A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

December 5, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special joint session with the Lake County Water Authority on Tuesday, December 5, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. at the Lake County Agricultural Center, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Lake County Water Authority Board members present at the meeting were: Marty Proctor, Chairman; Trampis Bonjorn; Kristan Zenishek; Robert Hendrick; and Richard Donohue. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the Lake County Water Authority; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

welcome and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everybody to the first joint meeting of the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), and he then led the Pledge of Allegiance. He commented that the BCC and the LCWA both had very important missions, and that this meeting would be very instructive. He mentioned that the BCC was there to learn about the LCWA and to obtain a clear understanding of their vision, and that there would then be a discussion. He elaborated that it was an opportunity to ask questions and have them answered, and that methods of better governance, better communication, and efficiencies would be addressed. He remarked that he would like to discuss how the LCWA handled land management and land acquisition, and he hoped that the two Boards could formulate a joint plan for the management of public lands, which had been bought or were protected with tax funds. He opined that the protection of water resources was a concern for the residents of Lake County as well as growth management, water quality, stormwater, and pollutants, and that the two Boards could move forward with a plan to more efficiently address and promote water quality projects. He explained that there would be no public comments in the current meeting; however, there were other meetings that could be open for public comment.

lcwa overview

Mr. Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the LCWA, commented that he had worked for the LCWA for 24 years in various positions, and that he would give the LCWA overview. He explained that the LCWA was created by the Florida Legislature in 1953, and that it was called the Ocklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority at that time, noting that it was dedicated to agriculture and recreation activities for the County. He stated that in 2000, the Florida Legislature officially changed the name to the LCWA and replaced the three member appointed board with a seven member elected board, and that in January 2022, House Bill (HB) 1105 was passed, which made it a five member appointed board by the BCC. He related that the LCWA had evolved and changed to have many responsibilities, including the protection of water resources in Lake County, and that in 2017, the Florida Legislature removed the provision of recreational facilities; however, they were able to keep the Hickory Point Park. He commented that the LCWA was a unique agency for a unique county, noting that they were not a utility company or a permitting or enforcement authority, and that they currently operated with 12 employees who worked as a team across departments. He mentioned that funding was available through cooperative efforts with the Florida Legislature; however, most of their funding came from ad valorem taxes, noting that in the current year, they were due to collect about $8.7 million from tax revenue. He relayed that the LCWA partnered with local governments and other State and local agencies to share some of the costs of numerous projects, and that they contributed funds to many of those agencies. He elaborated that they received grants for large projects, such as the Lake Griffin canal dredging, the Lake Beauclair sediment removal, and the Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF), and that they contributed grants to other agencies, such as the Trout Lake Nature Center and the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) for the four marine deputies who helped enforce speed zones and other areas of the waterways. He stated that when the LCWA was new and ahead of the times, they started the land acquisition program in 1988, which was discontinued in 2005 when the BCC assumed this program, and that in 1992, the LCWA started a geographic information system (GIS), which was transferred to the BCC in 1996. He commented that in 1987, the LCWA bought land for a county regional park, which became Hickory Point Park, stating that it was completed in 1992. He related that in 1972, a citizens’ committee was formed and appointed by the BCC to help identify properties with water resources that needed to be protected, such as wetlands, high aquifer recharge areas, wet prairies, and sinkholes, and that in 1982, they approached the LCWA to create a land acquisition program to protect those areas, which did not start until 1988. He explained that they managed 6,600 acres of conservation land, 1,100 water control structures, the NuRF, and Lake Denham, and that seven of those 26 total properties were currently opened with 12 properties accessible to the public, noting that 77 percent of the properties were wetlands. He remarked that the Hickory Point Park property was purchased in 1987 for $850,000 for 68 acres to construct boat ramps, and that there were now 12 boat ramps, a fishing pier, and other facilities; furthermore, the park was open 24/7 and was free to the public. He then showed a promotional video highlighting some of the resources and responsibilities of the LCWA, noting that the video was made in the previous year, and that some of the information had changed. He mentioned that he had more information detailing some of their other projects, lands, and conservation properties if needed, and he expressed appreciation for all those who had been part of the agency, such as the volunteers, staff, and Board members, opining that this agency was essential to Lake County.

board discussion

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the presentation, and commented that there were some discussion points that the BCC would like to address, such as service collaboration, Board communication, and long-term objectives.

Mr. Marty Proctor, Chairman of the LCWA Board, stated that his primary focus was to establish procedures and policies for doing business with the BCC, opining that there was an opportunity for progress. He mentioned that their mission was protecting freshwater resources and allowing the public access to these properties, which was purchased through the millage formerly managed by the LCWA. He related that he wanted to understand how the two agencies would work together in a transparent manner.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that communication protocol would be very important.

Mr. Proctor commented that he would like to have clear and concise communication between Boards; however, he did not know how that would be possible because of Sunshine Law. He remarked that the BCC passed an ordinance the day before their meeting which affected an easement adjustment on their agenda, and that even though their Board approved the easement adjustment, they would have to convey that to the BCC before they could proceed. He opined that it was not an efficient method, and said that he would like direction from the BCC about what level of reporting and information would be required.

Commr. Parks opined that they should continue to have their Board meetings, and that information could be shared by staff and managers pertaining to items on the agenda. He suggested that in between Board meetings, information could be shared about agenda items that could affect the other entity.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the mutual respect that existed between the Boards and the mission of the LCWA, and opined that there was opportunity for the LCWA to be focused solely on water quality issues and water body restoration. She mentioned that the active parks and preserves with trails, picnic areas, and primitive camping could be managed by one entity, allowing the focus of the LCWA to be primarily on the water quality and water restoration issues. She related that the County oversaw conservation lands, passive parks, and educational nature parks that described what projects were underway, why it was being done, and what it would achieve, and that there was an opportunity to have all of the parks under one entity, including natural parks, restoration parks, and conservation areas. She opined that Hickory Point, which was an active park that included soccer fields, volleyball facilities, and boat ramps, would be a good focus for the County’s Office of Parks and Trails, and that it would require some modifications to the responsibilities held by the LCWA and the BCC.

Commr. Smith agreed, and stated that the citizens of Lake County had spent a considerable amount of funding on Hickory Point. He questioned how land transactions or easements would be handled, and he hoped that this discussion would promote dialogue explaining how it could be addressed efficiently.

Commr. Campione opined that land transactions could be discussed in a joint meeting, and she inquired how often the LCWA had requests for land to be sold or for easements to be released.

Mr. Garcia indicated that it did not happen often; however, in the previous month, there were two requests.

Commr. Campione opined that when this type of a request came in, the two Boards could meet and receive information at the same time, eliminating the need to duplicate the processes.

Commr. Smith said that he was in favor of the idea.

Mr. Trampis Bonjorn, a LCWA Board member, explained that they focused on restoration projects, and that they were not actively seeking to purchase property unless it was more cost effective in the long run to purchase a property than to clean the water for up to 15 years. He opined that it was rare for the LCWA to have two properties involved in a land transaction, and he relayed his understanding that they had never sold property.

Commr. Smith commented that it was necessary to clean the water and protect natural resources, and opined that HB 1105, which brought the BCC and LCWA together, would be good for everybody as long as they worked together.

Mr. Robert Hendrick, a LCWA Board member, clarified that if land was donated to the LCWA, such as a sinkhole, wetlands, or an aquifer, then the LCWA Board would discuss it and send it to the BCC for consideration.

Commr. Campione asked if the LCWA Board would make a recommendation before submitting it to the BCC.

Mr. Hendrick replied that after hearing all the information, they would either recommend it or not, and relayed his understanding that it should go before the BCC either way.

Mr. Proctor commented that he agreed because this was the way the ordinance was structured, and mentioned that the LCWA had a different focus than the BCC, which affected the management of properties and water, how they worked together, and how they served the public. He related that the easement requests they received were very different, including one that involved a mostly finished project that had been annexed, and the other was on the County’s growth activity list. He stated that they would listen to the public when making decisions, and relayed his understanding that after receiving the information about the easements, they would not make a decision but refer it to the BCC.

Commr. Smith inquired what would happen if the two Boards did not agree on these issues.

Mr. Proctor relayed his understanding that the LCWA would be in the position of implementing the BCC’s decision, and that if the BCC approved an item, they would then negotiate a plan to implement it in a way that would make the most sense for water resources and public benefit. He recalled that in the baffle box issue for Lake Joanna, the BCC did not have to attend the meeting discussing baffle box technology and location; however, this was what the LCWA did.

Commr. Campione opined that in the current issues of the release of easements or granting of easements, the BCC might have more insight than the LCWA on issues resulting from zoning and land related issues and managing park facilities that were accessed in remote locations. She opined that the BCC could be helpful in determining concerns when making these decisions, and that if the two Boards did not agree, then they could have a joint meeting to discuss the issue.

Ms. Kristan Zenishek, a LCWA Board member, relayed her understanding that the ordinance that was passed concerning this issue was similar to a checks and balances position, opining that if the BCC approved an item and the LCWA did not approve it, the two Boards would still have to work together to come to an agreement.

Mr. Hendrick inquired who the governing Board would be, and how these conflicting issues would be determined.

Mr. Proctor opined that it was more important to focus on the big picture and not become mired in a debate about the two current easement issues, which may not come up again once they were resolved. He opined that the BCC was exposed to many things because of their positions and their expertise; however, the LCWA had different perspectives and expertise in other areas. He opined that the Goose Creek easement would fall under the purview of the BCC, and that currently, the only way to engage in a discussion with the BCC was in a public meeting.

Commr. Blake asked how often properties were coming before the LCWA for acquisition.

Mr. Garcia replied that it was very rare, and that the last property bought by the LCWA was Lake Denham in 2019 for the purpose of restoring that whole lake, relaying that in a ten year period, they acquired five or six properties. He mentioned that it was unusual to discuss buying or selling property with the BCC, and that they did not usually sell property with the exception of a warehouse that they sold to possibly acquire another property.

Mr. Hendrick recalled that in the last two to four years there had been one annexation as well as the two current easements.

Mr. Bonjorn questioned if the two Boards would be meeting every three or six months, and opined that if the LCWA was going to sell a piece of property, a quarterly meeting would allow sufficient time for discussion and to work out a solution between the two Boards.

Commr. Parks commented that he was in favor of that idea, and opined that this could address the communication issue.

Commr. Smith opined that there should be a quarterly meeting regardless of any property issues.

Mr. Richard Donohue, LCWA Board member, remarked that he had already received notification of meetings on January 6, 2023 and April 3, 2023, and indicated that he was in favor of quarterly meetings.

Mr. Hendrick inquired if the BCC wanted to discuss the two easements at the current meeting.

Commr. Parks opined that these two specific items could be discussed.

Commr. Smith remarked that there was an issue discussing the easements at the current meeting because there had not been a formal presentation by the parties asking for those easements, which would enable the BCC to make an informed decision.

Mr. Proctor stated that with the permission of the LCWA Board, he had personally negotiated with the people involved with one of the easements which was in his district, and that Ms. Zenishek had agreed to take care of the easement issue in District 3, noting that they consolidated communication.

Commr. Smith commented that he knew about the properties and had met with the parties involved.

Commr. Parks mentioned that he had not met with the parties but knew about the easements, and opined that they could add those items to the quarterly meeting.

Mr. Proctor related that he had asked that one item be placed on the agenda for the following day’s BCC meeting, and that he could give the Board a presentation since he had been involved, opining that it could be discussed and carried forward.

Ms. Barker noted that the easement in the City of Leesburg was on the agenda.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the Goose Creek easement involved a public access and public safety issue, and that it would allow vehicles a secondary emergency access to resident’s properties through a piece of LCWA property, noting that there was a development already there. She opined that the easement in the City of Leesburg was much different, and that it was controversial because it could open the area to more development.

Commr. Smith added that Goose Creek already had a 30 foot easement and only needed 30 feet more to reach the road, which was a completely different situation than the easement in the Palatlakaha area. He opined that it was important for the two Boards to communicate with each other, and he inquired if it was okay for the District Commissioner to discuss issues concerning that District with the corresponding District’s LCWA Board member. Ms. Marsh indicated that it was, and Commissioner Smith relayed his understanding that the Commissioner did not convey the information of any other Board member on the LCWA.

Commr. Campione asked if the District Commissioners could communicate with LCWA Board members in other Districts, opining that the BCC was not limited to only talking with the representative of their own districts as long as they met individually.

Commr. Smith opined that if there was an issue in a certain district, it would be preferable to discuss it with that District Commissioner.

Mr. Proctor pointed out that there was not a LCWA representative who lived in District 5.

Commr. Smith noted that it had been assigned to Mr. Donohue.

Commr. Parks commented that the easement issues could be discussed at the next joint meeting, noting that the two Boards would have quarterly meetings. He relayed his understanding that the current meeting could provide direction on land acquisition and management.

Ms. Zenishek inquired if the ordinance was requiring a checks and balances process for each Board, and relayed her understanding that if it was LCWA property, they had the authority to make the decisions for acquisitions and releases and then recommend them to the BCC.

Commr. Parks opined that there should be a plan for structural changes to be discussed at a future meeting.

Commr. Campione opined that the staffs should be working together because there would be budgetary issues involved if the BCC decided to bifurcate responsibilities, such as moving parks to the Office of Parks and Trails, and that the LCWA could then focus solely on water quality and restoration. She opined that the budget would need to be considered as well as personnel responsibilities, and that the LCWA employees could still be doing their jobs but in a different structure under a different category. She suggested that the staffs could work together on different ideas that would work from a budgetary and logistical standpoint and present it to the BCC. She wondered if the LCWA would have the option to move forward with an acquisition even if the BCC did not approve it.

Commr. Parks questioned if the ordinance would need to be changed.

Mr. Bonjorn asked if the LCWA had the authority to move forward with an acquisition if the BCC did not approve.

Commr. Parks wondered if the role of the LCWA would be advisory or more than that.

Ms. Zenishek opined that residents had the impression that the LCWA did not have the authority to make decisions for their own properties.

Mr. Hendrick opined that the BCC wanted the LCWA to be as independent as possible.

Ms. Marsh stated that based on the ordinance that was passed concerning easements and conveyances, the LCWA could approve a conveyance at their level; however, if the BCC did not approve it, it would not be conveyed, noting that if the LCWA went forward with a conveyance not approved by the BCC, it could result in litigation.

Mr. Proctor stated that in a City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board made recommendations, and the City Council would approve what they wanted and what they thought was right. He relayed his understanding that the final authority in LCWA land related decisions was the BCC, according to the ordinance which said that a conveyance must be approved by the BCC prior to said conveyance occurring. He commented that when he was negotiating for the easement, he was gathering information, but that it would come before the BCC for a decision.

Commr. Parks opined that the LCWA should be as independent as possible in order to go into detail with water resource issues, and that there may not be anything to change in the ordinance.

Ms. Zenishek relayed her understanding that when there was a conveyance issue, the LCWA Board member for that district could contact their District Commissioner to obtain ideas and perspectives before it came before the LCWA Board, which could help with communication issues.

Commr. Campione suggested that if there was a request for an acquisition, sale, or release of property, both Boards could hear the information together through a presentation by the applicant, and questions could be asked at that time; otherwise, the BCC would receive second hand information. She relayed her understanding that the LCWA could discuss the item and make a decision to recommend it or not, and then it would come before the BCC for a final decision or for further deliberation on a different arrangement.

Commr. Parks opined that having quarterly meetings could help with this process, and that the issues could wait two more months to be heard.

Mr. Bonjorn opined that something like an easement was not an urgent matter.

Commr. Campione remarked that there could be a request for the Boards to meet together for an urgent situation, opining that it could be used for the quarterly meeting. She relayed her understanding that the BCC could modify the charter, and that if the current process did not work well, then it could be modified.

Commr. Shields asked if the process would be similar to the Lake County Planning and Zoning Board, which was able to resolve many issues before the matter went before the BCC through the participation of the residents and attorneys, noting that the BCC could ask for other concessions.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was more involved, and that through the LCWA, there were functions and responsibilities that they would continue to do unless there were structural changes, opining that there should be a waiting period to see how the process worked.

Commr. Shields remarked that he was looking for a model that was already in place, opining that there was not one.

Commr. Parks opined that the LCWA Board was more than an advisory board.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the LCWA had professionals who were educated for their positions and had been there for many years, and that when they brought an item to the BCC, their advice would be taken very seriously, noting that there may be land regulations that needed to be considered. He mentioned that all Board members cared about the citizens and the betterment of Lake County, and opined that the LCWA needed independence to do their work.

Commr. Campione commented that she liked the water atlas feature on the LCWA’s website, which gave data for the different water bodies that had been collected over a period of time, and she liked the idea of having one place to go for all water quality related needs. She suggested that when citizens called about water quality related issues, there could be a water quality advocate or director who could take the lead in making decisions or bringing in other agencies, noting that the BCC called on the Office of Code Enforcement, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to enforce local issues, such as wetlands setbacks, plant removal, or dredging.

Commr. Parks expressed his support for that idea, and opined that water was a high priority for Lake County.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the LCWA did a good job with education, public involvement, and awareness programs. She recalled that the BCC had adopted a fertilizer ordinance several years ago and had asked the Cities to help in that effort, opining that more could be done through a collaborative effort with the LCWA to encourage residents to use best practices around water bodies, which could contribute to better water quality. She opined that it was difficult to enforce a fertilizer ordinance, and that it would be better to raise awareness, make information easy to find, and make it easier for residents to follow the ordinance, which was what the LCWA did well. She mentioned that the County collaborated with Keep Lake Beautiful on water cleanup projects, opining that this was another area that the BCC could collaborate on with the LCWA.

Mr. Proctor commented that when a resident, business, or community came to the LCWA with an issue, they listened to and discussed the issue and tried to obtain more information from an expert on the subject, such as the blue-green algae issue in Lake Minneola. He noted that two weeks after residents reported a blue-green algae bloom in Lake Minneola, the LCWA had a meeting and immediately started a study with technical experts who could give them with data, and that they were able to obtain a year’s worth of data specific to that body of water and that issue. He mentioned that the LCWA utilized budget funds for engineering and environmental firms that had the expertise in tracing the cause and the source of the issue, which was from septic tanks, and that there had been much discussion about septic tank conversions and septic tank replacements, which was beyond their budget capability. He related that there was an issue about the nutrients flowing from Loch Leven (or Mud Lake) into Lake Joanna, and that they had acted immediately by utilizing staff and other resources, such as engineering firms that were on contract, noting that they received immediate results.

Commr. Parks opined that it was a good example of independence and good governance, and that it was a useful study and report.

Commr. Campione inquired if the LCWA Board had to report to the State that they had received the annual four-hour ethics course required per Florida Statutes.

Mr. Garcia replied that they had, and that when they were elected, they were required to do so; however, now they were appointed, and he did not know if it was still required.

Commr. Campione asked if the course was completed in-house.

Mr. Garcia indicated that it was, and that they provided all the Board members with a package that included information, such as the Sunshine Laws and Robert’s Rules of Order.

Ms. Marsh stated that because they were no longer elected, they would not fall under that mandatory requirement; however, it could be added to the charter.

Commr. Campione opined that it was important, and that each time it was taken, it brought the information to the forefront and introduced new examples to consider.

Commr. Parks commented that the BCC could take the course for free, and that it could be made available to the LCWA for free.

Commr. Campione recalled that it used to be provided by the Florida League of Cities once per year, and Mr. Garcia relayed that this organization had provided it to the LCWA in the past. Commissioner Campione then opined that the course material provided by the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) was better.

Commr. Parks explained that in the FAC course, they would be required to pass an exam for each section, opining that it was more challenging than the course offered by the Florida League of Cities.

Commr. Smith questioned what collaboration the LCWA wanted from the BCC to help them, opining that it was important for the citizens of Lake County to know that the two Boards were continually working together.

Ms. Zenishek asked if the BCC had bullet points with long term objectives for the LCWA and the different ways the BCC wanted to structure this Board and staff.

Mr. Hendrick expressed concern about who would be managing the parks and how they were going to do it, and he wondered if the LCWA and the County could use each other’s financial resources.

Commr. Campione remarked that the two staffs could discuss ways to ensure consistency, and that they could bring back concepts on how to bifurcate certain responsibilities in a way that could help tax funds go farther. She opined that stormwater projects, such as the one at Lake Joanna, and restoration projects helped the lakes, and that the County could use existing tools for land management, allowing the LCWA to focus more on water quality issues.

Mr. Bonjorn opined that the County and the LCWA each had resources that could benefit the other, and that they needed to find a way to share information.

Commr. Campione suggested that the County Manager and the LCWA Executive Director could work together as well as the technical staff for each organization.

Commr. Parks suggested that goals could be set for water quality, such as pounds of nutrients per year removed, opining that there may be more that could be done because of efficiencies.

Ms. Zenishek said that the LCWA was considering revamping their structure and changing departments, opining that it would be easier by starting at the end goal and working back from there.

Mr. Hendrick commented that he had collaborated with Commissioner Campione and a staff member for the Lake Joanna project, and that they had utilized County resources, noting that this was a scenario of how they could work together.

Mr. Proctor remarked that there was an opportunity to have more workshops to help determine the direction of the LCWA as well as ongoing quarterly meetings. He related that their Board directed their staff as part of their employee base, and he expressed concern that they did not have the authority to direct staff from other departments, such as Stormwater Management, to do a project.

Commr. Smith explained that the LCWA Board could approach their Executive Director about the project, and that he could collaborate with the County Manager and bring staff together for that project, noting that the BCC always collaborated with the County Manager who was able to take care of the issues.

Mr. Proctor expressed concern that if the BCC directed a department to work on a project, the LCWA would have to go through the BCC to gain access to that project.

Commr. Smith reiterated that the LCWA Board could go through their Executive Director, noting that the BCC directed the County through the County Manager.

Mr. Proctor opined that it would be good to have access to the County Manager; however, he wanted to have a way to make the BCC aware of projects in their districts.

Mr. Donohue opined that it was similar to the relationship that the LCWA had with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), stating that they went through their liaison to the LCSO.

Commr. Parks reiterated that there would also be quarterly meetings.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if a LCWA Board member received a call or an email from a resident regarding an issue in their district, that Board member could contact their District Commissioner and collaborate a response; otherwise, the Board member could go to the Executive Director, opining that working through the managers was the best solution.

Mr. Hendrick opined that this method worked well, and commented that when he had calls about issues, he called the Executive Director, who would then resolve it.

Commr. Campione remarked that if it was a Public Works Department issue, Mr. Hendrick could ask her to contact the correct department.

Ms. Zenishek inquired if one of the long-term objectives would involve the restructuring of the departments, and relayed her understanding that the BCC would like to have Hickory Point managed by the Office of Parks and Trails. She suggested that the LCWA could have the following responsibilities in return: the Lake County Blueways from the Office of Parks and Trails, which would fall under their aquatic infrastructure; Aquatic Plant Management from the Environmental Services Department; an additional water chemistry lab; and the Adopt-A-Lake program, opining that these changes could help both agencies. She opined that these changes could take place within the following year, and that if they had the details, they could start planning with the staff, who may also have some additional input.

Commr. Parks opined that there should be long term objectives to start with, and he asked if there was a master plan for surface water resources that included education and land acquisition. He also opined that staff could work together to accomplish this.

Mr. Garcia stated that they had planned to create a five year plan to send to the State Legislature before the change was made, and that they had just completed it, noting that it was a five year plan for their agency to be applied in water resources projects and natural resources.

Commr. Parks opined that the LCWA and the BCC needed a joint five year plan.

Commr. Campione suggested that the staff could work on some concepts for the Boards to discuss, opining that the two Boards should not be trading responsibilities. She also opined that concepts would be driven by the budget and possible efficiencies.

Ms. Zenishek inquired if the County staff and the LCWA staff had discussed this.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County staff had discussed this.

Mr. Garcia remarked that the LCWA had recently completed their five year plan, and that it was on the website; furthermore, he had met with the County.

Ms. Barker added that she had met with Mr. Garcia as well as the Office of Parks and Trails staff, and she suggested that since there were several different topics, the LCWA Board could learn about the structure, the organizational chart, policies, and procedures, which would enable them to have an understanding of the organization. She commented that having quarterly meetings would provide an opportunity for the two Boards to discuss agenda items, which would be prepared by Mr. Garcia and herself, and to make recommendations to either approve, change, or reject. She stated that this would provide a way to create a plan one step at a time rather than trying take over the entire process in one meeting, noting that it could be done in manageable areas based on recommendations made together with staff about what they determined would work best. She commented that the two Boards could then discuss it, offer suggestions and changes, or reject it.

Mr. Proctor remarked that water restoration included nutrients being introduced by fertilizers, shoreline restoration programs, and stormwater activity as well as providing public access to the preserves that preserved water quality and helped clean the water, opining that public access could help foster appreciation for those preserves. He opined that the LCWA should define what water restoration meant to them, identify what the different parts were, and then work backwards from there to a path of reducing nutrient inflow and helping new developments understand the water regulations and use best practices.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the Lake Yale alum treatment project had been on hold for many years, waiting for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to allow it, and noted that Representative Keith Truenow was now involved; additionally, there were other possible ways to move this project forward, such as a rule change by FDEP or a State legislative change. She pointed out that this was a restoration project, improving water quality as a result of using alum, and that there were many different types of projects under that category, such as restoring a wetland area on a conservation property and stormwater treatment. She opined that the Lake Yale alum project could be a pilot project along with Lake Jesup, and that it could have a large impact on the chain of lakes in Lake County by administering a treatment on each of the lakes a decade at a time, improving the water quality exponentially.

Commr. Parks commented that it could be considered an environmental lift.

Mr. Proctor opined that there was a long continuum between a compromised water preservation area and a park, and that there were many steps to take before the public could access a property that did not require bathrooms and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. He remarked that part of the process was to improve the access to Lake Yale, and that one could not take a boat across the lake because of the hydrilla issue.

Commr. Campione opined that even though it affected quality and access, it was a navigation issue, which was an issue for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). She questioned if the LCWA funded hydrilla treatments, noting that they had done it before when the County had a large hydrilla issue and could not acquire funding from the State; additionally, the County had used Tourist Development Tax (TDT) funds for this issue during a critical time.

Mr. Garcia replied that currently, there were no budget funds allocated for that purpose.

Commr. Smith commented that the County had recently purchased about 3,600 acres on Lake Norris for a permanent conservation area.

Mr. Bonjorn opined that it was important to have permanent conservation areas and recharge areas because of growth, and that the LCWA could work together with the BCC to accomplish that.

Commr. Parks remarked that this could be included in the long term goals, opining that there could be easements, acquisitions, and properties that were strategically important. He opined that efficiencies could also be found for the removal of nutrients, and that having numerical goals, such as acreage, number of residents who would use the property, and the time required to complete a project, could be included in the objectives, noting that staff could work on that and provide a good starting point.

Ms. Barker summarized that some procedural items included the following: policies and procedures to identify how to do business; staff working together to ensure the policies and procedures aligned with each other; joint meetings to address issues in a timely manner, such as land acquisitions, easements, and other agenda items to be discussed quarterly by both Boards for approval; and the County Manager working with the Executive Director on shared projects based on direction from both Boards. She relayed that some structural changes included the following: one entity managing both active and passive parks as well as conservation areas, allowing the LCWA to concentrate primarily on water resources; enhancing education for the public to better protect water resources, which could be a shared effort; and requiring the LCWA Board members to take the annual four-hour ethics course being provided by the County to Mr. Garcia.

Mr. Hendrick asked for annexations to be included in the summary.

Ms. Barker stated that all land transactions would be included, such as easements, annexations, purchases, and sales.

Commr. Campione commented that when conservation land was annexed by a City it could make adjacent land contiguous to the city limits, which could promote urban development. She stated that other items she would include were locks, water control mechanisms, and canals, and she asked what the cost was and if the State set the regulations for water levels and the water flow.

Mr. Garcia replied that the LCWA managed the controls on the water control structures based on a manual they had created, which was approved by the State, and that they had been managing them for years. He related that the only cost was for the staff’s hourly rate, and that during the recent storms, the water control structures needed adjusting; however, other than that, there was not much maintenance or cost involved in managing them.

Mr. Hendrick mentioned that there was a lock and dam at the St. John’s River, which was controlled by the SJRWMD.

Mr. Garcia clarified that the LCWA controlled the water control structures on the Palatlakaha River, and that those above Lake Harris were controlled by the SJRWMD.

Commr. Campione inquired if they were able to set the levels.

Mr. Garcia replied that the levels were set by the SJRWMD on the Palatlakaha River, and that they followed those.

Mr. Proctor added that there had been no adjustments made on the Palatlakaha River for almost 18 months until Hurricane Ian came, opining that someone should also inspect the structures monthly and look for tussocks and logs that could prevent water from flowing through the structure as well as checking for damage or vandalism.

Mr. Garcia stated that the LCWA could give a presentation to the BCC showing how their system worked and how it was managed.

Commr. Parks said that he was in favor of this and suggested including maps locating the various properties.

Commr. Campione suggested that before the following meeting, each BCC member could visit at least three of the public lands managed by the LCWA, and that each LCWA Board member could visit three public lands managed by the BCC, familiarizing themselves with the properties.

Mr. Proctor mentioned that before he became involved with the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, he had never been in most of the parks, and opined that there could be opportunities to improve some of them.

Ms. Barker mentioned that after final confirmation from Mr. Garcia on the meeting dates of February 6, 2023 and April 3, 2023 at the Lake County Agriculture Center, and that they would then establish a regular quarterly meeting schedule.

Commr. Shields questioned if the LCWA and BCC were duplicating services, such as water testing, which could be assigned to one organization.

Ms. Barker replied that this could be a discussion item along with natural resources, parks, and water resources, and property management.

Mr. Proctor indicated appreciation for suggesting that they could go to the BCC staff with issues, opining that it was a good incentive to continue this responsibility with the authority to fulfill this responsibility. He relayed that there were now action items and results from this meeting, and that it exceeded his expectations.

Commr. Parks expressed his appreciation for the LCWA, and commented that he looked forward to the February 6, 2023 meeting and visiting properties, opining that this was good governance for Lake County.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.

_________________________________

Sean Parks, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK