about the commitment that the City of Eustis had already put forward.
Mr. Carrino reiterated that there were no written agreements in place, and that the Eustis City Commission had indicated that they were committed and that they wanted this item to move forward. He said that there was not currently a financial commitment from the City, other than interest and direction from the City Commission to find funding partners and operational partners.
Commr. Campione suggested that they could start with the figure of $200,000 for three years and have County staff start working together with the City of Eustis and other partners to discuss other details.
Commr. Parks stated that there was Board consensus to move forward with the City of Eustis, noting that a question would be if there was a fiscal commitment from the City as well.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 6, 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.
Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Resolutions
Notice is hereby provided of having received Resolution 2022-06 from the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District relating to the annual appropriations and adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2022, and ending September 30, 2023, along with the FY23 Meeting Schedule, Resolution 2022-08.
City of Tavares Annual Financial Reports
Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Tavares’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and the Annual Financial Report for the Tavares Greater Downtown TIF District CRA for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021.
City of Mount Dora CRA Resolutions
Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Mount Dora Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the City of Mount Dora Northeast CRA Resolutions 2022-10, 2022-11, 2022-26, and 2022-27 adopting the budget and amendments for the 2021-2022 fiscal year.
City of Tavares Ordinances
Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinances 2022-06 and 2022-08 from the City of Tavares.
City of Clermont Community Redevelopment Agency Resolution 26
Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Clermont Community Redevelopment Agency Resolution 26 adopting the budget amendment for the 2021-2022 Fiscal Year.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Blake asked to pull Tabs 6 and 31 to the regular agenda.
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 4 through 24, pulling Tabs 6 and 31 to the regular agenda, as follows:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Chapter 24, Lake County Code, entitled Lake County Water Authority, to adjust the staggered terms for members of the Lake County Water Authority to coincide with the terms of the Board of County Commissioners and to align the two entities' budget processes. There is no fiscal impact.
COUNTY MANAGER
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-102 supporting the Lake County Agricultural Education and Expo Center grant, which will be submitted to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS). There is no fiscal impact.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Management and Budget
Recommend approval of reimbursement from the Lake County Sheriff's Office $2.00 Education Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 2022. The fiscal impact is $68,512.92 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Animal Services
Recommend approval:
1. To execute the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County, the Lake County Sheriff and the City of Mount Dora for Animal Services; and
2. To advertise an Ordinance amending Section 4-2, Lake County Code, to add the City of Mount Dora to the list of communities to which Chapter 4, Lake County Code, is applied and enforced.
The fiscal impact is accounted for in the Sheriff's proposed Fiscal Year 2023 Budget attached.
Fire Rescue
Recommend approval:
1. To move forward with the property purchase from the Town of Montverde pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement for Fire Protection Services for replacement of Fire Station 85; and
2. To authorize the Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents; and 3. Of a budget transfer to move $267,000 from Buildings to Land.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $265,000 for the land purchase plus an estimated $2,000 in closing costs ($267,000 expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. Commission District 2.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 22-934 for Neighborhood Lakes Trailhead to Prime Electric, LLC (Leesburg, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $131,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval:
1. Of increased spending limits for Contract 22-409 for Clay Grooming Services at North Lake Regional Park to Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. (Coleman, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $152,061.28 (expenditure) and will not exceed the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval:
1. Of increased spending limits for Contract 22-410 for Clay Grooming Services at East Lake Sports & Community Complex to Earthscapes Unlimited Inc. (Coleman, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $87,351.84 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval:
1. Of increased spending limits for Contract 22-411 for Clay Grooming Services at Minneola Athletic Complex to Earthscapes Unlimited Inc. (Coleman, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $78,931.28 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget. Commission District 2.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract #22-940 for Pine Meadows Conservation Area - Boat Ramp & Kayak Launch to Council's Tractor Services, Inc. d/b/a CTS Paving (Pierson, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $489,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the 2022 Fiscal Year Budget. Commission District 4.
Public Works
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-103 to install stop signs and all-way plaques on Bear Claw Road at Pin Tail Road and at Blue Wing Road and on East Deer Road at Pin Tail Road and at Blue Wing Road in the Altoona area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $500 (expenditure-sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 4.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-104 to install stop signs and all-way plaques on Rose Moss Avenue at Callicarpa Lane and on Callicarpa Lane at Pale Grass Way in the Leesburg area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $450 (expenditure-sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 3.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-105 to install stop signs and all-way plaques on Champlain Street at Blackshear Court/Glassy Loch Loop in the Clermont area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $100 (expenditure-sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval:
1. To adopt Resolution 2022-106 to reduce the speed limit on roads within the Arrowtree Reserve subdivision from 30 MPH to 25 MPH; and
2. To adopt Resolution 2022-107 to install all way stop signs and all way plaques on Arrowtree Boulevard at Canoe Crossing Court and on Arrowtree Boulevard at Canoe Pass Street, in the Clermont area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $800 (expenditure – sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal year 2022 Budget. Commission District 3.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-108 to reduce the speed limit from 55 MPH to 45 MPH on County Road 561 from 300 feet south of Florida Boys Ranch Road, to 800 feet south of Lake Nellie Road, in the Clermont area.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $300 (expenditure-sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 1.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-109 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a platted right of way located north of E. Alfred Street and west of Anderson Drive. The closest municipality is the City of Tavares. 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 2022-110 to establish a 15 MPH school zone speed limit on Woodcrest Way at the intersection of Cagan View Road, in the Clermont area. The fiscal impact is estimated at $5,300 (expenditure – sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval for the Chairman to submit a letter to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) recommending Douglas Nelson as the Mosquito and Aquatic Plant Program Manager.
Transit Services
Recommend approval:
1. To purchase two Mobile Column Lifts for the Office of Transit Services; and
2. To adopt Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-111 adding $40,145 to the Transit Fund for a 5310 Capital Assistance Grant.
The fiscal impact is $88,858 (revenue/expenditure - ($84,398 grant funded and $4,460 in County funding) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
Recommend approval:
1. Of the 2022 Transit Development Plan Progress Report; and
2. To adopt Resolution 2022-112 supporting the 2022 Transit Development Plan Progress Report and if awarded the 2023 Public Transit Block Grant Agreement.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $1,600,000 (expenditure - $800,000 in grant funding and $800,000 in County funding).
tab 6: license plate readers for sheriff’s office
Commr. Blake said that he wanted a separate vote on this item because he had concerns about it. He clarified that he did not have concerns about the positive aspects of it; however, his concerns regarded the potential for abuse. He stated that he wanted to be sure that checks and balances were in place, and he listed several instances of abuse of automated license plate readers (LPRs) on the Motorola network, noting that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had ongoing lawsuits with some situations where federal agencies had access to locally collected data. He commented that there had been multiple issues across the country with false automated LPR hits, and he expressed interest in making sure that there was oversight on how it was being used. He said that he would be voting no for these reasons, but he thought that if the Board wanted to move forward with this, he would suggest to at least have local audits done. He also suggested that the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit and Comptroller’s Office Inspector General be in charge of those audits, and that they at least be annual, with possibility of spot audits if requested. He remarked that one issue he had with the idea of it being a searchable surveillance network was that if they were just using national hotlists for stolen vehicles, then why did there have to be access to it. He expressed concerns for the politicization of certain federal law enforcement agencies, and he opined that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could access cameras purchased by Lake County taxpayers to track someone in the county. He expressed concerns for using taxpayer funding to set up this network that federal agencies could abuse for their own purposes. He reiterated his request that if this item was approved, for the BCC authorize the Clerk’s Office to have an annual Inspector General audit of who was accessing this network, noting that the audit would be provided to the BCC. He also mentioned that spot audits could be requested.
Lake County Sheriff Peyton Grinnell said that all of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) policies were consistent with the Constitutional requirements.
Commr. Smith asked if the BCC could request an audit at any time on any agency within Lake County.
Mr. Gary Cooney, Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, replied that his office did not audit Constitutional Officers, noting that the Attorney General had opined that they could not do this; however, if the Sheriff agreed, he could always ask the Clerk’s Office to do this. He added that the Clerk’s Office currently audited themselves on the data network, and that they could do a similar audit if it was an agreement between the BCC and the Sheriff.
Sheriff Grinnell said that his office was a professional agency and could conduct their own audits, noting that they did this frequently and had previously disciplined employees that violated procedures. He commented that this company was currently in 65 of the 67 counties in the State of Florida, and that he was trying to join his fellow Sheriffs. He relayed information about a recent case that was solved due to a mobile LPR, opining that it would not have been solved otherwise. He opined that this item saved lives, and he indicated that the FBI already had this information; additionally his office would ensure that they were following the policies consistent with the Constitution.
Commr. Blake asked if he was opposed to the BCC having an annual audit of who was accessing it.
Sheriff Grinnell replied that Commissioner Blake could look at the public records, and he reiterated that his office was a professional agency that was accredited. He was unsure at what level they would meet Commissioner Blake’s requirements, and he indicated that he would accommodate Commissioner Blake in any way he could after dealing with his legal counsel.
Commr. Parks recalled that he had asked if the BCC could view the audits, noting that he was comfortable with this if Sheriff Grinnell would make it accessible to the Board.
Sheriff Grinnell clarified that the audit became a public record. He commented that this item required some trust, noting that he trusted the deputy sheriffs who were patrolling and entering tag numbers on their mobile data terminals without receiving a hit off a hotlist. He relayed that they were already doing this as part of their job, noting that this information was already being accessed by law enforcement in the entire State of Florida. He said that they did not care who was coming out of a certain city unless they received a hit on an LPR that it was a stolen vehicle, if a child had been abducted, or if there was a Florida Silver Alert.
Commr. Campione asked if any private property owner in Lake County that wanted to work with the Sheriff to allow a camera to be installed on their property could do this, and if there would be cameras on private properties as part of their network.
Mr. Sam Boyle, with Vetted Security Solutions, confirmed that a private individual or company could install cameras and share that data with the LCSO.
Commr. Blake inquired that if the FBI wanted to track someone in Lake County using this system, did they have to ask permission of Sheriff Grinnell to do this, or could they just enter the tag number.
Mr. Boyle explained that all of the cameras owned by the LCSO had permissions they could share; therefore, it was up to them on how they shared the data. He elaborated that all of the data was stored at the City of Miami Beach Police Department and that this was where they shared the permissions from agency to agency.
Commr. Blake asked how much time was compiled before it was purged.
Mr. Boyle responded that it depended on different Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) standards, and he believed that it was set for about three years.
Commr. Blake inquired if the Sheriff could possibly deny access to a federal agency that was trying to track Lake County citizens using a county taxpayer-funded surveillance network.
Mr. Boyle confirmed that he LCSO did not have to share with every agency, noting that certain agencies chose not to share any of their camera data.
Commr. Blake said that the BCC could possibly consider to include in the approval of this item that the data was not to be shared with federal agencies.
Commr. Campione asked if it would be at the discretion of the Sheriff.
Commr. Parks noted that the Sheriff was elected and was the chief enforcer of the Constitution at the county.
Commr. Blake reiterated that county taxpayers were paying for this, and said that the BCC was the elected oversight on the budget. He opined that it was a reasonable question to ask, relaying his understanding that many rural county roads would be recording the movements of Lake County taxpayers.
Commr. Campione thought that it was the Sheriff’s decision and that they would want to be connected to everyone in certain instances. She said that if all of the cameras were on private property, then the data could be collected anyway; additionally, an officer could currently run tags. She commented that there was always the potential for abuse, and that she felt comfortable with the audit situation as it was described to the Board. She stated that she liked the opportunity for the BCC to have access to an audit, and that she also liked the idea of being able to request an audit. She said that individuals would sometimes contact the Board and allege an abuse, and she indicated interest in something that would allow the Board to make this request upon a vote. She opined that they could be setting up their residents for living in a potentially unsafe environment if everyone else was utilizing LPRs, and she stated that it seemed from a practical standpoint that this needed to be done.
Commr. Smith relayed that the deputy sheriffs he met were professional, and he expressed support for any time that the Board could enhance the safety of the public. He commented that currently, a police officer could run a tag and it would do the same thing. He said that he was confident that the Sheriff and police offers in the county would not look at something for any other reason than to stop a crime or help someone. He mentioned that it would also be on an ordinance, noting that the BCC could always remove the ordinance.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the BCC could also ask for an audit if they were considering terminating the ordinance.
Commr. Shields thought that if individuals could be stopped from committing crimes or stopped on their way from a crime, then it was worth the tradeoff for personal information.
Sheriff Grinnell stated that he could look at the data monthly from the LCSO’s own usage, noting that they did this currently.
Commr. Parks commented that Mr. David Jordan, Lake County Tax Collector, was in attendance.
Mr. Jordan explained that under Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, regarding the BCC’s powers and duties, they had the ability by majority to investigate any of the Constitutional Officers.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the installation of automated license plate readers (LPRs) on county rights-of-way as proposed by Sheriff Grinnell.
Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:46 a.m. until 11:02 a.m.
tab 31: agreement with lake economic area development (LEAD)
Commr. Parks said that the Board would address Tab 32 after Tab 31.
Commr. Blake requested a separate vote on this item.
Commr. Smith said that staff worked hard on this item and that they added some things that the Board wanted.
Commr. Campione thanked staff for making this come together and understanding that the County was already doing great things regarding economic development. She also thanked staff for trying to bifurcate what the County did, and bringing LEAD in and working out the details on a public/private partnership level.
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for everyone working together, and he said that he was excited to see how this supplemented economic growth in the county.
Commr. Campione thought that it could be helpful if they tried to do updates or a more regular conversation between the Board and Economic Growth to know how things were going. She also thanked individuals on the private sector side, noting that there were significant investments that had to be made.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved an Economic Development Partnership Agreement with Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD), and a budget transfer in the amount of $150,000 to transfer available funds for Contractual Services.
Commr. Blake voted no.
discussion and presentation on children’s business fair
Commr. Shields said that he had a meeting with Ms. Rachel Loague, with the Acton Children's Business Fair, and that he had suggested presenting this to the BCC.
Ms. Loague stated that she was the author of the book Starting a Business from the Seed to the Plant, noting that this was a book to encourage those who had the idea or inspiration to become an entrepreneur on how to build a structure for their business. She indicated that she was trying to inspire children from the community to consider entrepreneurship, and that on October 22, 2022, they wished to host a children’s business fair in Lake County at Cagan Crossings Community Library. She then played a video of a previous children’s business fair. She requested support, assistance, and any resources that the County had to make this a special day for the children.
Commr. Parks said that the County could possibly attend and support the event, and that Commissioner Shields could work with staff to see what they could do to at least have a presence there.
presentation on emergency medical services SYSTEM
Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Assistant County Manager, said that he wanted to give the Board a Public Safety Department update, noting that this was previously done on September 28, 2021. He added that he also wanted to provide an overview of proposed changes to the Offices of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Fire Rescue, and that they would discuss a requested action. He recalled that some challenges they faced included increases in call volume and unscheduled absences that created challenges in staffing ambulances, widespread difficulty in recruiting paramedics, and that they required assistance from Sarasota County who had sent two ambulances and two supervisors to assist. He recalled the following short term solutions which were presented at that time: to have the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue begin working collaboratively to staff ambulances; the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to provide double-time pay for all unscheduled overtime for Public Safety 9-1-1 Dispatchers, EMS and Fire Rescue emergency medical technician (EMT), and paramedic personnel; and begin evaluation to reorganize the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue. He explained that they could staff 17 ambulances on a day with no staff being out, noting that 15 ambulances were from the Office of EMS and two were from the Office of Fire Rescue. He provided the following chronology from August 2021 until the current day: on August 3, 2021, the Office of Fire Rescue deployed an ambulance by the airport in the City of Eustis; from August 15 to September 11, 2021, Sarasota County ambulances provided assistance; on August 24, 2021, the Board approved the use of ARPA funds for double overtime pay, and on that day there were only 13.5 ambulances staffed between the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue; also on August 24, 2021, the Office of Fire Rescue deployed two more ambulances to the Four Corners and City of Fruitland Park areas; on October 10, 2021, they moved 18 full time employees (FTEs) from the Office of EMS to the Office of Fire Rescue so that the Office of Fire Rescue could staff five ambulances; and in December 2021, the Office of EMS employees voted to become part of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) 3990 union. He elaborated with the following additional events: on April 1, 2022, an Office of EMS Captain began managing all workers’ compensation matters for the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue, and an Office of Fire Rescue Battalion Chief began additional training for Office of Fire Rescue paramedics; on May 1, 2022, seven FTEs were moved from the Office of EMS to the Office of Fire Rescue; on May 2, 2022, Rescue 53 went into service full time in the City of Fruitland Park, and they had a tentative collective bargaining agreement (CBA); on June 14, 2022, the Board approved the CBA through September 30, 2024; on July 17, 2022, the Office of Fire Rescue deployed Rescue 85 into the Town of Montverde area, which was a contractual agreement. He summarized that in August 2021, the worst they went through was 13.5 ambulances and that currently with minimal staffing, they could staff 20 ambulances; additionally, they could staff 22 ambulances on a good day. He began discussing proposed changes and said that they wanted to use a multi-phased approach, noting that Phase I began in August 2021. He stated that Phase II would be to bring everyone under a single operational control for the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue, and that Phase III would be a fully reorganized department with one office. He displayed a chart with the types of calls they responded to, pointing out that over 91 percent were for EMS and rescue calls. He commented that they thought Phase II should begin in October 2022, and that they first wanted to create a transition team of County management and union leadership to jointly address questions as they arose; additionally, they wanted to implement a Division Chief position to manage daily operations of resources for the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue, and have an updated organizational chart. He clarified that the Office of EMS would stay the same with this reorganization, and he indicated Phase II would include aligning the administrative and operational functions to maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and remove the following duplicative process: administrative/office roles; fleet management; funding sources; human resources (HR) services; logistical support; the day-to-day operations of all EMS and Fire Rescue resources; rebranding of the new department; and training. He displayed an organizational chart that they anticipated on day one of Phase II, and mentioned that everyone would be brought under a single operational control, noting that everyone who was assigned to the field was part of the same CBA. He commented that each shift would have between 125 and 130 people, and that Lake County was responsible for the advanced life support (ALS) license for the County and all of the Cities, along with transportation. He said that the Deputy Chief of EMS would work with the County Medical Director, Budget and Financial Services, and EMS training. He stated that the Deputy Chief of Administration would be responsible for managing equipment acquisition and maintenance, HR functions, stations, vehicles, uniforms, etc. He relayed that Lake County Fire Chief Jim Dickerson would be retiring in January 2024, and the goal was to hire a public safety director/fire administrator, noting that there was succession planning. He elaborated that by the time that Chief Dickerson retired, the EMS chief and fire chief positions would not be filled, and that they would instead have a public safety director with three deputy chiefs underneath. He mentioned that part of the requested action on the current day would be for the division chiefs, which would be three positions at a paygrade 26; however, when they got to the end of Phases II and III, they would have two chief positions at paygrade 28 which would not be filled. He said that the division chief would be able to provide day to day structure and work directly with the operations chief. He then displayed the career path for an EMS single-certified staff, commenting that it was the same as the current EMS career path; furthermore, if someone wanted to be a paramedic, there was a clear career path in how they could start, the training they could receive, and how they could ascend to different aspects of providing EMS care. He also showed the career path for fire dual-certified staff and noted that the opportunities tended to be broader, but as they moved forward the plan was not for anyone to take over; rather, it was a newly formed organization that provided EMS care, and there would be opportunities for both sides. He read the requested action for approval to fund three vacant positions from the Office of EMS as Division Chiefs beginning October 9, 2022, noting that the total fiscal impact was $450,000 which was an expenditure from the EMS Fund, and was within, and would not exceed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Budget. He thought that the number would be closer to $400,000, but he wanted to estimate a correct number in case they had any changes in retirement or similar items.
Commr. Campione thought that this was a great explanation for why and how they would get to the next steps. She also thought that it made sense.
Commr. Parks agreed, and opined that it was a great move. He commended Mr. Carpenter on his long range strategic planning.
Commr. Smith said that they could gain many efficiencies through this process, which could possibly save the taxpayers a significant amount of funding without impacting the public safety aspect.
Commr. Campione said that the pie chart told a story of the services that the County needed to provide, noting that many calls were medical calls.
Commr. Parks recognized the public servants in the audience, and he expressed support for staff, noting that the Board wanted them to be as best trained as possible and have the best equipment they could.
Mr. Carpenter mentioned that they had to look proactively at how they did this, and that they had a significant amount of work in front of them.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to fund three vacant positions from the Office of EMS as Division Chiefs beginning October 9, 2022.
public hearing: 2022 library impact fee awards
Commr. Parks proposed to address Tab 27 at the current time, followed by Tabs 29, 33 and 34.
Mr. George Taylor, Director for the Office of Library Services, presented the 2022 library impact fee public hearing. He said that library impact fees were used for growth-related capital improvement, that they were collected in all municipalities and unincorporated areas, and that the Cities of Eustis and Mount Dora collected and retained their own impact fees. He added that library impact fees were collected on residential construction with the following figures: $191 per single-family unit; $146 per multi-family unit; and $152 per mobile home unit. He stated that library impact fees were awarded based on County Policy LCC-63, which identified the application and review process, the March 1 annual application deadline, the public hearing requirement for awards, and the eligibility for County and municipal libraries that were part of the Lake County library system. He commented that for the current year, there was about $838,913 available, and that nine applications were submitted for a total of $1.2 million; therefore, there was approximately $385,598 which was potentially unfunded. He began reviewing the following funding requests and said that the City of Leesburg requested teen audio shelving for roughly $4,787, which was for five adjustable pull-out metal drawers for their compact disc (CD) collection, noting that it would hold 240 additional CDs. He commented that the City of Mount Dora manga collection request was for $11,000, noting that manga refers to graphic novels typically for young adults, and that the total project cost was $22,000 with the City providing the rest of the funding; additionally, there would be 1,100 new titles introduced to the system with input from other library directors. He stated that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills seating and shelving was a $7,500 request to purchase book browsers, mobile storage benches and modular displays to make the children’s picture books more attractive and easily accessible, along with allowing for increased shelving space. He remarked that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills homeschool collection was a $40,000 request and that approximately 2,500 titles were part of this, noting that it was mostly a patron recommended list. He relayed that the City of Umatilla outdoor programming space was an approximate $12,000 request with additional funds from the City, the Umatilla Kiwanis Club and the Friends of the Umatilla Library. He elaborated that it would provide for benches, an inflatable screen, a media player, and shade umbrellas, along with space for movie nights and expanded programming; additionally, it would be available for community use. He mentioned that the request for deep freeze software was a system wide request from his office for $66,000 for virtual and remote management of their over 280 public computers. He explained that this allowed information technology (IT) staff to put software on all of their public computers from their offices, which would save travel time and staff time. He said that the next item was a cooperative-wide request for about $81,000 for NewLine displays, explaining that they included a large monitor, 4K webcam and microphone, an onboard computer, and software for all 16 libraries, library headquarters and library IT staff. He mentioned that patrons would be able to use them for webinars, and that staff would be able to use them for training and to broadcast author visits for the entire cooperative. He then stated that the Town of Montverde library construction request was for $500,000 and that it was the second request, noting that they were awarded $474,000 in the previous year and that the total project cost was $1.8 million. He indicated that the Town of Montverde had the rest of the funds for the project and that they would go from 3,600 square feet to 8,000 square feet with large meeting rooms and increased space for programs, meetings and the collection. He related that the final request was for the construction of the East Lake County Library at $500,000, noting that they were previously awarded $350,000 in 2020 and $150,000 in 2021. He said that the total estimated project was over $4 million, and that they would be going from 5,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet with a larger meeting room, a programming room, increased capacity for materials, and study space. He displayed the recommended funding, noting that on June 16, 2022 the Library Advisory Board voted to recommend funding seven of the nine applications, with the first five being funded at 100 percent. He added that number six, which was the East Lake County Library request, was funded at 33 percent because they had more time in their timeline for that building to ask for additional funds over the next year or two. He indicated that they wanted to fund the Town of Montverde’s request for $500,000 because the Town was meeting with an architect in the current week and was almost shovel ready; therefore, they could use these funds immediately to build their new library. He concluded that the total recommended funding was $838,913.35.
Commr. Blake asked about the official Board policy for funding collections.
Mr. Taylor replied that funding collections were allowed, and that they were usually an opening day collection; however, impact fees could be used to fund collections of books or other material as long as it was an expansion and provided for the entire library system.
Commr. Smith inquired if Commissioner Blake had any concerns with the list.
Commr. Blake said that the last two items were not getting funded, recalling that there was an issue with the requests for the collections. He felt that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills made a strong case for the homeschool collection, and he said that it was for reading list books for various curriculums. He relayed that there were many homeschool families in Lake County, and he thought that it was a valid use of the library, noting that the titles would be available countywide. He thought that it was a good thing for the County to provide access to some reading lists, and that it was a valid expense. He expressed concerns for creating a precedent where they had a significant amount of funding going to collections each year; however, he thought that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills’ request was a useful niche that could be beneficial to the county taxpayers.
Commr. Smith pointed out that the Town of Montverde construction request was being funded at 100 percent, and he asked if the Town was meeting with the architects on the current day.
Mr. Taylor responded that the Town had been meeting with the architect in the current week.
Commr. Smith wondered if they could reduce the $500,000 by $42,260 because he was unsure if the Town of Montverde could spend the whole $500,000.
Ms. Barker said that it was whatever the Board chose to do, and that they could also consider the City of Mount Dora’s request.
Commr. Parks questioned if this could hold the Town of Montverde back.
Mr. Taylor mentioned that the Town of Montverde Library Director had indicated that they felt comfortable spending the funding within a year. He commented that the direction from his fellow member library directors was that it was a large amount for the Town of Howey-in-the Hills collection, noting that they normally spent about $5,000 per year on collections. He opined that it was a large amount of funding to be spent on a niche collection.
Commr. Blake inquired how much funding they would have as a surplus after the requests.
Mr. Taylor relayed that over the past several months, they likely had about another $80,000 come in.
Commr. Campione said that anyone in the system could have access to the homeschool collection, and she asked if they had this at any other location.
Mr. Taylor clarified that about 51 percent of items on the list were already duplicated throughout the Lake County library system, noting that their collection policy indicated that they tried to avoid duplication to be efficient with their funding. He opined that spending a smaller amount of around $10,000 to $15,000 would make the most sense for this collection, and he stated that a recommendation of around $15,000 would be for a good core collection to provide material, noting that it would be about 1,500 books added.
Commr. Blake mentioned that they could possibly have multiple copies so that someone would not be on a waiting list for a significant period of time.
Ms. Barker said that since there was surplus of around $80,000, if the Board decided to make the full award or a partial award to the other two applicants, staff could bring back an unanticipated revenue resolution to the September 13, 2022 Board meeting. She added that the Board could recognize the $80,000 and they could fully or partially fund the other two applicants; additionally, they would only recognize the funding number for the two awards.
Commr. Smith stated that he would like to know the count of the non-duplicated books and what that cost would be, noting that this could possibly be the Board’s number.
Ms. Barker relayed that staff could bring this back on September 13, 2022, and that Mr. Taylor could work with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills librarian on the list to ensure that everyone was in agreement if books were duplicates or not.
Commr. Campione commented that they could possibly give the Board an idea regarding how often the books were checked out.
Commr. Shields added that the leftover funding could potentially be added to the East Lake County Library funding, relaying his understanding that they were only at 33 percent.
Ms. Barker replied that this could be done; however, at the speed they were going she did not want to allocate funding toward a project and have it go unused.
Mr. Taylor announced that the temporary East Lake County Library location would be opening on August 29, 2022.
Ms. Barker explained that they had a concession stand in the East Lake Sports and Community Complex that they would utilize until they could get a modular building. She explained that it would serve as a mini-library, and that they would be meeting the needs of the residents there for the time being. She added that once the modular building was placed, they would be operating for a few years until the new construction was complete.
Commr. Campione thanked the Office of Parks and Trails for making this happen, and Ms. Barker mentioned that the Office of Facilities Management had also helped and that it was a team effort. Commissioner Campione then inquired about what was happening in Astor.
Mr. Taylor said that they had U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that they were expending, noting that they had contracts with the architect to conduct the surveying of the Astor Library. He stated that they were enclosing the approximately 2,000 square foot multiuse park/pavilion so that they could use it as a temporary library location, noting that they needed about a year to remove the old Astor Library and build a new one. He hoped to have this going in the next several months, and he commented that it had two cement block buildings on both sides with restrooms and a stage; additionally, they would be able to use this for staff offices and a multiuse facility for residents.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator, relayed that the Town would like to express its disappointment and disagreement with the original proposal for the allocation of library impact fees. He relayed his understanding that in the original review, both of the Town’s applications scored highly enough to be fully funded; however, he said that Mr. Taylor decided to offer only 45 percent of the total requested amount for the second application, which he opined was a violation of policy LCC-63. He indicated an understanding that after reviewing this with the County Attorney, Mr. Taylor had determined that offering only partial funding for higher scored projects was an inappropriate practice per the policy. He relayed his understanding that Mr. Taylor then rescored the applications and had concluded that the Town should not receive any funds for the special collection application. He opined that the Town’s application was the only one which received a different relative score after Mr. Taylor’s reconsideration, and was the only application to receive a reduction in funding over the initial proposal. He said that the Town opined that this process had been handled incorrectly to the detriment of the Town as an applicant. He commented that the Town would urge the BCC to reconsider the results of the review process, and to restore the full funding for the Town’s special collection application based on the original scoring as outlined in policy LCC-63 and approved as a valid project by the County Attorney. He related that the Town was also concerned about these issues for possible future applications, opining that it seemed like a repeat of the issues that prevented the appropriate distribution of the same impact fee funds when the Town was looking to expand its library about seven years prior, noting that it took four years of applying to succeed with that project.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barker said that there were some subjective elements of the process, and that she had reached out to all of the City Managers and asked for their input; furthermore, the County was looking to revise the process.
Commr. Parks stated that he knew Mr. Taylor wanted the best for the library system and that he wanted to support the Cities.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following funding levels: City of Umatilla Library at $12,915, Commission District 4; City of Leesburg Library at $4,787.35, Commission District 5; Lake County Library System Deep Freeze Software at $66,975, all Commission Districts; Lake County Library System NewLine Displays at $81,075, all Commission Districts; Marianne Beck Library Seating and Shelving at $7,500, Commission District 3; East Lake County Library at $165,660, Commission District 4; Helen Lehman Library Construction at $500,000, Commission District 2; Marianne Beck Memorial Library Homeschool Collection at $0, Commission District 3; and W.T. Bland Public Library Manga collection at $0, Commission District 4. The Board also approved Interlocal Agreements with municipalities, Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-113 adding $112,258 to the Library Impact Fee Fund, and direction for staff to bring back the eighth and ninth requests with alternative funding sources and recommended spending.
public hearing: fy 2023 infrastructure sales tax project plan
Commr. Parks mentioned that the lists for this item were important, and that the amounts could be changed at any point.
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented a public hearing for the FY 2023 Infrastructure Sales Tax (IST) plan. She recalled that they held a workshop on August 9, 2022 to review the list, and she said that the FY 2023 revenue projections included about $3 million in carryforward from FY 2022, which was due to revenues that came in higher than they projected, as well as utilizing the vehicle sales proceeds from the Enterprise lease vehicle program. She showed the projected five year allocation by project category and said that for FY 2023, there was about $6.3 million for public safety projects, with a total in the five year plan of around $29.3 million. She displayed some of the quality of life projects which included funding for library building renovations, regional parks and trail improvements; additionally, in FY 2023 there was approximately $5.1 million allocated for quality of life projects, and about $33.9 million allocated for the five year plan. She stated that for public works in FY 2023, there was approximately $7.9 million allocated toward projects, and around $33 million in the five year plan. She relayed that for other public infrastructure, there was approximately $1.3 million allocated in FY 2023, and about $5.6 million in the five year plan. She added that for debt service, there was approximately $2.3 million allocated in FY 2023, and around $11.4 million in the five year plan.
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. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2023 Infrastructure Sales Tax Project Plan.
legislative priority for rural protection areas
Commr. Campione said that the Board had been watching the County’s land use designations be undone with regard to the rural protection areas (RPAs) and the original intent when those areas were included in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). She stated that this item was a suggested legislative solution and would essentially memorialize their RPAs with the understanding that they could be annexed, but the rural protection designation, the density, and open space requirements would have to remain intact unless a joint planning agreement (JPA) was reached between the City doing the annexing and the County. She elaborated that if they wanted to use the conservation subdivision approach or another type of approach, then this would give that flexibility; additionally, it would at least keep the RPAs in place unless a City wanted to do this and if there was agreement from incorporated and unincorporated residents, along with representatives of both groups. She thought that if the County could have its legislators sponsor this item, it could provide a viable solution with flexibility and the ability of property owners to have options available if they had good proposals that met the intent of the legislation to keep Lake County beautiful and not to lose the character of the county by not having all parts of the county turned into a high density subdivision, noting that it could preserve rural and agricultural lands.
Commr. Parks inquired if Commissioner Campione would ask the Board to move forward to craft a legislative request from their Legislative Delegation and if it would be a local bill.
Commr. Campione confirmed that it would be a local bill, noting that the language was in the Board’s packet. She read the purpose of the item as follows: “Rural lands and rural lifestyles are intrinsic, inalienable parts of the character, history, culture, and quality of life within Lake County. The preservation of rural land, coupled with sustainable agriculture and forestry contributes to the conservation of natural resources. Within Lake County, three core rural areas, described as Rural Protection Areas, shall be recognized, and preserved by the county and all municipalities within the geographic boundaries of Lake County.” She specified that these were the Wekiva-Ocala RPA, the Emeralda Marsh RPA, and the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA. She explained that it did not stand in the way of a City expanding their corporate boundaries, but those requirements for an RPA would stay in place; additionally, the act would incorporate the ability to use what was Rural Transition in the County’s Comp Plan. She elaborated that they were otherwise at a density of one unit per five acres, which was the rural/agriculture land use and zoning in Lake County, but they could have three dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 35 percent open space, or one unit per acre with 50 percent open space. She reiterated that it gave the landowner flexibility and that if a City annexed, they would still have to adhere to these requirements unless deviated by a JPA. She opined that in this case, they could have a collaboration between the County and the City as opposed to just one entity making the decisions against the will of the surrounding unincorporated property owners.
Commr. Shields thanked Commissioner Campione for her leadership on this item, and he thought that the Green Swamp was not included because it was a State-protected area; additionally, it could complicate things too much.
Commr. Campione confirmed that the Green Swamp already had State law that governed it.
Ms. Marsh explained that the Green Swamp and the Wekiva River Protection Area were already statutorily protected and that the Board could add something in the draft legislation; however, she expressed concerns that they would have to amend State statutes versus trying to do it through a local bill. She said that if this local bill/special act moved forward in the legislature, it would only apply to Lake County and their designated RPAs. She added that staff would also have to develop legal descriptions.
Commr. Parks mentioned that a JPA with a City could also help protect the Green Swamp.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that this item would not prohibit the Board from doing any other type of joint planning process with the Cities.
Commr. Campione thought that this item fit nicely with the JPA process that the Board would discuss in the following agenda item.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Ms. Shelley thanked Commissioner Campione and staff, and she expressed concern for densities that could be modified with JPAs. She hoped that they did not have higher density with JPAs.
Commr. Campione responded that it could be part of the process, noting that currently, if the County did not do anything, then the densities could be any number that the City decided.
Ms. Shelley also said that she would like for the RPA boundaries to be removed from the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) boundaries. She relayed that the Friends of the Wekiva River had submitted a letter and that they supported this item, and she submitted the letter for the record.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Lake County, expressed support for this item and thanked everyone for working on it. She opined that this also pertained to the county’s ecotourism and was an economic decision, noting that the Wekiva River Protection Area was within one of the RPAs and that this was a high recharge area.
Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a resident of Lake County, opined that conservation protected natural infrastructure and saved funding in the long run. She expressed appreciation and said that items like this made the community feel heard.
Ms. Pat Duncan, a resident speaking via Zoom Webinar, thanked Commissioner Campione, the BCC and staff, opining that this item seemed to be a workable solution to the issues that they had been having over the past few years. She encouraged the Board to move forward to a favorable conclusion.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to move forward with this item.
Commr. Blake voted no.
contract with east central florida regional planning council
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for Commissioner Campione bringing this item up, noting that it was something he had supported.
Mr. Josh Sheldon, with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), explained that his organization would be working with the jurisdictions within Lake County to develop a model JPA to be adopted throughout Lake County, and that these JPAs would be based on a countywide conservation strategy and joint planning area visioning; furthermore, the JPA would consist of a combination of regulations for annexation, implementation of a conservation strategy, transfer of development rights (TDRs), smart growth and other items. He added that the project would be broken up into two phases, and that the first task of phase one would be to form a steering committee for the project. He mentioned that task two of phase one would be to develop a conservation strategy that would hopefully be adopted throughout Lake County, noting that it would be a partnership with Stetson University. He explained that they would compile existing open space and conservation data to use in the Marxam model for conservation, that they would host no less than two stakeholder meetings to review the data, that they would host community meetings in partnership with 1,000 Friends of Florida to see what the County wanted for a conservation model and which areas they wanted to be prioritized, and that they would utilize these findings to form a conservation strategy; additionally, they would use data from the conservation strategy to form the joint planning areas and create the JPAs. He commented that task three of phase one would be their pilot program with the City of Groveland, noting that they would utilize the conservation strategy from task two to form the joint planning area visions. He added that they would possibly include suggestions for future land uses (FLUs) or how a City could address annexation, and they would take this and perform some population modeling. He said that they would also work with the City and County to develop the JPA, which would lead into task four of working with the other Cities. He explained that phase two would be determined after they finished task two or three of phase one, and this was when they would develop a second proposal to do the JPA visions and repeat the task of working with the City of Groveland, noting that this would be done with the other Cities to add to the JPAs.
Mr. Paul Owens, President of 1,000 Friends of Florida, relayed information about his organization, noting that they promoted environmentally and fiscally responsible sustainable development. He indicated that one of their roles would be to conduct a workshop at the beginning of this project to envision how the future might play out in Lake County, commenting that his organization called these their Florida 2070 or County 2070 workshops. He stated that they were looking at the impact of population increase on land and water use over the next 50 years, and that they developed trend maps and alternative maps showing development, conservation and water use. He relayed that they did a workshop for Volusia County where they took the projected population increase and what the impact would be on land and water use in Volusia County under a business as usual approach to development, as well as an alternative where there was more compact development and a greater emphasis on conserving land. He hoped that their workshop in Lake County would give citizens and leaders a better sense of what was at stake as the county grew over the next 50 years, and how much land and water could be saved by steering development toward urban areas and protecting conservation land.
Commr. Campione said that they could do this in parts and hopefully have a work product in place that could be a working document that other Cities could see. She relayed her understanding that if another City wanted to start working on one, then the County could move to phase two and determine how to do this concurrently; otherwise, they would be using the City of Groveland process as the template and could consider how this could be applicable to other places.
Mr. Sheldon stated that his organization would be gauging this as part of phase one and showing them the JPA in case there was something that the City wanted to add or change before participating, noting that his organization could have this ready before phase two.
Commr. Campione related that part of this could be the initial outreach to the Cities to reengage them if this was their decision.
Commr. Parks added that the ECFRPC was adding resources because County staff was so busy; otherwise, the County would not be able to do this.
Commr. Campione pointed out that Stetson University and the University of Florida (UF) would be involved.
Mr. Sheldon confirmed this and said that many of their population projections would be coming from the same place; furthermore, they could have the countywide view and the view outside the city based on the same models.
Commr. Parks expressed support for this item.
Commr. Smith recalled that his largest concern with this issue was the possibility of taking funding out of reserves; however, the County had now budgeted this item, and he was amicable with it.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for staff, 1,000 Friends of Florida and the ECFRPC, noting that she had needed to see how they could get to the deliverables.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved a contract with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) to develop a joint planning initiative between the County and Cities.
Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 12:32 p.m. until 1:00 p.m.
impact fee workshop
Ms. Barker recalled that about one year prior, the County started doing its impact fee update studies, noting that they had to be updated every three years. She commented that they started with the impact fee for fire rescue, libraries, and parks and trails, and that they did a subsequent presentation of the results of the study and had asked the Board if staff could move forward with the transportation impact fee study. She said that this had been completed and that the transportation impact fee presentation was done a few months prior; additionally, staff came back about one month prior with a summary of the results of all the studies. She relayed that they were present on the current day to discuss making adjustments to rates as the Board saw appropriate.
Ms. Nilgün Kamp, with Benesch, presented the impact fee update study. She said that the study updated fees for the four service areas, and that the current fees for fire rescue, libraries, and parks and trails were based on a 2003 study; therefore, the data was about 20 years old. She added that the transportation impact fee was last updated in 2019, but was adopted at a reduced percentage. She explained that impact fees by definition were a one-time capital charge to new development with the goal to cover the cost of new capital facility needs, and that they helped implement capital improvement plans (CIPs). She stated that impact fees were regulated through case law for a significant period of time, and that in 2006 they had the Florida Impact Fee Act and several changes were made. She indicated that some of the basic requirements included the following: that the rates be based on the most recent and localized data; a minimum of 90-day notice for any fee increases prior to effectiveness; fees may not be collected prior to a building permit; and in any action challenging the fee, the government has to show that their fee is correct. She recalled that in 2019, House Bill (HB) 7103 passed which allowed local governments to waive or reduce impact fees for affordable/workforce housing without having to offset the decrease with revenues from another source, and that it required indexing of developer credits when the fees increase. She said that HB 337 passed in the previous year and that it placed limits on fee increases, which included that fees could not be increased more than 50 percent over a four year period, and fees could not be increased more than once every four years. She mentioned that an exception was that if there was a study within the past 12 months demonstrating extraordinary circumstances, along with two public workshops to discuss the extraordinary circumstances, and that the increase needed to be approved by two-thirds of the governing body. She displayed a summary of calculated fees and pointed out for a 2,000 square foot single family home, the total fee was about $10,830, which would increase to around $15,600 at the full rate in the north central district; additionally, in the south district, the current fee was approximately $12,500 and would increase to around $15,500. She commented that her organization was asked to see how they could address tiny homes/cottage homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and multifamily. She relayed that currently, the County’s fees were tiered for single family only with regards to transportation, and multifamily was grouped together. She indicated that her organization approached tiny homes from the perspective of size, and that they tiered the single family category for all fees; furthermore, they separated multifamily in different categories including townhouses, apartments and condominiums, along with tiering them. She explained that transportation was measured in terms of vehicle miles of travel, that schools were measured in student generation rates, and that all other fees were based on population. She displayed the current adopted fees and relayed that in the north central district, the single family small category would receive about a 50 percent reduction compared to current rates, that the first two tiers of multifamily apartments would receive a 35 to 55 percent reduction, and that the larger ones would receive a slight increase of six percent. She elaborated that all of the condominium units and townhouses would receive decreases, and that the small mobile home category would receive a decrease; however, the rest remained about the same. She showed the same information for the south and northeast districts, noting that it had the same level of reductions.
Ms. Kamp then displayed a summary and reiterated that in the north central district, the 100 percent calculated fees resulted in about a $5,000 increase for a 2,000 square foot home, noting that the increase was around $3,000 in the south and northeast districts. She said that with applying the HB 337 50 percent cap on the fees, single family would go from around $10,000 to about $11,700 in the north central district, and that it would go from approximately $12,500 to about $14,200 in the south and northeast districts. She showed a comparison of the current adopted full calculated fees for all service areas for a single family home, along with the capped fee and at 95 percent of the full calculated fee, along with the fees in other nearby jurisdictions; additionally, this ranged from about $1,400 in Marion County with one fee to approximately $24,500 in Osceola County. She stated that the legislation did not provide a definition for “extraordinary circumstances,” but said that the jurisdictions that used this option had demonstrated that they were continuing to grow and that in some cases, their fees had not been updated for a long time; furthermore, recent cost figures were high and made it more challenging to build facilities. She explained that Lake County was the 17th out of 67 counties in terms of population, and was fifth in terms of population growth rate projected through 2050. She added that Lake County was ranked 11th out of 67 in terms of absolute population growth through 2050, and was ranked 18th in terms of residential permitting levels with about 4,500 units in 2021. She relayed that the travel demand model was projecting an increase of 53 percent for travel on county roads, but only a two percent increase for lane miles, noting that it was also suggesting increased congestion. She reiterated that the current fire rescue, library, and parks and trails impact fees were based on a 2003 study, and that the transportation impact fee was last updated in 2019, though the rates in the central and north central districts were only adopted at around 25 percent, and the south and northeast districts were adopted at about 70 percent. She commented that the study showed that when considering the full cost, some of the land uses experienced an increase of 50 percent. She stated that when looking at the individual service areas and their needs, the historical revenue for fire rescue was about $570,000 per year, which would increase to $1.2 million, noting that they had projects adding up to almost $11 million. She added that impact fees were used to expand the rural rescue program and that it could be used for new ambulances, relaying that there was an average response time of about 24 minutes in this area and that there was a desire to improve this. She recalled that the County had a study that recommended adding six ambulances, though only two were purchased due to a lack of funding, noting that the average cost for an ambulance was around $350,000. She remarked that the needs were about $12 million between the stations and the ambulances, which would take about 20 years to generate if they stayed with the current funding, and that the sales tax would continue to subsidize new growth. She added that if the fees were updated, then this timeframe would be shortened to 10 years at 100 percent adoption to 20 to 25 years at the 50 percent level. She said that for libraries, historically the fees generated about $725,000 per year, and the revenue projections indicated about $1.7 million to $2 million per year. She stated that it would be about a 45 percent reduction if they kept these fees, and that the projects that were identified and eligible totaled about $15.1 million. She related that the County was facing long wait times of about 100 days for best sellers, and that it would be beneficial to add additional books; furthermore, the wait time for eBooks was about 84 days. She mentioned that the cost of books was from $20 for a physical book to $60 to $90 for eBooks, with a total expansion need of approximately $15 million. She elaborated that this would take about 20 years with the current fees, and could be reduced to eight to nine years if fees were adopted at 100 percent, 10 to 12 years at 75 percent, and 15 to 18 years at 50 percent. She commented that parks and recreation impact fees were currently generating $185,000 per year, and that it would increase to $300,000 to $350,000, noting that there were several projects which could use this additional funding. She related that for road impact fees and depending on the benefit district, the current revenues ranged from $240,000 to $4.1 million, noting that fees would increase in each district. She added that it would be $8.1 to $9 million in the south district at the full rate, and in the northeast district it would be around $1 million to $1.1 million. She said that for the number of years to pay for the transportation project needs, fully calculated rates in the south district would pay for these projects in about 13 years, though the capped rates would take longer than 15 years. She stated that it would be one to four years in the north central district, and it would take longer than 15 years in the northeast and central districts. She displayed some examples of projects that made up the lists, and she said that they were present at the current meeting to receive the Board’s input and respond to questions. She mentioned that September 6, 2022 would be the second workshop for extraordinary circumstances, and then the ordinance would need to be updated based on direction; furthermore, the fees would become effective 90 days after adoption.
Ms. Barker reiterated that staff was looking for direction, and said that the Board could select from many available options, with one of them being 95 percent of the full calculation. She recalled that Ms. Kamp also showed a scenario for if they wanted 50 percent of the threshold of the legislation passed in the previous year, and that the Board could choose to address all or none of the districts, or anything in-between.
Commr. Parks asked for the impact fee district map to be displayed, opining that Lake County was large with almost four different economies.
Ms. Barker explained that these were the transportation districts and that parks only had three districts of north, south and central, adding that libraries did not have separate districts.
Commr. Parks commented that the Board could possibly do little or nothing for one transportation district, but in another district they could potentially do the full 95 percent. He opined that the south part of the county was different from the north, and that for this district they could possibly have support for 95 percent transportation impact fee, along with parks and trails, libraries and fire rescue.
Commr. Campione recalled that when the Board modified the northeast/Wekiva district, they were trying to get it closer to the south district because they had the Wekiva Parkway being finished and knew they had many development applications. She elaborated that at the time, there was concern about the central and north central areas because not much was happening there economically; therefore, the thought process was that the County did not want to adopt fees that would deter new activity. She stated that it looked like the City of Groveland would be in the south district, whereas the City of Leesburg was in the central district; additionally, the City of Leesburg was annexing a significant amount of property and issuing many development approvals. She noted that the City of Leesburg was in a low transportation impact fee district, and the County had been told by the City in the past that transportation was the County’s issue. She opined that the County could fall further behind if they kept the impact fee the same.
Commr. Blake opined that they were in a recession, and he expressed concerns for raising fees, noting that his Commission District now included the central impact fee benefit district. He recalled that the BCC had previously lowered fees to try to incentivize economic activity in the central district, and he indicated concerns for potentially raising impact fees by approximately 400 percent when there was interest in an area. He opined that this would be a bad faith action and that it was at the time when they wanted to have industry continuing to invest in the county. He expressed concerns for the government taking resources from the private sector, and he opined that during was a recession was the time when the private sector needed as many resources as possible to react to the business cycle.
Commr. Shields noted that the private sector was not building roads and that this was the County’s job. He mentioned having received concerns regarding traffic.
Commr. Smith indicated that his main issue was transportation, and he agreed with Commissioner Blake that raising the central district transportation impact fee to match the northeast/Wekiva district and the south districts would not make sense to him. He asked what it could look like with a 10 percent increase on road impact fees in the north central and central districts, opining that they had do something to address transportation issues in the county. He said that he would err on the side of caution for raising impact fees exorbitantly.
Commr. Shields asked if it required a four-fifths vote to do anything.
Ms. Barker clarified that it was a four-fifths vote for extraordinary circumstances to go to 95 percent.
Commr. Shields relayed his understanding that it only required a three-fifths vote to increase it by 50 percent over four years. He indicated his understanding that the Board had to come to a consensus, and he asked if they would do the three-fifths vote for 50 percent over four years and if they would do it district by district.
Commr. Parks expressed a preference to go district by district for transportation and the other three impact fees.
Commr. Campione said that another possibility could be with regards to a self-contained type community similar to The Villages where they were building their infrastructure and capturing their trips internally to a large degree. She mentioned the possibility of creating a different district, or at least studying it, that would allow a calculation where the County could have a different fee based on the trip capture. She stated that the County had an agreement with The Villages with regard to their Wellness Village expansion and economic development plan, and she opined that the concern mentioned by Commissioner Blake did not come into play when the City of Leesburg was annexing property on Dewey Robbins Road, opining that it was a different scenario and that they were creating trips rather than capturing them. She added that this possibility could help the Board make a better decision about how much they would need to raise the central benefit district if they treated the self-contained communities differently.
Commr. Shields opined that it was a great idea and that the traffic pattern was what mattered.
Commr. Parks pointed out that The Villages had invested in Wellness Village in Lake County and that they did things differently. He opined that they planned things well and that there was an internal rate of capture, noting that there were different impacts than what was seen in the south part of the county or the piecemeal growth. He asked if the County could create a special district there.
Ms. Barker replied that staff could research this.
Commr. Campione asked Ms. Kamp that if they were considering how many trips were captured inside of a planned community where they had all of their services located, then could this potentially justify an impact fee that would be different than one where individuals had to leave their neighborhood to reach services.
Ms. Kamp recalled that her organization had previously done differential fees by sub-area, but it was mostly related to the level of service in those areas.
Commr. Campione said that if it was a planned community where much of the infrastructure was being built by the developer, then this could possibly be considered because they would not have the impact and the need for the County to build certain things.
Ms. Kamp indicated that if the developer was building its own roads, then they would typically receive impact fee credits.
Commr. Campione expressed interest in considering this area to potentially have a sub-district.
Commr. Shields relayed his understanding that he and Commissioner Parks were amicable with taking the south district to 95 percent.
Commr. Blake mentioned inflation and the increase in construction prices, opining that if there was a large increase on the government side of building a single family home, then this could exacerbate the housing crisis. He added that a potential increase to the millage rate could affect the rental market, and he questioned what would happen to the service economy. He expressed concerns for the potential consequences of adding onto the economic situation.
Commr. Smith asked if the current direction was to vote on something.
Ms. Barker clarified that the Board would have an additional workshop on September 6, 2022. She elaborated that the Board could move forward with an ordinance at that point, or hold off on any changes until staff researched a sub-district.
Commr. Parks inquired if the Board could decide on the other districts at the next hearing.
Ms. Marsh explained that after the current workshop and the September 6, 2022 workshop, staff would bring back an ordinance, noting that the ordinance hearing would be when the Board needed to have a four-fifths vote if they were going to do more than the statutory requirement. She commented that the Board could break this up into different ordinances if there were some items, such as parks and fire rescue, that they knew they wanted to move forward with immediately, noting that this could give them more time to consider transportation impact fees or creating a different district.
Commr. Parks expressed support for separate ordinances within each district for each impact fee, noting that Commissioners may have one option that they like better, though it could be different for another impact fee.
Ms. Marsh clarified that other than transportation, the County currently only had one district for fire rescue and libraries, noting that parks had three districts. She commented that parks could be one ordinance with three districts, and that the Board could choose to do something different in each district; additionally, transportation would be its own ordinance, at which point the Board could decide if they wanted to create a different district for The Villages. She relayed that fire rescue and libraries would be in one ordinance because they were only one district.
Commr. Campione reminded everyone that the County had an infill waiver program for people who wanted to build a new house on an existing lot usually within municipalities in urban areas, noting that they could receive a significant reduction on their school impact fees; additionally, the Board had the potential to waive transportation impact fees in those situations. She said that applications and building permits continued to be received and issued, and that despite the economic situation, she opined that it was not deterring the demand. She opined that they were getting further behind and that the more they built neighborhoods and suburban areas, the more impacts occurred on the roads.
Ms. Marsh added that with ADUs under the current code, a property owner could defer those impact fees until they sold the property. She also mentioned that the County had an affordable housing waiver, which was 100 percent for impact fees for those that qualified under the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. She commented that with ADUs, the theory was that when they sold the property, they would have an increased value with the additional structure that they would then repay the County.
Commr. Campione stated that many times ADUs were used by people if a parent wanted to move in on the property where their children were, or vice-versa, and they could defer the payment to a later date. She felt that the County had creative ways to address affordability issues and to get around the transportation impact fees and school impact fees. She then commented that many building permits were being issued in the City of Mount Dora and that there was a significant amount of new activity. She also indicated that they were seeing more projects come to the City of Eustis and Sorrento, though there was not much activity near the City of Umatilla.
Commr. Shields relayed that the Cities of Groveland and Mascotte had 25,000 or more houses that would be built.
Commr. Parks thought that the Board was sensitive to how expensive things were in the County; however, there were many people moving to Central Florida. He opined that not everyone thought about the long term and that development was done in a piecemeal fashion, noting that there was a large impact on the County with that kind of development. He related that Lake County was the lowest or second lowest County when it came to millage rate in the nine county region; however, he opined that the gap between the County’s revenue and the cost to provide services kept widening. He said that he did not want to leave issues with a County Commission ten years later, and he opined that in some areas, this could be the best option that the County currently had.
Commr. Shields asked to display the slide that showed how long it would take to catch up on transportation with the current rates and the rates that the County could possibly charge.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it would take over 15 years to catch up in the south district based on HB 337.
Commr. Shields relayed that he had constituents who expressed concerns about issues in Lake County, noting that the County wanted to address it.
Ms. Barker summarized that staff would come back on September 6, 2022, and that the Board was contemplating separate ordinances for each impact fee. She added that staff would bring back a 95 percent scenario for the south district.
Commr. Blake indicated that he would not be voting for 95 percent of the calculation, and if there was a second Board member who was also not going to do this, then staff would not have to work on this.
Commr. Parks mentioned that there could be two options for an ordinance.
Ms. Marsh stated that staff was going to do fire rescue and libraries as one ordinance, and she asked if there was a consensus to do 95 percent of the full rate, or the parameters of the statute for 50 percent.
Ms. Kamp said that fire rescue was currently $390 and that it would go up to just under $590 at 95 percent.
Commr. Shields and Commr. Parks indicated that they were amicable with this
Commr. Smith said that he was not amicable with going up 200 percent.
Ms. Teslia clarified that 203 percent was the total and had everything in it.
Ms. Kamp added that 90 to 95 percent of the nonresidential fees were from roads, noting that fire rescue for light industrial would only increase from $104 to $173. She commented that office and retail would decrease.
Commr. Campione pointed out that parks would go from $222 to $291 if it was fully calculated, and libraries would go from $191 to $484.
Ms. Barker said that it was based on the identified needs.
Commr. Shields remarked that a 50 percent increase over four years required three of the Board members, and he asked if there were three of them that would support the fire rescue, library and parks at 50 percent.
Commr. Parks expressed support for this for at least 50 percent over four years.
Commr. Smith said that when looking at office under fire rescue, it was currently $1,301 and if they adopted the HB 337 capped fee, it would be reduced to $309 per 1,000 square feet.
Ms. Kamp stated that many land uses for nonresidential fire rescue impact fees were decreasing compared to the previous study calculations; furthermore, $309 for office was the highest they could justify.
Commr. Parks relayed that for fire rescue, libraries and parks, he was supportive of the 95 percent or the HB 337 version. He added that the Board was not taking transportation into account currently because they were going to come back and study the breakout district.
Ms. Marsh thought it could be helpful if staff took each impact fee and gave the Board numbers for all of the categories for the current and proposed rates at 50 percent and 95 percent before coming back on September 6, 2022. She elaborated that the current presentation was only a sample of a 2,000 square foot dwelling or an office, noting that there were many other categories. She related that the Board would also have to decide if they wanted to break out single family homes into additional categories, and she recommended to provide the Board with the schedule for each impact fee.
Commr. Campione added that the Board would also have the benefit of seeing their transportation plan to help categorize the improvements in each impact fee district.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Al Minner, Leesburg City Manager, relayed that the City had concerns for the impact fee proposal, particularly at its maximum rate. He opined that it would significantly affect the service economy, and that the south district had the largest impact on county roads. He indicated concerns for saying that the City of Leesburg was affecting county roads, noting that the City had 30,000 units approved; however, 5,000 units were in north Leesburg off State Road (SR) 44 and Radio Road, and 10,000 units were in The Villages. He commented that all of these subdivisions had immediate connection to U.S. Highway 27, and he opined that when units off Number 2 Road and Dewey Robbins Road were built, nearly all of the traffic would go west onto U.S. Highway 27 and then head south to the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and Florida’s Turnpike. He opined that U.S. Highway 27 was only failing at Dixie Avenue, Singletary Park and U. S. Highway 441. He also opined that the City of Leesburg was doing it correctly, and he thought that the concept for The Villages regarding a sub-district or a new district was worth considering.
Commr. Campione asked about the projects east of U.S. Highway 27 and if they would go to that road and then to the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and Florida’s Turnpike.
Mr. Minner opined that the traffic would progress south on U.S. Highway 27, and that the majority of the County’s improvement was not in his district. He relayed that the data suggested that the largest need was in the south district and the northeast district. He added that the City of Leesburg was only about 20 percent of the growth and below 20 percent of their transportation impact, which did not include The Villages.
Commr. Campione commented that roads in rural areas were rural roads, and she thought that if they had planned, then they could have possibly had the improvements programmed. She opined that the roads were narrow and were not ready for this.
Mr. Minner said that the development in the City of Groveland was in the middle of CR 565, State Road 19 and State Road 33, and had further to go to get to U.S. Highway 27 than the development in the City of Leesburg; additionally, the County’s data said that there was a need of only $33 million in the central district, while there was a need of $109 million in the south district. He opined that impact fees were a significant issue and that they wanted good services, though they needed to be mindful of the service economy.
Commr. Parks recalled that earlier in the current meeting, the Board decided to move forward with the countywide effort to get JPAs with all of the Cities, and he asked if Mr. Minner would commit to being part of this process.
Mr. Minner responded that they would consider it.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the Board was concerned about learning lessons from what had happened in South Lake and trying to avoid this. He hoped that the City of Leesburg would move forward with a JPA with the County.
Commr. Campione indicated an understanding that the City of Leesburg spanned the central and north central districts.
Ms. Barker clarified that the north central district did not begin until the other side of Lake Harris.
Mr. Minner pointed out on a map where most of the City of Leesburg’s growth would be.
Mr. Don Magruder, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Ro-Mac Building Supply, relayed his understanding that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis passed HB 337 to address municipalities and county governments abusing impact fees as budget balancers, and that the State understood how critical the housing crisis had become. He opined that Lake County could also lower impact fees to the levels of nearby counties, and that the BCC considering raising impact fees ignored the reality of the homebuilding and housing industry. He opined that it was a tax that would impede a significant amount of growth, and he indicated an understanding that Lake County’s impact fees were the highest when compared to Marion and Sumter Counties; additionally, those counties had no school impact fees. He said that in the last two years, the cost to build a house had increased by 38.6 percent, that the cost of labor had increased by 35.7 percent, and that development and land costs had increased by almost 50 percent. He added that there had also been a 68.8 percent increase in interest rates from January 2022 to the current date, and he expressed concerns for the higher costs, coupled with these impact fees and a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) that he opined did not optimize strategic growth and usage of land. He indicated concerns that companies would build rental units if the County raised impact fees and escalated costs, and for job growth in Lake County when compared to Marion County. He also opined that Lake County had not invested funding from the General Fund.
Commr. Campione thought that the County was doing many things right, or otherwise they would not have so many people wanting to move to Lake County.
Mr. Magruder opined that there was a spending and management issue in Lake County, and he reiterated his opinion that they were in a housing crisis.
Commr. Parks opined that Lake County had been efficient with spending and the way they operated government.
Commr. Campione mentioned that many things about Marion and Sumter Counties’ economies were different, and she disagreed that Lake County was not doing things right.
Dr. Christine Harris, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, made comments about the State library system and affordable housing, and she opined that residents needed to have storm damage to their houses fixed, along with power lines.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barker summarized that staff would provide the Board with the individual rate sheets that were part of the draft studies, and when they came back on September 6, 2022 for their second workshop, the Board would have a better idea of the individual rates; additionally, staff would talk to their consultant about the potential additional district.
public hearing: transportation construction program
Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, said that this would be a presentation and public hearing of the Fiscal Year 2023-2027 Transportation Construction Program. He stated that the funding sources included legislative appropriations and grants, road impact fees, funding partnerships, sales tax capital projects, and the County Transportation Trust which was a gas tax primarily used for operations and maintenance. He showed a map with the road impact fee collections fund balance in different districts, noting that the south impact fee district had the largest amount. He began discussing projects under construction which included the County working with CEMEX, who was building the first phase of Wellness Way and was constructing Schofield Road south and then east to Orange County for transportation impact fee credits; additionally, other property owners had signed agreements with the BCC and had worked with the City of Clermont. He stated that the planned Eudora Road roundabout in the City of Mount Dora had an estimated cost of $3.5 million and that it was now a matter of getting an agreement with the City of Mount Dora to maintain the landscaping and street lighting. He described Citrus Grove Road, and said that phase three had been finished and that phase two had recently received a legislative appropriation of $8 million through the City of Minneola; additionally, the County was trying to work with the City of Minneola and a land developer for a proportionate share agreement so that they could apply to finish this four lane section. He elaborated that phase one of Citrus Grove Road was constructed through a developer’s agreement, and that this developer was not constructing the dark blue section displayed on a map; furthermore, the County was in the design phase for the yellow section and the Board would be seeing an agreement soon for land purchase of right of way. He also indicated that Florida’s Turnpike was on schedule and that they would be building a bridge over the turnpike at their expense, noting that the yellow section would be built by Lake County. He elaborated that it would include a trail, sidewalks and bike lanes, and that they would be including a roundabout in the blue section. He then mentioned that the County was looking to bid the old County Road (CR) 466A final phase in the City of Fruitland Park, noting that the estimate was $7.2 million. He listed the following projects which had been completed: Citrus Grove Road Phase Four; Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive in the City of Tavares, noting that this was a special assessment requested by the property owners; and Lake Louisa Road and Lakeshore Drive in the City of Clermont area, which were federally funded safety projects to add some shoulder work, signage and striping, noting that these were just a few sample roads that the County completed in the previous year. He showed a list of road resurfacing projects that the County completed, stating that they completed 40 miles in FY 2020 and 25 miles in FY 2021; additionally, they were hoping to complete the same number of miles in FY 2022, though there was a current issue with material sourcing and contractors. He said that for FY 2023, they had $3 million programmed from sales tax and $3 million from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) transfer. He stated that about $2 million would be used to reconstruct CR 435, and that they still had to finish CR 437. He then presented the FY 2023-2027 Transportation Program project lists for the various funding categories, and briefly explained some of the projects. He indicated that the federal and state grants project list required a match, and that the list included the following projects: CR 437 in Sorrento; the realignment of CR 455 near the Waterbrooke development; CR 565 heading south; CR 466A Phase IIIB; the Eudora Road roundabout; Hammock Ridge Road at Lakeshore Drive roundabout; Hartwood Marsh Road from U.S. Highway 27 to Savannah Ridge Lane; Hooks Street; Micro Racetrack Road; Rolling Acres Road; Round Lake Road; the Wekiva Trail from SR 46 to Hojin Street; Wekiva Trail segment one from Tremain Street to Hojin Street and from Tremain Street to the City of Tavares; Wellness Way; and pedestrian bridges at Cagan Crossings and at Max Hooks Road over SR 50. He then reported on some of the south impact fee district projects as follows: CR 455 for construction and right of way; the CR 561 intersection with Lakeshore Drive; the CR 455 intersection with Fosgate Road; the CR 561 intersection with Jalarmy Road; Cherry Lake Road; Citrus Grove Road Phase II, III and IV; East Apshawa Road; Hammock Ridge Road at Lakeshore Drive; the Hancock Road intersection with Sunburst Lane; Hancock Road at Hartwood Marsh Road; Hartwood Marsh Road; Hooks Street; Lake Minneola Shores; Lakeshore Drive; Max Hooks Road; the Sawgrass Bay Boulevard intersection with Flemings Road; Villa City Road; Wellness Way; and Wilson Lake Parkway. He then listed the following central district projects: CR 466A Phase IIIB; Rolling Acres Road; CR 468 from SR 44 to the City of Fruitland Park; and CR 470 from The Villages to U.S. Highway 27, noting that it was about two miles that The Villages was not doing. He indicated that the projects in the north central district included the following: the Eudora Road roundabout; additional intersections; and some SR 19 intersections.
Commr. Smith asked if Mr. Schneider had reviewed the Woodlea Road improvement, noting that there were new subdivisions coming in.
Mr. Schneider said that staff would not forget about this, and that the funding they had was going toward the Eudora Road roundabout. He added that they had the ability to do a developer’s agreement for impact fee credits, which could help complete these projects. He continued his presentation and listed the following projects in the northeast/Wekiva district: CR 437; Round Lake Road; additional intersections; and the intersection of Britt Road with SR 44 for a northbound right turn lane. He relayed that the sales tax projects included the following: Hartwood Marsh Road; Max Hooks Road; Round Lake Road; traffic signal and road safety improvements; road resurfacing; and sidewalks throughout the county. He displayed the construction expenditure summary and a program summary, stating that the program was funded through various stages of design and permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the following project types: sidewalks; traffic signals and intersection improvements; widening and resurfacing; adding new lanes; and building new road corridors.
Commr. Parks said that this program was derived by the Board with input to Mr. Schneider, noting that the Cities were part of this as well. He opined that there were more needs than revenue sources, relaying that this was why it would be until 2027 or 2028 before some of these road projects were done.
Mr. Schneider added that since the transportation impact fee was countywide and the Cities had opted into the program, staff had an annual meeting to receive their requests and see where they could fit.
Commr. Parks pointed out that the overpasses were not currently funded but were on the list.
Commr. Campione mentioned drainage issues on SR 19A near U.S. Highway 441 and that there was previously a project development and environment (PD&E) study, though nothing had happened.
Mr. Schneider said that he had asked staff to consider this going forward with updating the plans and seeing where it was on a local priority list with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Commr. Parks noted that developers could look at this list and contribute to help complete projects more quickly.
Mr. Schneider stated that the agreements that typically had no complications were the ones that did not involve significant numbers of other property owners. He mentioned that they had been able to accomplish working with public/private partnerships with large landowners without typically impacting some of the smaller land owners.
Commr. Blake asked about the FDOT project in the Town of Lady Lake over CR 25, and Mr. Schneider indicated that he could provide an update for the timing.
Commr. Parks inquired if countywide sidewalk projects included Lakeshore Drive.
Mr. Schneider responded that it was on the local priority list for FDOT funding.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2023-2027 Transportation Construction Program, which includes the funding of projects by utilizing Road Impact Fees, Federal/State Grants, Sales Tax Capital Projects - Public Works/Roads, and County Transportation Trust Funds.
fcc environmental collection contract for area 1
Ms. Mary Hamilton, Operations Director for the Public Works Department, presented an update on the solid waste collection in Area 1 serviced by GFL Environmental, previously known as WCA. She showed the collection area map and clarified that they were only discussing Area 1 in the northeast section of the county. She relayed that the County’s current contract with GFL would have expired on September 30, 2027, but that in June 2022, GFL had notified the County that they would be terminating the agreement in 90 days, or September 19, 2022. She elaborated that the Office of Procurement Services did an informal request for information (RFI) to speak with other vendors, and the County realized that they would need until October 1, 2022 to do this; therefore, in subsequent correspondence with GFL, they had potentially agreed to the September 30, 2022 termination, noting that GFL was wanting a seamless transition with a new vendor. She said that staff had been negotiating with FCC Environmental of Florida, noting that they had contracts in Volusia and Orange Counties, and that they had discussed bringing their contract online on October 1, 2022. She added that it was substantially consistent with current operations, and this would take the contract through September 30, 2030, noting that there was a three year renewal option in the County’s current contracts. She remarked that in the current contract, the hauler used to shift weeks which happened after major holidays, where bags and excess trash were allowed, noting that FCC’s proposal on a shift week would not include bags; however, one would treat their garbage carts and recycling carts as garbage, and everything would be collected as garbage with no recycling during the shift week. She commented that people could currently use plastic bags for loose yard waste, and in the proposal they would be able to use a cart, garbage can, or biodegradable bag. She added that the current contract had a maximum consumer price index (CPI) of three percent which was calculated annually, and in FCC’s proposal it would increase to four percent. She thought that in the past two years, the CPI, when calculated, was running in the range of eight percent; therefore, she opined that a cap of four percent was not an unreasonable request. She said that for Areas 2 and 3 where they were retaining the vendors, they would be coming back to the Board to discuss aligning their contracts with some of these changes for consistency throughout the county. She read the requested action to recommend the contract award to FCC Environmental effective October 1, 2022, and for the County Manager to negotiate a GFL termination date of September 30, 2022.
Commr. Parks asked about not having recycling, and Ms. Hamilton clarified that it was only for the shift week.
Commr. Campione inquired if there would be recycling on regular pick up days, and Ms. Hamilton confirmed this.
Commr. Shields asked if the County could give notice of this.
Ms. Hamilton said that they would have to re-message this to everyone, and Ms. Barker added that they typically did holiday messaging.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the yard waste created more flexibility compared to how they did it currently. She also asked how they could inform the public.
Ms. Hamilton stated that social media had been helpful, but she thought that they could possibly utilize postcards and press releases.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there had been issues when people called and tried to get ahold of GFL, and she hoped that there could be a way for people to leave messages.
Ms. Hamilton indicated that because the contract was occurring so quickly, FCC Environmental’ s first year of operation would be at the County’s central facility. She believed that their phone lines were coming from a different facility that they already had set up, but noted that staff would speak to them about customer service.
Ms. Barker added that staff needed approval due to the proposal to use ARPA funding in the amount of $3,134,150 because it was considered essential workers in a public health and safety emergency.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items: contract award to FCC Environmental effective October 1, 2022; to authorize County Manager to negotiate GFL/WCA termination date of September 30, 2022; and to use ARPA funding in the amount of $3,134,150.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – district 1
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING
Commr. Shields mentioned that he had a Value Adjustment Board (VAB) meeting with Commissioner Blake.
MEETING WITH CITY OF GROVELAND STAFF
Commr. Shields relayed that he had a meeting with County and City of Groveland staff, noting that they were trying to address roads in South Lake. He thought that they would likely have a community meeting in January 2023, noting that Mr. Mike Woods, Executive Director for the Lake-Sumter MPO had also attended.
VISIT TO FIND, FEED AND RESTORE
Commr. Shields related that he visited the Find, Feed and Restore location that was being built for people who were transitioning from homelessness in the City of Groveland.
league of cities luncheon
Commr. Shields stated that he was with staff at the League of Cities luncheon on August 19, 2022.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
national sponge cake day
Commr. Smith said that it was National Sponge Cake Day.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
EVENT FOR MR. BLAKE KOCIELKO
Commr. Parks relayed that he attended an event for Mr. Blake Kocielko, a firefighter with the Office of Fire Rescue, noting that Mr. Kocielko was battling cancer and that they were raising funds for him. He indicated that some firefighters that attended the event wanted him to relay that they appreciated what the Board was doing.
SOUTH LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST
Commr. Parks commented that there was a South Lake Chamber of Commerce breakfast on August 19, 2022, and he thought that it was a great event. He noted that they honored those in public safety and that they would start doing this on a yearly basis during the breakfast before Patriot Day on September 11.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK