A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

September 6, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 6, 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; Mary Burns, Accounting Director; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the Board of County Commissioner (BCC) meeting. He said that the Invocation would be given by Pastor Jim Mory, with Union Congregational Church in the City of Tavares, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by District Chief Scott Scheider.  He explained that Chief Scheider had been with emergency medical services (EMS) for 15 years and was currently serving as the District Chief for the Office of EMS.  He elaborated that Chief Scheider began his career as an emergency medical technician (EMT) in 2007 and was promoted to paramedic in 2013; furthermore, he was reassigned as a Field Training Officer in 2018, was promoted to Chief Field Training Officer in 2020, and was later promoted to District Chief in 2022.  He mentioned that when not at work, Chief Scheider was an avid outdoorsman and enjoyed traveling with his wife and daughter, and he thanked Chief Scheider for the work he did.

Pastor Mory gave the Invocation, and Chief Scheider led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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, related that Tab 2 had been added as an addendum since the agenda was first published, and that since the Lake County Supervisor of Elections was present, she requested that this tab be moved up ahead of the impact fee discussion.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, expressed concern about election integrity and the Lake County Supervisor of Elections being given a new facility, opining that the Supervisor of Elections did not address the issues.  He opined that there were many anomalies, such as several addresses being changed to fictitious streets and then being shifted back to the originals after voting, and expressed concern that this was not being investigated.  He opined that the County did not need a building for machines, and that the County should utilize paper ballots.  He relayed his understanding that many Supervisors of Elections used outside vendors for many things, and opined that those things should be challenged and reviewed.

regular agenda

supervisor of elections facility

Ms. Barker recalled that there had been discussion about a new facility for the Supervisor of Elections and the potential lease of the former Sears building at the Lake Square Mall at a previous BCC meeting, and said that staff had negotiated a lease agreement for that facility.  She related that the architect who had been working with the Supervisor of Elections by providing the needs assessment had revised their scope, and she requested that the Board would consider the lease agreement as well as the scope from Song & Associates.  She mentioned that Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, was in attendance along with Charles Perry Partners, Inc. (CPPI) who had a short presentation regarding the construction manager at risk process for the renovations needed at the facility.

Senator Hays opined that this space would provide for the needs of their office, enabling them to provide the level of service people had come to expect and deserve.  He stated that it was important to complete this project in time to mail ballots to overseas voters in July 2023, and opined that the former Sears building could provide many advantages that were not currently available.  He related that Song & Associates had spent many hours learning about the Supervisor of Elections’ operations, and that CPPI had been chosen by a selection committee as the best qualified to accomplish their needs.  He mentioned that because of savings in several areas of their current year’s budget, he would be returning unspent funds which could be used to pay for a portion of the professional expenses or part of the remodeling. 

Ms. Barker remarked that she had to revise what she said earlier, noting that the County had not received a revised scope from Song & Associates.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, relayed that the Board would consider the lease of the former Sears building, and that after the presentation from CPPI, the Board could consider moving forward with a construction manager.  She commented that once the County had the scope negotiated in the alternate contract with Song & Associates, it could be brought back at the following BCC meeting, noting that the actual contract would depend on whether or not the County had a construction manager.

Commr. Parks clarified that the Board had to decide on the lease and on direction for a construction manager.

Ms. Marsh stated that if the Board agreed to a construction manager, then CPPI could be considered, since the project was bid as a larger project versus a renovation.

Mr. John Weaver, Regional Manager for Central Florida for CPPI, explained that there were differences between a hard bid and a contract manager, noting that on a hard bid, the owner hired a design firm which would complete the design, and then contractors would provide bids from which the lowest bidder was selected to construct the project.  He said that with a construction manager at risk, the owner hired a design team who would then hire a construction manager at risk, and that throughout the design process, the construction manager at risk would provide constructability reviews, schedule analysis, and preconstruction packages.  He pointed out that a construction manager at risk would establish a guaranteed maximum price, and that it would be set by the Board for the construction process.  He mentioned that 85 percent of the contract was hard bid, making it similar to a hard bid project, and that they would put together a package that included subcontractors.  He added that about six percent would be overhead and profit, and that this process would be open book.  He commented that they would use local businesses, and that all savings would be returned to the County.  He displayed several graphs depicting market volatility, and said that a construction manager would manage that volatility throughout the design and keep the budget on track.  He related that equipment was very important, and that with today’s supply chain issues, a construction manager could put together early release packages and order the equipment, which would keep the project on time, noting that a hard bid process would be unable to order anything until after the design was complete.  He explained that they would release a preconstruction early procurement package, and that this would allow them to simultaneously procure equipment as the design was finished, which would shorten the duration of the construction process and help the project stay on time.  He mentioned that they had experience with Song & Associates and had done a large number of projects with them, and that they had experience doing value analysis, ensuring that funds were spent in an appropriate manner.  He commented that they had a history of Lake County projects, and that they were used to working within the system and working locally with the contractors.  He relayed that they had recently delivered a UF Health project in a successful conversion of a former Sears building, noting that they were hired as a construction manager and kept the project on schedule and within the budget.

Commr. Campione mentioned that their timeline showed their ability to complete the project in time for the Supervisor of Elections to mail out military ballots.

Mr. Weaver stated that this was their intent, and that with the information they had received, they would be able to deliver on time if they were able to move forward.

Commr. Campione commented that they could preorder equipment while design was still being completed, and inquired what those items would be for this project.

Mr. Weaver replied that the equipment which was important to order early would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, and anything that would have a fixture, noting that those items were taking over 30 weeks to deliver.  He said that they would work with Song & Associates to determine the amounts, sizes, electrical voltage, and counts, and that they would procure those items early to keep everything moving forward.

Commr. Campione asked if they had looked at the existing building, and Mr. Weaver indicated that they had.

Commr. Smith questioned what this would cost.

Mr. Weaver estimated that it would be around $2.5 million, and that their services would be six percent plus general conditions and staffing, which would be about $30,000 per month.  He mentioned that the budget was still being discussed, and that there were some different goals that could adjust that amount.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was a monthly charge in addition to the six percent.

Mr. Weaver replied that it was not a flat monthly charge, and that there was a percentage received on top of the overall package, which was very transparent, adding that the general conditions and requirements would vary based on the complexity of the project.

Commr. Smith estimated that their services would cost about $200,000, and Mr. Weaver agreed.

Ms. Marsh explained that the construction manager contract used by the County would establish a preconstruction services fee, which was a lump sum amount, and that the construction manager would give the County the guaranteed maximum price, noting that the percentage fee was negotiated at that point.  She stated that she had spoken with the Office of Facilities Management on the previous week, and that they had estimated this project to cost about $3.5 million.

Commr. Smith asked if the County had somebody on staff to do this.

Ms. Barker replied that the County had a construction manager, and that he would be able to do a hard bid and manage the project at that point.

Commr. Campione questioned if he would be able to meet the July 2023 deadline.

Mr. Wesley Jones, Director for the Office of Facilities Management, replied that with the design, the bids, and the permitting process, there was no way to make a June 2023 deadline.

Commr. Parks asked if Mr. Weaver would guarantee a June 2023 deadline, and if that guarantee would be in writing.

Mr. Weaver replied that when they did a contract, there would be several stipulations, including a timeframe, and that he felt confident in their ability to deliver this project in about five months based on the current information as long as nothing was uncovered during their preconstruction process that was unforeseen.

Commr. Smith inquired if there would be a penalty clause included if they did not meet the deadline.

Ms. Marsh replied that the County’s contract included a liquidated damages provision, and that if they did not meet the deadline, then the County would start deducting the determined dollar amount from their fee.

Mr. Weaver remarked that they had just completed a project similar to this in 120 days, and that they had the ability to execute projects such as this in an expeditious manner, adding that he was confident in their ability to deliver this.

Commr. Campione recalled that the Supervisor of Elections had expressed that if he did not do this, he would not be prepared for the next election cycle, and that it would be very difficult to do it from the current facility, noting that there were space issues.  She commented that the Board wanted to make the most fiscally sound decision, and that the Supervisor of Elections was cognizant of the requirements, the timeframes, and the stress on his office in order to operate efficiently.  She stated that if the Supervisor of Elections’ request was to use the construction manager at risk, then as a Constitutional Officer running an autonomous operation and an elected official who answered to the voters of Lake County, this was a valid request.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Supervisor of Elections had offered to return funds to help cover the cost.

Commr. Smith remarked that Mr. Jones had indicated that there was no way to meet the July 2023 deadline using the County’s resources.

Mr. Jones expressed concern about the HVAC equipment, and that the existing equipment may not be serviceable and need to be replaced, noting that these were long lead items.

Commr. Smith commented that he had wanted to use the County’s construction manager; however, after hearing the concerns of Mr. Jones, he would be in favor of a contract with a penalty clause in place that could guarantee that the Supervisor of Elections could move in during July 2023.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that in the construction industry, much depended on past projects and relationships built during those projects, and opined that the Board should defer to the Supervisor of Elections’ request to hire CPPI as a construction manager.

Commr. Parks remarked that the prior experience converting a former Sears building gave him confidence that CPPI could meet the July 2023 deadline.  He commented that Board needed to give staff direction on the lease and on the construction manager, and that these issues could be voted on separately.

Ms. Marsh stated that the lease had the following requirements: a 10 year lease; a right to terminate after the first five years with a 180 day notice; a lease rate of about $43,000 per month or $527,000 per year with a three percent per year escalator; an agreement with the landlord to start payments on June 1, 2023 or with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO); an agreement with the landlord for a prorated repayment of actual costs, not to exceed $4 million, if the landlord moved forward with redevelopment with the property and had to terminate the lease prior to the 10 years; a five year renewal; and in the unlikely event that a new Supervisor of Elections was elected, the new Supervisor of Elections would have 90 days to terminate after taking office.

Commr. Campione commented that the last provision was an interesting clause, and she wondered if they would be able to do that unilaterally without the Board being the facilitator.

Ms. Marsh remarked that the agreement was with the Board, and that the new Supervisor of Elections would make that request to the Board who would notify the landlord of the termination.

Commr. Campione commented that if this was the desire of the Supervisor of Elections, the Board could make a business decision as to whether it made sense or not.

Ms. Marsh stated that this was typically built into any lease that was being taken out on a Constitutional Officer to give flexibility.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) was currently leasing space at the Lake Square Mall, and that the County could terminate that lease and move them into the space with the Supervisor of Elections.

Ms. Barker relayed her understanding that the LCSO had been working with the Supervisor of Elections about moving into that space, and that the LCSO would be included as part of the design process moving forward.

Commr. Campione commented that this space contained a large amount of square footage, and opined that the design could incorporate additional meeting areas or facilities that could be utilized by other County departments.

Ms. Marsh stated that the lease term did not start until December 1, 2022, and opined that the design and permitting could be done prior to taking possession of the property.  She related that the building was currently being leased, and that there was no access allowed while it was operating as a retail use.

Senator Hays mentioned that the current occupant of this space did not occupy the entire space, and that he had received verbal assurances from Lake Square Mall management that they could have access to the vacant part at any time in order to look at it and survey it.  He relayed that they would not be able to start with any demolition or reconstruction until November 15, 2022, which was when the current lease expired.  He commented that he welcomed the opportunity to share this space with the LCSO, and said that he had spoken with them.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the landlord could allow them access; however, the County did not have legal right to possession until December 1, 2022.

Commr. Blake stated that the funds spent on this facility would not be an asset of the County, and that the County would be investing in someone else’s assets.  He expressed his concern about the recession and the uncertainty that it would bring, and said that he was hesitant to make a long term financial commitment even though there was an existing need, opining that the owner of the property may have to liquidate or redevelop.  He opined that if it worked out, it would be a good space for the Supervisor of Elections; however, he would not vote for it because of those issues.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved a Lease Agreement with Lake Promenade, LLC, d/b/a Lake Square Mall for the Supervisor of Elections Facility.

Commr. Blake voted no.

Ms. Marsh stated that the next request was to approve to negotiate a contract with CPPI, which would come back to the Board at the same time as the Song & Associates contract at a future BCC meeting.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he wanted to ensure that there was a penalty clause in the contract if they did not complete the project according to the timeline, and that he would approve it only because the timeline given by Mr. Jones was longer.

Ms. Marsh remarked that this would be the case, and that it would also contain a budget, noting that if either the architect or CPPI exceeded that budget, they would be required to redesign to meet the budget.

Commr. Blake commented that he would defer to Senator Hays on how to proceed.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to negotiate a contract with CPPI for the Supervisor of Elections Facility.

impact fee workshop

Commr. Parks stated that this impact fee workshop was being held pursuant to Section 163.31801(6)(g), Florida Statutes.

Ms. Barker explained that this was the second of two workshops required to consider extraordinary circumstances to raise the impact fees above the 50 percent threshold, which was legislated by the State.

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, reiterated that this was the second meeting to review the impact fee studies and to discuss the extraordinary circumstances.

Ms. Nilgun Kamp, with Benesch, stated 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, adding that the transportation impact fee study was last updated in 2019.  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 mentioned that some of the legal requirements included the following: the fees must be based on the most recent and localized data; there was a minimum 90-day notice for any fee increases; and in any action challenging the fee, the burden was on the government to show that their fees were 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, and that they could not pick and choose other land uses to reduce fees for; additionally, it required indexing of developer credits when the fees increased.  She said that HB 337 passed in 2021 which placed limits on fee increases, noting that fees could not be increased more than 50 percent over a four year period or more than once every four years.  She mentioned that there was an exception clause which stated that fees could be increased by more than 50 percent if there was a study within the past 12 months demonstrating extraordinary circumstances and two public workshops to discuss the extraordinary circumstances; furthermore, the increase needed to be approved by two-thirds of the governing body.  She related that the total calculated fees in the north and central fee districts for a single family 2,000 square foot home was about $15,000, which was an increase from $11,000, and that in the south and northeast/Wekiva fee districts, the current fees were about $12,500 for a midsize home, which would increase to about $15,000 if the full fees were adopted.  She commented that one of the tasks of the study was to review the residential land uses, such as tiny homes, cottage homes, accessory dwelling units, and multifamily home categories, and that because of a lack of travel studies for tiny homes, they used a tiering approach by size; additionally, they separated the categories for the multifamily homes.  She explained that demand was measured in terms of vehicle miles of travel for transportation, and that student generation rates were used for schools, adding that population was used for all other fees.  She displayed the current adopted fees for the north and central districts and relayed the following: a decrease of about 50 percent for smaller single family homes; a 35 to 55 percent reduction for apartments and duplexes 800 square feet or less; a slight increase for apartments and duplexes greater than 800 square feet; a decrease of 60 to 70 percent for condominiums; a decrease of about 25 to 35 percent for townhouses after being separated from the general multifamily category; and a slight decrease for smaller mobile homes, with the fee remaining about the same for larger ones.  She showed the same information for the south and northeast districts, noting that they had the same levels of reductions.  She displayed a summary and reiterated that in the north and central districts, the overall fee increases for a single family home would increase from about $10,000 to about $15,000 if the full fees were adopted, and in the south and northeast districts, it would increase from about $12,500 to about $15,000.  She commented that the increases would be moderated if the 50 percent cap required by House Bill (HB) 337 was used, and that the total fee for a single family home would increase from $10,800 to about $11,700 in the north and central districts and from $12,500 to about $14,200 in the south and northeast districts.  She displayed a chart showing a comparison to other nearby counties, and said that depending on how many fees they had and at what level they adopted the fees, the fees ranged from $1,400 to about $25,000 for a single family home.  She explained that extraordinary circumstances were determined by variables, such as growth levels, and that Lake County was 17th out of 67 counties in terms of population and fifth in terms of population growth rate; additionally, Lake County was 11th in terms of absolute population growth, and was projected to add another 230,000 residents through 2050.  She elaborated that in terms of residential permitting, it ranked 18th in 2021, and that it was on the higher end of the counties, noting that this was a growing county with much activity.  She mentioned that the long range transportation plan was projecting the vehicle miles of travel to increase around 50 percent and lane miles to increase about two percent through 2045, which was another indication that the county would experience increased congestion over time.  She recalled that the current fire, library, and parks impact fees were based on a 2003 study, which was one of the reasons that there was a larger increase in those fees as a percent, and that transportation was last updated in 2019, which was more current, noting that the increases were more moderate; furthermore, the technical study findings indicated increases of over 50 percent for at least some of the land uses for each of the fee areas.  She explained that currently, the fees for fire rescue were generating about $570,000 per year, which could increase to $1.2 million if the full fees were adopted, noting that the County had several new fire stations being built at a projected cost of about $11 million.  She added that the Rural Rescue Program needed additional ambulances to improve the average response time, which was currently 24 minutes, and that the County did a study which recommended adding six ambulances costing $350,000 each.  She mentioned that only two ambulances had been purchased due to a lack of funding, and that it would cost $1.4 million for four more ambulances.  She relayed that between the stations and the ambulance needs, the total funding needed was about $12 million, and that with the current fees, it would take about 21 years to generate this amount.  She commented that currently, sales tax was being used to subsidize new growth, and that the time frames to generate sufficient revenues included the following: if the fees were adopted at 100 percent, that period would decrease to about 10 to 12 years; if the fees were adopted at 75 percent, that period would be about 14 to16 years; and if the fees were adopted at 50 percent, that would be about 20 to 24 years.  She displayed a chart showing the fire rescue rates for several land uses, such as a single family, which showed the current adopted rate at $390, the calculated rate at about $590, the 95 percent adoption at about $560, and the HB 337 cap at $585.  She stated that the current fees for libraries were generating about $723,000 per year, which could increase up to about $2 million per year, and that there were several libraries that were projected for expansion, which would cost about $15 million.  She mentioned that there was a long waiting time for books, such as 100 days for best-sellers and 84 days for eBooks, and that the cost of eBooks was higher than physical books.  She explained that with the total expansion needs of about $15 million, it would take about 20 years to generate the funding needed with the current adopted fees, and that updated fees could reduce that to eight to nine years at 100 percent adoption, 10 to 12 years at 75 percent adoption, and 15 to 18 years at 50 percent adoption, noting that the impact fee on a single family home was about $190, which would increase to $484 at 100 percent, $460 at 95 percent, and $287 at the HB 337 capped fee.  She related that the current fees for Parks and Recreation were generating about $185,000 which could increase to $300,000 to $350,000, and that there were several projects that needed funding which added up to about $36 million.  She added that even with 100 percent adopted fees, it would take over 20 years to generate that amount, and that this was an area that would require other revenue sources.  She commented that the current rate for a single family home was about $222 and about $290 with calculated fees, which was less than a 50 percent increase, and that it would be about $276 at the 95 percent level.  She relayed that roads had revenues ranging from $240,000 in the northeast district to about $4.1 million in the South Fee District, and that these could increase from $1 million to $9 million depending on adoption levels in the districts.  She displayed a chart showing project needs by district, which showed the following: Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) long range plan cost feasible portions for each district, which were funded projects incorporating impact fee funds; Lake-Sumter MPO long range unfunded needs, which could be benefited by increasing impact fees; and additional needs identified by the County based on discussion with municipalities and other variables, which would also be benefited by increasing impact fees.  She said that the needs ranged from $83 million in the northeast district to $156 million in the central district, and noted that impact fees would never be enough to fund these items; however, any increase would reduce the need for funding from other sources.  She mentioned that for roads, the fees included the following: the current fee for a single family home was about $1,000 in the central and north central districts and $2,700 in the south and northeast districts; the full calculated fee would be about $5,200 in all districts; at 95 percent, it would be about $4,900 in all districts; and under HB 337, it would be $1,500 in the central and north central districts and $4,100 in the south and northeast districts.  She recalled that at the previous BCC meeting there was discussion regarding The Villages becoming a separate district, adding that staff had shared a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic impact analysis showing that 64 percent of the trips stayed within the development, and that almost 80 percent of non-residential trips stayed within the development.  She commented that because of the mix of uses within the development and the large scale age-restricted requirements, it was more self-sufficient development which was not using amenities outside of their boundaries as much as other developments.  She relayed that they were only subject to library and transportation fees, and that the library fee would increase from $191 to $369 at the full calculated fee, $350 at 95 percent, and $287 at the HB 337 capped fee.  She stated that for transportation, the current fee was at $412, and that it would be $1,764 at the full calculated fee, $1,676 at 95 percent, $618 with the HB 337 cap, and about $460 at 26 percent of the full calculated fee.  She added that they were currently paying about $600 total for library and road impact fees, which could increase to about $2,100 at the full calculated fees, about $900 under HB 337, and about $750 with roads at 26 percent.  She said that they would respond to any questions and input, and that the County would continue with the implementation process.

Commr. Shields displayed a mailer and recalled that he had campaigned on the impact fee issue, and opined that residents understood that if Lake County did not receive impact fees from new development, then they would have traffic issues.  He commented that the Board could adopt the fees recommended by the consultant to provide infrastructure for new residents, choose to ignore the real cost and plan for traffic issues, or raise taxes on current residents when conditions worsened.  He relayed his understanding that the Lake 100 and the South Lake Chamber of Commerce were in favor of going to the calculated rates, and that they understood that traffic issues were bad for business and for recruiting new businesses to Lake County.  He said that according to a local builder, new home prices were generally set by national builders who priced their houses according to what people were willing to pay along with a 25 percent profit to please their shareholders, and that government fees and regulations that increased their costs disrupted their business model and helped local builders who were less sensitive to reporting to shareholders.  He also opined that increased impact fees would keep down the cost of land and slow development by national builders; however, he did not think that a $5,000 increase in impact fees would slow down development much, since it was only one percent of a new home cost.  He opined that not increasing impact fees would benefit the shareholders of the national builders while Lake County citizens lost quality of life, and that increasing impact fees to what Orange County charged would make sense since many residents were commuting to Orange County.  He pointed out that HB 337 was to keep governments from using impact fees to balance their budgets, and opined that this did not apply to Lake County because the budget was balanced with high reserves.  He noted that impact fees were an important source of revenue for local government to use in funding infrastructure necessitated by new growth, and that Lake County was working on workforce housing and rentals in partnership with local builders and Cities by offering reduced or zero impact fees.  He mentioned that even though the cost of land and materials to build a home had increased, the cost of building roads had doubled over the last year, and that impact fees would have to be doubled to stay even, noting that for each $1,000 of road impact fees collected, the County could build six inches of new road.  He commented that even though United States (U.S.) Highway 27 was a State road, traffic congestion affected residents of Lake County, and that the County could use impact fees to improve State roads if necessary.  He opined that Lake County did not have management and spending issues; however, keeping taxes and fees so low that roads could not be built or repaved when necessary, was an issue.  He stated that he did not want growth without infrastructure, opining that the Board should take action and not defer to future Boards.

Commr. Parks clarified that the Board would provide direction and not vote on an ordinance on the current day.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, and commented that the ordinance would be brought back for consideration at a future BCC meeting.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there could be multiple ordinances for different options.

Ms. Marsh recalled that at a prior BCC meeting, staff was given direction to provide separate ordinances for different categories, such as libraries and fire, parks, and transportation for the different districts.

Commr. Parks commented that there were four transportation districts, and that there could be different rates for each one.  He added that there could be a fifth district created for The Villages, and he asked if there would be a separate ordinance for that.

Ms. Marsh replied that it could be done separately so that it did not delay decisions for the existing districts.

Commr. Parks stated that he would prefer to vote on that one first in order to establish that district, and then the Board could vote on the others.  He mentioned that Mr. David Colby, with the South Lake Chamber of Commerce, was in attendance, and Mr. Colby said that he supported everything said by Commissioner Shields.

Commr. Campione pointed out that in the past, the County had not increased fees when there was concern about the economy and the effect on industrial and commercial uses, and that the Board had previously promoted affordable housing with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and deferring impact fees for residents who added onto their homes or built an ADU.  She mentioned that the statutes provided a way to waive impact fees for affordable housing projects, and that the County had some good partnerships with entities who were focused on workforce housing.  She noted that when lower impact fees had been provided in the north and north central districts, there had been an exponential number of housing developments that had been approved, especially in the rural areas around the municipalities, such as the City of Leesburg and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and that residents had voiced their concerns to the municipalities and had been ignored.  She commented that the County had also voiced concerns about the constraints of the rural roads, noting that the County did not have the right of way to widen them, which would make it necessary to purchase much of that right of way.  She opined that developing these areas should be a joint planning arrangement, providing a way to fund these new roadways and expansions for the growth in those areas, and that it was an extraordinary situation.  She also opined that the rate of growth throughout the county was extraordinary, and that the situation in Lake County was different than in Sumter and Marion Counties because of the proximity to Orange and Seminole Counties, adding that something had to be done to keep up with the roads.  She noted that Lake County was using funds from the General Fund, Infrastructure Sales Tax, State funds, and Federal grants to take care of these needs, and that impact fees were a critical component.  She stated that Lake County had to be responsive to the growth despite the economic situation in the country, opining that there would continue to be much growth that would impact the County’s roads.  She commented that based on annexations and approved subdivisions, the cities would continue to grow in the coming years, and that it would impact the roads that currently could not handle it.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there were no planning agreements currently in that area, such as the one for the Wellness Way area.

Commr. Campione remarked that the approvals happened without consideration for the county roads, and that the County now had to find a way to pay for right of way and road expansion.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Ed Freeman, a Town of Lady Lake Commissioner, opined that the recession would eventually go away; however, the issues with the roads would not go away, and something had to be done about the impact fees.  He said that he did not know why impact fees were lower in the north and central districts than in the rest of the county, and that he would like for them to increase and for the County to receive more funding.  He opined that the County could not delay this issue any longer, and that the municipalities could use some guidance regarding annexations, noting that there were developers wanting their land to be annexed into the Town of Lady Lake.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Town of Lady Lake would be present at the joint planning meeting on September 26, 2022, and he questioned if the Town had discussed impact fees.

Mr. Freeman replied that the Town of Lady Lake had discussed a gap fee, and that they had some roads that needed repairs.

Mr. Jochim expressed appreciation for Commissioner Campione for standing up to people who accused the County of bad performance at the August 23, 2022 BCC meeting, and said that he also appreciated Commissioner Shields’ comments about impact fees, opining that the Board should pass the 95 percent impact fee increase.  He pointed out that four of the five Commissioners would have to vote in favor of the 95 percent impact fee; however, three of them could approve regulated increases over four years at 50 percent.  He opined that an increase could help impede growth, and that the Board should address traffic and growth issues by voting for the 95 percent option.  He relayed his understanding that developers continually lobbied to reduce professionally calculated impact fees, which was needed for roads, libraries, and fire equipment because of the increased population growth, opining that any discount would contribute to traffic issues. 

Mr. Don Magruder, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Ro-Mac Lumber & Supply Inc., mentioned that affordable housing was important to him, and opined that there was a great need.  He stated that he was opposed to impact fee increases, and that it would make Lake County impact fees higher than Marion and Sumter County impact fees, opining that it was not an emergency, but a budgetary issue.  He commented that the calculations that were presented did not include State and Federal funding, and opined that there were many assumptions made which he did not agree with.  He opined that the local government increasing taxes mirrored what was being done in Washington, D.C., and that while there were realities that must be dealt with, the needs of government should not be placed before the needs of the people.  He said that he dismissed the national builder model that was mentioned, and opined that local builders were struggling. He also opined that this increase would affect renters and commercial businesses, and he hoped that the Board would use accurate data and be careful in making this decision.

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

Commr. Smith inquired if the transportation decision could be separate from the library and fire decisions, opining that those funds were sufficient. 

Ms. Barker replied that any or all of them could be separate items, and that transportation could also be divided by four districts, adding that parks had three districts.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he would like to meet with someone to review the data from the presentation, and that he had questions and concerns about those who would be impacted most and which items made the most impact, such as parks, fire, and libraries.  He opined that there were issues with the roads, and that he would like to resolve that.

Commr. Parks remarked that the ordinances could include transportation impact fees for each district, and that the Board would need to provide consensus on creating a fifth transportation district.

Commr. Blake stated that creating a fifth district would be a way to protect those in a separate situation, such as The Villages.

Commr. Parks commented that there could be an ordinance to create the fifth district, and he asked if the ordinance for transportation for all five of the districts could include a lower fee for the fifth district.

Ms. Marsh replied that there could be a separate rate for each transportation impact fee district; however, it would have to be the same throughout that district.

Commr. Parks stated that he was in favor of the full fees for transportation in all districts except the fifth, which could be left the same.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there was a chart in the presentation which showed the option of a 26 percent increase.

Ms. Barker explained that the chart showed a 26 percent calculation of the adopted fees, and that the Board could adopt the calculated fee or keep it the same.

Commr. Blake inquired how much additional revenue that would generate annually, and mentioned that the County could prioritize funding from the Infrastructure Sales Tax for roads funding, which was a core function of government.  He opined that because of extraordinary circumstances, the Infrastructure Sales Tax could be used for just roads for one year without creating unintended ill effects on the economy.

Commr. Parks opined that if the County did not increase impact fees, more strain would be placed on the Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Commr. Blake relayed that the Home Builders Association of Lake-Sumter, which was the lobbying entity for this industry, was opposed to any increase, and that they represented local homebuilders.  He mentioned that during the last recession, many Counties took measures to keep local industry alive, and that the extraordinary circumstances the County was experiencing were also affecting the taxpayers.  He opined that it would affect taxpayers and commercial businesses during these uncertain times; however, if the County used the Infrastructure Sales Tax, it would pay for itself.  He stated that even though infrastructure was important, the roads needed those funds more than other projects, opining that using the Infrastructure Sales Tax was one way to fund roads without damaging the economy.

Commr. Parks expressed concern with national and international issues, opining that Lake County government was kept in check, and that the County had a difficult time keeping up with growth.  He opined that impact fees could reduce the pressure on the Infrastructure Sales Tax, which was also used to fund public safety projects.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the voters adopted the Infrastructure Sales Tax and requested that it would be spread across several categories, opining that even if it was all put towards roads, the County would not be able to keep up with the resurfacing requirements, build additional lanes, and purchase right of way.  She stated that she would like to see what the revenue would be on the total square footage projected to be built in the new district for both residential and commercial.  She relayed her understanding that developers used impact fees to calculate the credits received when building roads that accessed their projects, and that they could assist in building roads by building them cheaper than government because they were mobilized for their projects.  She requested that information be obtained about the revenue that would be generated within the new district, since The Villages knew what construction would be needed for their infrastructure needs, and opined that the transportation should be separate from the other categories, since that was where the extraordinary circumstances occurred.  She added that fire would be needed in that area because of the needs for the new ambulances and the effect of the new population growth, opining that fire, recreation, and libraries could be done separately without an increase.

Ms. Marsh clarified that there was consensus to create The Villages district, and she inquired if the Board wanted to increase fees by the 26 percent calculated rate.

Commr. Campione opined that this would be reasonable because it was close to what the fees were currently.

Ms. Barker commented that for transportation, it was currently $412, and if fees were increased by 26 percent of the capped amount, it would be $459, which was a difference of $47.

Commr. Blake remarked that he was not in favor of raising anything beyond what it was currently.

Ms. Marsh related that when staff brought back the schedule at 26 percent, under the extraordinary circumstance provision, the County would not have to phase it in, and she asked if the Board wanted to phase in the 26 percent over four years, or if the Board wanted it to go into effect 90 days after adoption.

Commr. Smith stated that he could not decide until he had more information.

Ms. Marsh commented that this was for drafting purposes, and that she needed an idea of how to fill in the schedule.

Commr. Parks said that it could be done statutorily over four years for that district, and Commissioner Campione agreed.

Ms. Marsh questioned if the Board wanted to determine each district for transportation.

Commr. Parks stated that he would ask for the full calculated amount for the other districts.

Commr. Campione commented that she would support that amount in the north district, noting that the City of Leesburg had approved many projects which impacted the rural roads.

Ms. Barker mentioned that this was in the central district, and she displayed the map of the districts.

Commr. Shields opined that staff needed to know if there would be enough votes to support the ordinance.

Ms. Marsh relayed that three votes would be enough to draft the ordinance, and that if the Board chose to use extraordinary circumstances, then it would require a four-fifths vote to adopt the ordinance.

Ms. Barker reiterated that the City of Leesburg was in the central district, and noted that it was also where the west district would be created for The Villages.

Commr. Parks commented that he would be in favor of the full 95 percent increase in transportation fees in the south district.

Commr. Shields opined that if the Board could obtain four votes for the full 95 percent increase in transportation fees in the south district, his constituents would be pleased.

Commr. Campione stated that she would support that, noting that it was promoted by the Commissioners over that area and the business community she had been in contact with in the south district.  She pointed out that this increase could also be reduced as long as it had been advertised.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the consensus was to increase fees 95 percent effective 90 days after adoption, and she asked if the Board wanted the same draft for the central district.

Commr. Campione indicated that she wanted the same for the central district, as did Commissioner Parks and Commissioner Shields.  Commissioner Campione mentioned that this was the location of Number 2 Road and Dewey Robbins Road, and that The Villages would be not be affected.

Commr. Blake mentioned that he was the Commissioner in the central district, and he expressed concerns about raising taxes.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns about the traffic in Lake County, opining that many people wanted to live there because it was a good place to live; however, she did not want traffic to become too difficult because the County could not keep pace with the growth.

Commr. Blake expressed concerns about government spending and taxing.

Commr. Campione pointed out that the City of Leesburg had approved thousands of homes to be built on county roads, and she questioned what the County was supposed to do, opining that the County would not be able to build those roads and buy the right of way needed to improve those roads, even if the County used all of the Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Commr. Blake inquired how much revenue the increased impact fees would raise, opining that if the $17 million in Infrastructure Sales Tax was not enough, then the revenue received from the increased impact fees might not be enough.

Commr. Shields noted that the timelines in the presentation showed that even with the increased fees, the County would not be able to catch up, and he relayed his understanding that in the south district, instead of collecting the $10 million required to maintain the roads, the County had only collected $5 million.

Commr. Parks opined that this was a fiscally conservative Board, and that this was a difficult decision. 

Commr. Blake expressed concern about the timing of the increases due to the uncertain economic situation.

Commr. Smith noted that Commissioner Blake was not the only Commissioner within the central benefit district, and that his district touched at least three other Commissioners’ districts.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was consensus to prepare the ordinance for the central district at the full calculated fee.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the ordinance would be for the 95 percent increase with no phasing, and she asked about the north central district.

Commr. Smith commented that the County could advertise them all for the 95 percent increase; however, he would not make his decision until he had all the facts.  He inquired if the amount could be reduced at that time, and Ms. Marsh indicated that it could.

Commr. Campione wondered if the northeast district could be split into the northeast and the Wekiva benefit districts.

Ms. Marsh stated that for the existing districts, the ordinance would be prepared for the 95 percent fee increase with no phasing, and that during the public hearing, it could be changed and then brought back with a different schedule.  She relayed that the new rate for The Villages would be the existing fee schedule with the 26 percent phased in over four years, and that this could also be discussed and changed.  She mentioned that there were new categories added, such as tiny homes, and asked if the Board wanted the fee schedules to include the new breakdown on square footage.  She receive consensus from several of the Commissioners, and Ms. Marsh said that staff would draft the ordinance and bring it back for approval to advertise, at which point the Board could review the schedules and have more discussion about proceeding.

Ms. Barker related that for parks and trails, there were three districts, which were divided into the south district, the central district, and the north district.

Commr. Parks commented that there could be different fee schedules for the different districts, and that he was in favor of the full fee increase for the south district, noting that there were trail projects and support from the business community.  He relayed his understanding that there were many needs for the park plan which had been in place for many years, and that there were partnerships with the Cities of Groveland, Minneola, and Fruitland Park, and the Town of Lady Lake for the parks in those areas.  He said that the chart in the presentation showed the fee going from about $220 to $291.

Ms. Barker pointed out that because the increase was less than 50 percent, 95 percent of the full calculation would be less than the capped fee allowance, noting that the senior housing category would remain the same.

Commr. Parks opined that this would not be a difficult increase, and that many would support that plan.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the ordinance should be for the 95 percent increase with no phasing for the three districts, and that the Board could make a final decision at the public hearing.

Commr. Parks mentioned that library and fire impact fees were countywide, and that the Board would have to decide what ordinance to move forward with for those.

Comm. Campione noted that the impact fee for fire would decrease significantly for the office and retail categories, and said that she was in favor of the 95 percent increase.

Ms. Barker mentioned that higher rates for office and retail were not defendable because of the study that was done.

Ms. Kamp explained that the 2003 study was based on incident data, which tended to fluctuate, opining that incidents measured operational expenses better; however, fire stations were being built to reach all population groups within a certain timeframe, making population density a better measure for capital facilities. 

Commr. Campione commented that if the County did not go with the current study, it could potentially lead to legal challenges, adding that the reduced fees could help office and retail development.  She mentioned that light industrial would increase about $52 for every 1,000 square feet, opining that it was not much unless there was a 100,000 square structure being built; however, there were some categories of capital investment that qualified for incentives which could help offset those fees for targeted industries, such as the Kroger fulfillment center.

Commr. Parks stated that he was in favor of the full calculated fees for fire with no phasing.

Commr. Campione remarked that if the library impact fee study was also done in 2003, then it would be in the same situation.

Ms. Marsh explained that both fire and library fees had not changed since they were originally enacted in 2003.

Commr. Parks elaborated that the County was currently charging 2003 rates, opining that things were cheaper then; however, the County needed to build what the residents wanted.

Commr. Campione commented that according to a previous town hall meeting in the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento area, the library was considered an institution, a meeting place, a place for children to receive books, a place for adults to do job searches, and a critical part of their community.

Commr. Parks said that the ordinance for the library impact fee could include the 95 percent calculated fee.

Ms. Barker mentioned that the County would not do an ordinance for the full calculation because there should be some room in case there was a challenge to the methodology.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

villa city road

Commr. Shields mentioned that the City of Groveland wanted to change the speed limit on Villa City Road, and he asked Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, what the process was to change the speed limit.

Mr. Schneider replied that the County would review its condition, location, traffic volume, crash history, and speed analysis to determine whether to recommend a lower speed limit or not, and that if it was in the city limits, in would be considered differently than out in the country; additionally, there would be an engineering safety study.

Commr. Shields commented that the road was under review.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

marriage anniversary

Commr. Smith related that it was his marriage anniversary on the current day.

national read a book day

Commr. Smith said that it was National Read a Book Day.

commissioner campione –district 4

college football

Commr. Campione stated that there was a college football game on the previous Saturday, and that the University of Florida Gators played well.

Commr. Parks opined that it was a big weekend for all of the Florida college football teams.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:16 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK