A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

september 26, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake County municipalities on Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., at the Venetian Center, Leesburg, 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; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

welcome

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked them for moving forward and trying to continue to think strategically about their vision for the county. He mentioned that there would be an update regarding Hurricane Ian at the end of the meeting, and he said that February 7, 2022 was the last time that the County and Cities met. He recalled that they had discussed how to address the challenges of growth and what differentiated them from being another outer ring suburb of the City of Orlando area. He asked what they could all do together that would protect their unique identity and their natural resources, and he opined that it was not acceptable for them to be just another suburb of the City of Orlando. He added that this was also about thinking fiscally and what they could do ensure that they were not affecting a future generation with a development pattern that was not fiscally sustainable. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

joint planning agreements/isbas

Commr. Parks said that he had spoken with each mayor and city manager, and that a question was the difference between an interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) and a joint planning agreement (JPA).

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, indicated that ISBAs were authorized by Florida Statutes with legislation passed in 2006, noting that the County also had a few JPAs with Cities that were instituted before 2006. She explained that the largest difference between ISBAs and JPAs was that an ISBA could authorize noncontiguous annexations, noting that a JPA was a joint planning agreement and essentially only allowed the City and County to coordinate with how they would process applications that may be annexed into the city. She listed the following Cities that had ISBAs with the County and when they were entered into: the Town of Montverde in September 2010; the City of Umatilla; many Cities in South Lake and the Town of Lady Lake in 2013; the Cities of Leesburg and Clermont in 2014; and the City of Tavares in 2015. She commented that each ISBA was different and that when the County started with the Town of Montverde, it was specific to the Ferndale area, noting that the ISBAs changed over time into a broader document. She remarked that JPAs were not specifically governed by statute, and that they were a form of an interlocal agreement allowed by Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to set a process and procedures for joint planning, but could not deviate from statutory annexation procedures. She stated that currently, the County had effective JPAs with the City of Eustis from 1987, the City of Clermont from 2003, and the City of Mount Dora from 2004; additionally, the County had a JPA with the Town of Lady Lake from 2004, though it expired in 2012 and the County and City agreed to an ISBA. She added that the City of Clermont had also expired and that the County did an ISBA with them.

joint planning initiative framework

Commr. Parks recalled that the Cities had agreed to move forward in February 2022, and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had since contracted with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) to lead them through this effort as an extension of County staff.

Mr. Joshua Sheldon, with the ECFRPC, reviewed the JPA project. He said that a JPA was an agreement between the Cities and the County to help guide growth, and that this project would also be considering joint planning areas, which would include looking at a city and its surrounding areas to plan for future growth, development and annexations to ensure that the growth was aligned with the City’s and County’s vision. He mentioned that the ECFRPC would be working with all jurisdictions in the county to develop a model JPA to be adopted throughout all of the county, and that these JPAs would be based off a countywide conservation strategy and joint planning area visioning; additionally, the JPA would consist of a combination of regulations for annexation, implementation of a conservation strategy, possible sewer to septic conversion, transfer of development rights (TDRs), smart growth, and additional strategies that could come up during the project. He indicated that the project would be in two phases, and that phase one, task one was to form a steering committee to help guide the process. He elaborated that phase one, task two would be the countywide conservation strategy in a partnership with Stetson University to develop a vision for future conservation for Lake County. He explained that they would compile open space and conservation data and use the Marxan model for conservation; additionally, they would host no less than two stakeholder meetings to review initial data and prioritize model inputs. He added that they would also be hosting community meetings for input for prioritization, and utilizing conservation strategy maps for consideration by the County and the Cities. He said that phase one, task three would be to utilize a conservation strategy from task two to create joint planning area visions, noting that they would be doing this in the City of Groveland, and that this would be utilized in population projections. He stated that throughout the process they would coordinate with all the municipalities to receive feedback based off the JPA, noting that they would have a template to move forward and create a new JPA with the other Cities. He concluded that phase two, task one would be to do a continuation or redo of all of this with any other City that was joining the process.

1,000 friends of florida

Ms. Haley Busch, Outreach Director for 1,000 Friends of Florida, explained that her organization was a statewide smart growth advocacy nonprofit organization, and that they advocated for land conservation and offered resources to local governments for sound planning principles. She commented that they were an environmental organization; furthermore, their approach to protecting the State of Florida’s natural resources was through preventing urban sprawl and promoting more compact development. She added that they had been around since 1986, and that they empowered citizens to be involved in the comprehensive planning and visioning process of their communities. She relayed that over the past few years, they had conducted seven workshops in several different counties to hear from residents about what made their county special and the quality of life factors that they wanted to protect. She elaborated that these were her organization’s 2070 workshops, and that they were based on their Florida 2070 and Water 2070 report first published in 2016; additionally, this report showed projected patterns of growth and development on their current trajectory compared to an alternative, more sustainable trajectory in the case that they conserved wetlands and developed in a more compact manner. She said that during the 2070 workshop, her organization would review Lake County’s current Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), correct conservation and growth related policies, and would offer recommendations and tools for residents to relay back to their elected officials. She stated that they also contracted with the University of Florida (UF) GeoPlan Center, who would extrapolate statewide projections to a more detailed level for Lake County. She displayed a Central Florida version of those maps from the 2016 project, noting that it would be more detailed for the Lake County workshop. She relayed that the 2070 maps also included projected water demand associated with growth, and that their 2070 workshop would be considering water conservation strategies with future population projections. She showed pictures of their last 2070 workshop in Volusia County, along with example maps that they generated with UF. She related that after the workshop, they would remain engaged with the partners they established, and she thought that the post-workshop deliverables included continuing to be an advocate in the county when they went to the City of Tallahassee during the legislative session. She added that they also supported land conservation initiatives and would produce a summary from the 2070 workshop which would be available on their website as a resource for citizens. She mentioned that there was more information regarding their 2070 workshop on their website, and she indicated that they would be looking for partnerships with local environmental organizations to spread the word about the Lake County 2070 workshops.

stetson university

Dr. Jason Evans, with Stetson University, said that his organization would do modeling and review of conservation lands. He listed the following benefits of green space: trails and recreational spaces added quality of life; assist with stormwater and flooding; reduce urban heat island effects from pavement; provide wildlife corridors; and ecotourism. He explained that the Marxan model tried to optimize green spaces for the least amount of cost, and that they would provide data to the model in addition to reviewing maps and thinking about the values and attributes in the community, along with land costs. He mentioned that they used all of this in the model, which would help with trying to set up an optimal conservation reserve network within the county and would help to inform decisions for planning, trails, etc. He said that they just did this with Orange County with the Marxan model in a condensed process, and that they also used the Florida Natural Area Inventory. He remarked that there were nine different layers that his organization used including habitat conservation area, rare species conservation areas, greenway network, ecosystems not within state parks, floodplains, wetlands, surface water protection, aquifers and forestry. He indicated that this was what they did for Orange County and that it would not look the same for Lake County, and that they would weigh these items and discuss them. He then displayed the items within Orange County that they wanted to conserve, noting that they also created a map.

open discussion

Commr. Parks said that the County was beginning this process for the JPA side and the countywide conservation strategy.

The following individuals introduced themselves: Mr. Scott Blankenship, Umatilla City Manager; Mayor Kent Adcock, with the City of Umatilla; Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator; Vice Mayor Walter Price, with the City of Tavares; Mr. Vince Sandersfeld, Planning Director for the City of Mount Dora; Mayor Crissy Stile, with the City of Mount Dora; Mr. Paul Larino, Montverde Town Manager; Mr. Al Minner, Leesburg City Manager; Mayor Mike Pederson, with the City of Leesburg; Mayor James Rietz, with the Town of Lady Lake; Mr. Bill Lawrence, Lady Lake Town Manager; Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator; Mayor Martha MacFarlane, with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Mr. Tim Maslow, Community and Economic Development Director for the City of Groveland; Mayor Evelyn Wilson, with the City of Groveland; Mr. Michael Rankin, representing the City of Fruitland Park; Ms. Heather Croney, with the City of Eustis; Mr. Brian Bulthuis, Clermont City Manager; Mayor Tim Murry, with the City of Clermont; Mr. Graham Wells, Astatula Town Clerk; Mr. Tim Green, Astatula Town Planner; Commissioner Blake; Commissioner Campione; Commissioner Parks; Commissioner Smith; Commissioner Shields; Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager; and Ms. Marsh.

Commr. Parks asked if anyone had questions about the scope and what would happen next.

Mr. Bulthuis said that the City of Clermont was doing their Comp Plan and that the City would be doing this in tandem with the County. He opined that each developer wanted smaller lots, and he asked if there was a formula for green space requirements in a development. He also inquired about the definition of affordable housing, relaying his understanding that people did not want smaller lots. He then expressed concerns for homes for rent.

Commr. Smith thought that each City could express what they wanted their city to look like, and the County could possibly help this come to fruition.

Commr. Shields remarked that if a developer was trying to determine where to place a development, there were 15 sets of standards with the Cities and the County, noting that they could possibly make some progress on this and steer things where they made sense.

Commr. Campione mentioned the Cities and the County possibly collaborating on land use decisions, and she mentioned the importance of involving property owners, noting that they had existing rights. She opined that it needed to be a three party collaboration.

Commr. Parks said that the ECFRPC was a stakeholder that would reach out to landowners.

Commr. Shields asked if TDRs were part of this.

Commr. Parks confirmed this and stated that it contributed to the potential goal of transferring development rights, noting that this could help the Cities with the issue of increasing density in the appropriate places along major corridors.

Commr. Campione asked if Commissioner Parks could explain how this worked and how someone could be paid for their development rights, noting that they could be transferred from a county area into a city to increase the density in the city.

Commr. Parks said that United States (U.S.) Highway 50 in the City of Clermont previously had a corridor plan from the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which specified that this was where higher density would be directed, noting that it made sense there. He stated that there may be some areas along the corridor where they had two or four units per acre, and a developer may want five or ten units per acre; furthermore, they would have a tool where if there was a land mapped in a rural protection area (RPA) or possibly the Green Swamp, or if there was an environmental feature or an agricultural land, they could transfer the density entitlement on agricultural land to the project in the U.S. Highway 50 corridor so that a higher density could be achieved. He relayed his understanding that there would be money exchanged, tied with a legal instrument, that would protect lands as agriculture for a long period of time, while also enabling through a development agreement to provide the higher density.

Commr. Campione added that a legal instrument could be a conservation easement along the property, and that it was a tool which could be used to shift higher densities to areas that could accommodate this, along with protecting rural areas.

Mr. Maslow mentioned that the City of Groveland was looking to increase conservation, and he questioned where a TDR area could be located for putting development entitlements somewhere else. He encouraged jurisdictions to go through this conservation strategy first to arrange it as a TDR receiving area.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that if the City of Groveland had areas where they were trying to reduce density entitlements, then another City could possibly be interested in this, and Mr. Maslow confirmed this.

Mr. Drury opined that they would have receiving and sending areas, and he opined that each city wanted to maintain its identity and keep it separate from the other cities. He thought that the collaborative effort with the County and the ECFRPC was important, and that they would also have to consider the financial impacts.

Commr. Shields mentioned that the Lake County Office of Visit Lake liked each city having its own identity because they had 14 or 15 different places to market.

Commr. Parks said that he respected the 14 unique identities of the cities, and that the JPA side would be for better communication; furthermore, if a better process resulted from this, then he opined that the Cities would be better off than where they were currently. He commented that the City of Tavares had done visioning, and that the ECFRPC would be incorporating those efforts which were already done.

Commr. Smith opined that each City needed to determine what they wanted, and he encouraged them to consider this and tell the ECFRPC. He stated that they could all work together for the betterment of the citizens.

Commr. Parks relayed that he could read or listen to a summarized presentation about this, and he mentioned that the County had strategies, policies, goals and objectives. He was unsure if the Cities had a unique document such as this.

Commr. Campione remarked that there would also be opportunities to work with Strong Towns, which would be more directed at municipalities and communities. She noted that they had several unincorporated communities in the county that thought of themselves as an autonomous community, and that Strong Towns was an opportunity to do introspection. She commented that it could be a chance to hear from members of the public who wanted to weigh in on what they thought could make their town stronger or more cohesive.

Commr. Parks added that there could be communication between Strong Towns and the ECFRPC.

Commr. Shields asked if they would they explore the financial models of building upwards versus outward, and whether the County could help with this.

Dr. Evans replied that they could consider items such as the cost of infrastructure for building out, and that there could be calculations for this. He stated that building out could be more expensive due to wastewater lines, etc., and he also mentioned the possible impacts of building out, such as to the aquifer and rare ecosystems. He stated that the 2070 report could be useful to see what would happen if they grew as usual.

Commr. Parks remarked that they had models, and he thought that the process would not be the County forcing a model on the Cities; rather, the process would regard how they could use the model. He asked that if this was done countywide, then was it the right model, what kind of data of would be used, and what would the reports look like. He questioned that for the fiscal side of development, if what they would be approving would be a burden on residents 25 years in the future, and if there was a better development pattern. He said that models and tools were available, and that this is what would occur in this process.

Ms. Tara McCue, with the ECFRPC, mentioned that there was information regarding education around sustainable development. She said that they could work with the County and Cities on this as they began figuring out the direction of the JPAs, along with the vision and conservation strategy. She stated that they could also utilize tools in phase two to determine the fiscal impact of this process.

Commr. Parks reiterated that the model would provide an answer, but the County was not saying that the Cities had to utilize this answer; rather, it was just so that they could make better decisions.

Mr. Drury remarked that most of the Cities had bond holders on significant projects, and that they did five year plans for the fiscal aspects of those businesses. He opined that understanding the fiscal impact for those utilities and enterprise funds was important, and he thought that it may be different if each City was left on its own to do this than if there was assistance through this process. He questioned that if they were putting in a large amount of conservation land in a municipality and they created a certain amount of debt for the City based on the growth, then how would this affect their finances.

Commr. Campione mentioned utilities being enterprise funds, and she inquired how Cities paid for transportation currently. She said that if they were annexing into an area where the roads were narrow county roads, and which was becoming more urbanized, then the roads would need curbs, gutters, drainage and sidewalks. She asked if this was something that Cities built into their general fund, and she was unsure if the Cities relied on a gas tax to make improvements; however, she opined that this seemed like an issue that they could include in this process, indicating interest in a way to have a mechanism to help in this regard. She explained that impact fees typically addressed items such as turn lanes and traffic signals, but for changing areas to be more urbanized, it seemed that there needed to be a funding mechanism to address this. She opined that otherwise, those areas would never become more urbanized in the way it should be if they were becoming urban areas. She commented that the County had discussed municipal service taxing units (MSTUs) as a way to address needs within a subdivision, and she asked about the roads used to travel from a neighborhood to other locations.

Commr. Parks said that this could be part of the JPA process.

Mr. Maslow stated that this was likely one of the City of Groveland’s top two priorities, along with conservation.

Commr. Parks relayed that the County was starting to ask for municipal service benefit units (MSBUs) or some type of assessment structure for roads internally. He recalled that this was a recommendation made by the previous Capital Facilities Advisory Committee that met 10 or 12 years prior, and he mentioned that around the state there were some issues with stormwater areas that were left in the care of homeowners associations (HOAs) which were beyond the fiscal ability of an HOA to address. He relayed that questions were being asked that if a development was approved, what safety mechanisms could be in place to help stormwater ponds.

Mr. Bulthuis asked if Commissioner Parks thought that the BCC could authorize MSTUs for municipalities so that they could do taxing districts for subdivisions in their city, noting that currently, the Cities could not do this unless the County authorized it countywide.

Commr. Parks stated that there were a few tools for how to do this, noting that a community development district (CDD) could also be done. He expressed support for requesting MSBUs in the county, noting that if a development was annexed into the city, then the City would have to do their version of an MSBU.

Ms. Marsh explained that legally, Cities could not levy MSBUs or MSTUs; therefore, to be done in a city, the County would have to levy it and the City would have to opt in. She added that it would have to be an administrative function of numerous subdivisions, and she questioned who would manage this.

Mr. Drury hoped that from this process would be a fiscal overlay. He remarked that the City of Tavares now required bonds on subdivisions so that if they went defunct, the City knew that the stormwater ponds had a mechanism to be taken care of. He added that the City had done CDDs, and that there were many different ways to protect the commitments that the developer had for maintaining the environment. He opined that once areas that would remain rural had been identified, along with how there would be connections to them and how the roads and utilities would be maintained, there could be a uniform approach for what was in the best interest of Lake County to ensure that small subdivisions maintained their environmental commitments. He hoped that from this process would come financial options for city councils to select from.

Commr. Parks clarified that this was not for existing subdivisions and that it would be for new development only. He noted that there was an administrative component, and he opined that multiple MSBUs or CDDs throughout the county could be managed.

Mayor MacFarlane thought that they needed to include a provision to understand what it would take to help a small group survive, noting that there were small communities who installed their own water or wastewater system, and they eventually came to a point where they could no longer afford to manage or improve them. She opined that it would be good if they understood if they would support those communities, and she expressed support for converting septic tanks to sewer, along with new developments being encouraged to connect to existing infrastructure rather than creating a new packaging plant.

Commr. Parks asked that 20 years in the future, how they would be able to make a local road into a collector or arterial road if they did not have an MSTU. He said that if they did not have enough impact fees to cover this, they could have an MSTU that had the ability to make this connection instead of taking funding from the General Fund.

Commr. Campione mentioned issues with roads in the City of Clermont, and said that the County would have to purchase significant right of way to widen roads and add sidewalks.

Mr. Drury suggested to explain items such as MSTU, MSBU and CDDs, and the differences between them at the next meeting.

Mr. Maslow opined that they also may want to consider finance and conservation, along with lot sizes and open space. He indicated interest in a menu of options that jurisdictions could consider, and that depending on scale and location, there could possibly be an approach where each jurisdiction could select from those options, noting that there could be a presentation from the consultants.

Commr. Parks said that the Cities could inform the County regarding what they spent out of their general funds on transportation, and that this information could be sent to Ms. Barker. He then stated that the BCC wanted to come out of this process and be better off than where they currently were.

Mayor Wilson commented that she was happy to hear that the City of Groveland would be the pilot city.

Mr. Bulthuis thanked the Lake County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staff regarding Hurricane Ian.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the County had talented people there, and that an update would be provided on Hurricane Ian. He also indicated that there could possibly be a quarterly update regarding the JPAs with a similar meeting.

hurricane ian update

Ms. Barker explained that Lake County was currently under a tropical storm watch until further notice, and it was forecasted to be a major hurricane; furthermore, Lake County’s impacts would most likely be on the afternoon or evening of September 28, 2022. She said that the EOC was at level two, which was partial activation, and that they would be moving to a level one full activation on September 27, 2022, noting that this would be a 24 hour operation. She commented that the citizen’s information line (CIL) was open on the previous day, and that they had sandbag locations throughout the county.

Mayor Murry inquired about shelters.

Ms. Barker replied that the County was working with the schools, and she believed that the schools were planning for an early dismissal on the following day; furthermore, they were looking at a possibility of eight elementary schools throughout the county. She hoped that they would be open and operational on the following evening, and said that their transit buses had already identified the special needs individuals that needed transportation to the shelter. She indicated that the County could provide a definitive list of shelters.

Commr. Parks mentioned policies and procedures for debris collection, and Ms. Barker commented that they had a list of Cities who had opted to partner with the County for debris management.

Mr. Maslow inquired about operations for Lake County and possible closures.

Ms. Barker relayed that the County was going to close operations, other than essential workers, on the following Wednesday and Thursday, and that they would likely close on the following Friday as well.

Mr. Drury said that the City of Tavares was following the Lake County School Board.

Commr. Campione asked for the debris collection process to be explained, noting that the County received calls from individuals who had debris on the road. She related that there was a process where a release could be signed which allowed the County to collect debris on the road.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and added that there was a right of entry that the individual had to sign for a private road, noting that if this was not signed, then it would cause issues with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement. She elaborated that for any private road without public access, the County could not legally pick up storm debris, and FEMA would not provide reimbursement, unless they had the right of entry form. She also relayed that the County’s debris management company and debris monitor would ensure that these items were done so that the County could receive reimbursement from FEMA.

Ms. Barker commented that the Lake County School Board Facebook page was confirming early dismissal on the following day, and closure on the following Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Commr. Parks inquired if there would be common messaging.

Ms. Barker explained that the Lake County Office of Communications was working with the Cities’ communications departments to ensure that their messaging was consistent. She added that they shared each other’s messages on Facebook, and that a concern was currently for flooding issues, noting that they were expecting five to eight inches of rain in the county throughout the week.

Mr. Drury stated that each City would have a station at the EOC with three people assigned 24 hours per day, seven days per week until this hurricane was over; additionally, at 8:00 a.m. on the following morning, each City could have a person designated at the EOC to receive calls.

Commr. Parks said that he was looking forward to the next meeting, and he thanked everyone in attendance.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK