A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

April 3, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special joint session with the Lake County Water Authority on Monday, April 3, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. at the Lake County Emergency Communications and Operations Center, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; and Leslie Campione. Commissioner not present: 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 Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

welcome

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that Commissioner Blake was not able to attend.

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, recalled that at the previous meeting, they discussed the County providing management services for administrative services such as budget, procurement, and human resources (HR). She stated that the current meeting would focus on parks and trails, and the County managing the passive parks on behalf of the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), which would allow more time for the LCWA to focus on water projects. She said that she and Mr. Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the LCWA, had some meetings, and that Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, would present what the County currently did in their parks, and the services they would offer if they managed the LCWA’s passive parks.

Commr. Smith mentioned that Ms. Amanda Boggus, the Acting LCWA Attorney, was present.

parks and trails overview

Mr. Bonilla said that his office’s goal was to create a clean, safe and attractive parks and trails system while protecting and preserving their natural resources, along with allowing education, ecotourism, and sports tourism to flourish in Lake County. He displayed an overview of his office and stated that staff was scheduled seven days per week, noting that they had extended hours at gated/manned facilities. He listed his office’s following programs: active recreation; passive recreation; trails/linear recreation; boating recreation; and public lands. He remarked that staff brought a wealth of knowledge and many skillsets to the County, and that he had served for the past 17 years as the Director for the Office of Parks and Trails. He mentioned that they had been able to put together a diverse and capable team to address the needs of county residents while protecting their natural resources; additionally, they had the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board which was made up of nine voting members with one in each Commission District, along with representation from the LCWA Board, the School Board, the League of Cities, and one member at large from unincorporated Lake County. He stated that their projects were reviewed and planned carefully, and he showed a map with the facilities they had staffed throughout the county. He mentioned that the sites were equipped with the technology that staff needed to conduct their operations, and he showed their current inventory in the county which included the following: about 90 miles of paved trails, which his office maintained 37 miles of; 13 boat ramps which were open 24 hours per day and two being gated; several community centers; two nature centers; and seven cemeteries. He displayed a breakdown of the sports complexes that the County was currently managing, which included the North Lake Regional Park, the Minneola Athletic Complex (MAC), and the East Lake Sports and Community Complex, and he pointed out a map which showed the sports complexes that the County had moving forward per their master plan first adopted in 2005. He mentioned that the County had partnerships with the Cities of Fruitland Park, Minneola, Groveland and Tavares, and that they had identified the seven parks consistent with the master plan that had been supported. He said that they had 12 pickleball courts at Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Park, and that there had been about 27,000 games in the past three months; additionally, they also had six pickleball courts at the Pine Meadows Restoration Area. He explained that the trails master plan was first adopted in 2008, and that the goal was to connect the regional trails. He showed pictures of the trail usage, and remarked that the mile markers had been done in house by staff. He commented that they had 15 boat ramps total, with kayak and canoe access in additional locations, and that staff maintained, managed, and did all of the capital improvement. He mentioned that they had 162 miles of Blueway trails, and he said that they were an economic driver for the county. He commented that for the public lands program, in 2004 the majority of voters in Lake County had taxed themselves so that the County could pursue purchasing additional environmentally sensitive properties. He said that currently, with the pending transfer of the Lake Norris Conservation Area, the County’s total would be over 7,000 acres with the majority of properties being open to the public. He remarked that improvements were light in footprint, and he mentioned that the BCC and LCWA had been provided a guide that allowed the public to reach those properties, ask questions of staff and educate themselves for why certain processes were in place. He remarked that these processes included prescribed burns, mechanical treatment, mulching and plantings, and that the guide also described what was ideal at which locations. He commented that the Neighborhood Lakes Trailhead was a partnership with the State which allowed them to take in another 165 acres and build a multiuse trail funded by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). He added that this trail connected to the West Orange Trail, which would eventually connect to the South Lake Trail and Hancock Trail. He said that the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook was a project started by his office with the support of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), noting that this trail would eventually loop around Lake Apopka. He commented that their properties had individual management plans, and that they were monitoring and being flexible to adapt. He stated that they had a great partnership with the State at Ferndale Preserve, which the County had purchased with grant funding, and he noted that the PEAR Park wildlife conservation area was also purchased with Florida Communities Trust (FCT) funds: additionally, his office had received grant funding for the Lake May Reserve for some improvements. He said that the majority of the sites could just be managed, but when there was restoration involved, they also considered if a capital improvement project could go along with it. He mentioned that the Pine Meadows Conservation Area had been transferred from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to the County, and that the County had a great partnership with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), noting that the intent was to continue to improve the water quality of the site while allowing passive recreation with a light footprint. He pointed out Pine Meadows Conservation Area, Trout Lake Nature Center, and Lake May Reserve on a map, noting that the intent was to eventually connect those properties with a multiuse trail system consistent with the trails master plan. He stated that the County had a memorandum of understanding with FWC, and that FWC had expressed that they would like to continue this relationship. He said that his office was planting over 550 trees per year, while also using small trees in the restoration areas to grow more quickly; furthermore, he displayed an image with sites that had been recipients of many of the trees that had been planted throughout the county. He commented that his office was hosting over 120 events per year that were advertised, in addition to other events that were requested by residents for additional presentations. He mentioned that shelters in their facilities could be utilized as kiosks to display their educational pamphlets, noting that the pamphlets were done in house with staff’s input. He showed a list of some of the education and qualifications that his office had, noting that some of these individuals sat on the land management review team for the State. He mentioned that his office could go from concept to completion, and he listed the following efficiencies they had: cross training staff; the ability to move individuals around due to a demand or shortage; the opportunity to continue with a steady flow of talent to ensure continuity, noting that they had not increased the amount of staff in the past 12 years; capital projects and phased development as funding was made available; having a staff member that reviewed every project that came to the County; customize contracts for each property; apply for grants that were compatible with the property; in house signage; sharing equipment and resources; the Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A-Trail programs; strategic staffing throughout the county to respond quickly to conditions or concerns; and volunteers. He then showed a list of LCWA properties, noting that there would be about 7,700 acres of land including wetlands, noting that the County had a partnership with the LCWA to provide resources for those amenities. He displayed a list of some of the County’s partnerships, noting that it made it easier for the process to be seamless and receive answers more quickly.

Ms. Barker asked to display the slide for the LCWA’s passive parks. She explained that these were the parks identified by the LCWA as being passive parks that could possibly be ideal to be under the management services of Mr. Bonilla and his staff, similar to the services that the County provided at their passive parks. She added that Mr. Bonilla would take an inventory at each of the parks, noting that several of them could possibly require restoration, and some may only require management and mowing services. She stated that if the Boards decided that this would fall under the management services of Mr. Bonilla’s team, then they would take an inventory and determine the type of work that likely needed to be done at each individual park, along with a potential cost. She indicated that there were two employees who were assigned to those parks, and that the County would make the effort to place them at a County facility near those areas if they did not have an area where they could currently work at these parks.

Mr. Marty Proctor opined that it was a long list of complex preserves, and he expressed concerns for conveying this much property to the County in one action; however, he indicated support for conveying Hickory Point Park since it was not a passive park. He added that there was no formal agreement at this point, and that they had not established how the cost would be managed. He questioned if it would be open ended, if it would have a termination point, and if it would be subject to bid. He opined that there were many unknowns, and he said that he would like to see it done in a way where the LCWA and the County could work together through the process so that they did not convey 11 preserves and then realize that there were issues. He opined that they could do it in a phased manner to discuss challenges and prevent errors, along with eliminating potential inefficiencies and ending up with a better solution.

Ms. Barker clarified that Mr. Proctor was discussing management services, noting that the LCWA would not be conveying the property to the County; rather, it would basically be hiring the Office of Parks and Trails staff to manage the parks on the LCWA’s behalf.

Ms. Kristan Zenishek relayed her understanding that they were going to start the initial discussion of transferring management of the parks, starting with the LCWA’s active parks, and not a conglomerate of their passive parks that possibly did not need much management at the current time.

Commr. Shields asked if there was any restoration needed on these parks.

Mr. Proctor replied that most of them were fairly mature, and that their latest preserve open to the public, Scrub Point, had been under their guidance and management for basic plant removal and enhancement of the access; however, it would never be done because of how quickly things grew.

Mr. Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the LCWA, explained that the LCWA started buying properties because of the water resources connection, noting that all of these properties had some kind of water resources value. He stated that they had to be able to identify which properties were more suitable for parks, trails or passive activities, noting that most of the properties the LCWA owned were wetlands. He added that uplands were obtained when they received the property, and that the LCWA decided to open this to the public. He opined that each of the properties had different values, and that more value was given to properties that had more wetlands than uplands. He opined that they were not parks, but were conservation properties that the LCWA had purchased to protect water resources. He mentioned that the LCWA wanted to categorize each property differently to determine which properties would be better off under the management of the Office of Parks and Trails.

Commr. Smith relayed that the BCC was sensitive to the preservation of land and water quality, opining that the Office of Parks and Trails did an outstanding job on preserving the water quality and the content of the properties. He opined that taking both the active and passive parks from the LCWA into the Office of Parks and Trails was more efficient for the residents, and he said that he had confidence in the Lake County and LCWA staff to help accomplish the goal of preserving and keeping their parks as what they were supposed to be. He relayed that the BCC was concerned about the water shed, and that he saw no negativity in Lake County taking these parks over.

Commr. Campione said that one could tell from the acreage, Blueways, boat ramps, etc. that most of the County’s properties were centered on water quality concerns, noting that most of the time, one would find wetlands on their passive parks. She expressed that it was appealing to her to have a uniform system of conservation, restoration and management, so that there would be consistency. She added that public education, the signage, and the event guide could be coordinated so that it would be easier for the public to go to a website and find the different opportunities. She thought that it made it more user friendly and accessible from the public standpoint, and that from the side of good government and efficiency, she thought that it made it more efficient to be doing their management and restoration using the same protocols and staff. She suggested that the LCWA parks and passive lands would still be predominately marked as LCWA properties in partnership with Lake County. She added that for purposes of the LCWA’s meetings and review as a policy board, Mr. Bonilla would be coming to them with ideas about improvements and making areas more accessible to the public in a cost efficient way. She said that it seemed like it would be more efficient to have a uniform countywide passive land and active park system.

Commr. Shields asked if the LCWA had looked at how the County was doing with water quality in their parks, and he mentioned that the LCWA should possibly be consulting with Mr. Bonilla on the water side of the County’s public parks.

Commr. Parks said that it was a value proposition coming out of the intent of the legislation to consider efficiencies, and that they had to look at all the properties together. He noted that LCWA’s tax funding came from the same place as the County’s, and that they wanted to ensure that they were getting the best value for management. He thought that they needed to be clear that it was not a taking of the LCWA lands, and that it was a value proposition to consider if bringing them together could possibly be more efficient. He also thought that they would have to see some numbers on this.

Mr. Trampis Bonjorn asked about an example of additional costs if the LCWA moved two staff members.

Ms. Barker replied that depended on which individual parks needed it, or which recommendations Mr. Bonilla would make to the LCWA and what they decided to do. She mentioned that some of it could be controlled burning.

Mr. Bonilla mentioned that there could be reporting or updates on where they were at with the sites.

Mr. Bonjorn inquired what it would look like if the LCWA wanted to make a change at a park, or if they saw something they wanted to upgrade. He also asked if the LCWA would decide amongst themselves and then bring it to Mr. Bonilla, and who would have the final say.

Ms. Barker answered that they would direct Mr. Bonilla, noting that Mr. Bonilla could also make recommendations of what he thought needed to be done, or for adding value to a property by making capital improvements. She added that the LCWA Board could then make a decision on what they wanted to do, and that Mr. Bonilla could inform them of the cost so that it could be included in their budget process.

Commr. Smith thought that they needed to remember that the Lake County and LCWA properties were properties of the citizens of the county.

Mr. Garcia said that one item that the County needed to consider was whether the LCWA could convey all this property and change their zonings to conservation, noting that the current zoning for some of the properties included light industrial and residential.

Commr. Smith noted that this was an easy process and that it would go through planning and zoning.

Commr. Campione added that it would be staff initiated, that it would be scheduled for a hearing, that there would be an explanation, and that if there was a public interest for doing it, then the likelihood was that it would be approved to be consistent with its actual use. She remarked that they had a flowchart in Lake County government with the residents of Lake County at the top, followed by the BCC, the County Manager and County Attorney, and the department heads. She mentioned that the BCC had advisory boards that they appointed, and she said that she pictured the residents of Lake County, the BCC, and then the LCWA as a triangle, noting that the BCC appointed the LCWA Board and that they also answered to the citizens. She thought that their missions merged and that they had the same mission of an overall concern for water resources and water quality in the county. She felt that they could simplify this if they had the parks and trails and the water quality responsibilities come under one department, noting that the County had water issues such as aquatic plant management, mosquito control and a water lab; furthermore, she opined that it made more sense to merge them to the LCWA/Lake County side and put all of this together with one prong being parks and trails, passive lands and land and water management, with the other prong being the water quality and water related issues. She stated that if Mr. Bonilla was overseeing this area, then he would interact with the BCC on their parks; additionally, he would interact with the LCWA with their parks. She said that if Mr. Bonilla wanted to bring forward an idea, then he brought the concept to the BCC and reviewed the numbers, noting that the BCC could include in their budget if they thought it was a good idea. She said that the same thing could happen with the LCWA, and that the water quality side would still fall under the LCWA for the purposes of the items that they currently oversaw such as the Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF), water structures, water enforcement and grants. She stated that it did not make sense to her to have employees of the LCWA when they were mixing and blending everyone with employees of the BCC, and she questioned why they did not just make them County employees; however, the County employees would report to the LCWA Board on LCWA functions. She said that the County Manager would be the overall supervisor.

Commr. Smith opined that this was not a bad idea, and he said that the BCC could agendize this for their April 11, 2023 meeting.

Commr. Shields mentioned that the LCWA had their own millage rate, and that the County already knew how to do this.

Commr. Campione added that fire rescue and emergency medical services (EMS) also had their own millage rates. She thought that it allowed both organizations to become more efficient because they would not be duplicating functions, and would be cooperating in areas where they were doing the same type of things; furthermore, the LCWA would still have the autonomy of making those decisions over the LCWA properties.

Commr. Shields mentioned that if there was a water quality issue, he would ask the LCWA, opining that the LCWA was the expertise regardless of what structure they put in place.

Commr. Campione noted that there was County staff who were water quality experts as well, and that if staff combined their water quality staff into one group, then they would be receiving uniform answers. She said that she wanted to make it easy on people when there were water related issues, and that there could be one water resources director with professionals under them.

Ms. Zenishek asked if Ms. Barker and Mr. Garcia had spoken about getting LCWA staff under the same policies and procedures as County staff.

Ms. Barker replied that for the County to provide HR, procurement or budget services to the LCWA, the LCWA would have to adopt the County’s policies and procedures.

Mr. Garcia relayed that they could discuss staff at future meetings.

Ms. Barker added that they had to do a management services agreement and that it had been drafted; however, they held off until after the current meeting because if they added parks, then there was no sense in having another agreement.

Ms. Zenishek opined that the LCWA could have been preparing better in the sense that staff was aware and knew of potential policies and procedures.

Ms. Barker remarked that the County had provided Mr. Garcia with a copy of these, as well as the most up to date employee manual.

Ms. Zenishek said that it sounded like the largest thing they needed to determine was how they were going to do this. She thought that they were all in agreement that the County would be more efficient in running many of the LCWA’s parks, and she questioned what the best way forward to do this was.

Mr. Robert Hendrick asked if Mr. Bonilla could handle taking this over immediately, if not sooner, and Mr. Bonilla replied that his office could handle it.

Ms. Zenishek thought that one large takeover could be overwhelming and stressful.

Commr. Campione pointed out that the LCWA already had employees that were servicing these lands.

Mr. Garcia confirmed that they currently had two employees doing this.

Ms. Zenishek asked if they would transition all of it and the two employees together.

Commr. Campione responded that this would be at a minimum, and she asked if they had historically only had two employees.

Mr. Garcia said that they usually had three to four employees.

Commr. Campione opined that it should probably be around four employees, and she thought that the County was thinking in terms of a higher level of service because the LCWA would be focused on the management and restoration side.

Ms. Zenishek mentioned that it would be an extra 7,000 acres that Mr. Bonilla would have to inventory.

Commr. Smith said that the LCWA was already dealing with this.

Ms. Zenishek did not think that the LCWA was on the same level with policies and procedures with regards to developing and implementing the plan.

Commr. Parks asked if the two LCWA employees were just for their management, and if they were overseeing the restoration with contracts.

Mr. Garcia confirmed this and noted that much of the work they did was contracts, such as maintenance of the properties and signage.

Commr. Parks inquired if their active park side was an additional person or two, and Mr. Garcia said that there was another employee at Hickory Point Park. Commissioner Parks then thought that the LCWA would need all of these employees for what they were doing, and possibly more at some point. He opined that there would theoretically be an efficiency by putting it together.

Commr. Campione asked if Mr. Bonilla hired out contractors for prescribed burns or their management plans.

Mr. Bonilla confirmed that they had four land management vendors in place, and Mr. Garcia said that some of the companies might be the same as those that the LCWA were using.

Ms. Zenishek asked about the County’s price per acre that they spent, and Mr. Bonilla replied that it was about $82.18 for restoration. Ms. Zenishek then asked about the price for management.

Mr. Bonilla indicated that it depended on the level of what was needed. He mentioned that much of it did not have to be contracted, and that staff was already there; furthermore, this was a significant savings.

Commr. Campione said that the LCWA could look at where their closest locations were so that Mr. Bonilla could potentially locate LCWA staff in locations where they could be housed and run their offices, noting that they could be spending their time on the properties that they were assigned to. She opined that it was an efficient way to cover many parks over a large geographic area.

Ms. Zenishek asked how much the LCWA spent per acre, and Mr. Garcia responded that it was $78, including management and contracts.

Mr. Proctor did not think that the LCWA had discussed a higher level of service, heads in beds, and concern about efficiency versus results. He clarified that the LCWA focused on conservation and preservation, which he opined did not always align in the long term with being more efficient at the current time. He relayed that there were many things with varied costs that had to be done over a long period of time, and that it could be a long time before any substantial change occurred at certain locations. He opined that today’s efficiency did not always meld well with the concept of getting to where they wanted or needed to be in five or ten years. He relayed that having a management plan was a vital part, but it was also a long and incremental process to get it done; additionally, it was also challenging to find vendors. He said that the LCWA tried to be efficient and get the best cost they could, along with trying to do the best job they could, and he relayed that the LCWA had always operated as a team. He opined that the LCWA had not been concerned about the cheapest way to get something done; rather, it had been how to get to the best destination in the best way.

Commr. Parks said that he would not want to be associated with taking a property and having a management or restoration plan, and then bailing on it a few years down the road. He stated that there was great value to having floodplains and areas hydrologically preserved, as well as having them open for people to visit. He thought that the LCWA and the BCC were possibly on the same page, and that it was just about considering if a certain way was more efficient to complete a management or restoration plan.

Commr. Shields relayed that as the LCWA finished properties, then the County could possibly take them over.

Mr. Hendrick asked to confirm that the BCC was not looking to do a crossover for projects such as the NuRF or Lake Denham.

Commr. Campione commented that the Lake Denham project was long. She also clarified that heads in beds were for Blueways and trails, rather than water quality projects such as Lake Denham.

Mr. Proctor noted that the NuRF was an expensive machine that needed to be managed properly, and that the LCWA had taken the larger and longer view to avoid issues. He mentioned that there was much crossover between the County and the LCWA, but he opined that there were sometimes differences in methodology and the concept of how to reach their goal. He opined that it was cheaper to mow something with a contractor than to have an employee maintain and inspect the property; however, this was a different process, noting that an employee was a person who understood invasive plants and where water was supposed to be.

Commr. Campione opined that the people who worked on the County’s public lands knew what was supposed to be mowed. She thought that it could be a good team.

Ms. Zenishek thought that Hickory Point Park and Hidden Waters Preserve had continued to come up as a great way to start their transition of having the Office of Parks and Trails take over much of the LCWA’s land.

Mr. Bonjorn asked if they could select two or three properties and move forward.

Commr. Smith thought that the BCC was going to agendize this, noting that they would know the cost of everything.

Mr. Proctor asked if the County advertisement would announce that LCWA Board members may be present.

Ms. Barker commented that the BCC was already advertised for April 11, 2023, and she suggested that the LCWA advertise if one of more of them would like to speak.

Mr. Hendrick inquired if they would be speaking as a representative of the LCWA.

Mr. Proctor recalled that without being advertised, they could not speak because it was the BCC’s meeting.

Ms. Barker recommended checking with their counsel on whether they could speak without advertising.

Ms. Boggus said that they would generally err on the side of caution and notice everything.

Ms. Zenishek added that she thought they needed LCWA Board approval to speak on behalf of the LCWA.

Mr. Richard Donohue relayed his understanding that one could speak as a citizen if they wanted.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, explained that it was not necessarily someone speaking on the LCWA’s behalf as authorized by their Board; rather, the Sunshine Law was more of a question of whether it was something that would reasonably come back to the LCWA Board for a vote. She added that if two or three LCWA Board members were discussing the same thing, then it became a meeting of their Board whether they had been authorized to speak for their Board or not. She also indicated that more than likely, the discussion the BCC had would come back to the LCWA Board for discussion.

Commr. Campione opined that this discussion would be the more appropriate time to decide whether the LCWA Board wanted to send someone to make comments at a subsequent meeting. She thought that the sequence was that the BCC had an agenda item and discussed it, and then the LCWA had a discussion about it and weighed in.

Ms. Zenishek stated that the LCWA Board could possibly agendize at the same time as the BCC.

Mr. Proctor relayed that the LCWA Board could agendize the discussion of the BCC’s agenda item for their next meeting.

Commr. Parks commented that this would come back on April 11, 2023 when the BCC would discuss it, and also at the LCWA Board’s discussion in the third or fourth week of April 2023. He added that it would also come back in May 2023 to the BCC.

Ms. Zenishek asked about the last time the County raised the rates for when they leased out their fields to different sports.

Ms. Bonilla replied that the BCC had not raised fees since 2009, and that it cost $10 per hour for baseball or soccer. He explained that fields were made available based on reservations, and that leagues did not control County facilities. He added that if fields were available, then they could be reserved for that party.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the citizens owned the land.

Commr. Parks asked if the fees reflected direct costs, and Ms. Barker clarified that the fees were less than this.

Mr. Bonilla opined that Lake County had the most affordable fee schedule compared to surrounding Counties and Cities.

pine meadows

Ms. Barker said that there was an opportunity to purchase property adjacent to the existing Pine Meadows property owned by the County, noting that it was comprised of both wetlands and uplands.

Mr. Bonilla explained that Lake County had the Pine Meadows Conservation Area property, and that the subject property was to the east. He commented that there was access off County Road (CR) 450A that was shared access, and that the property was approximately 90 to 95 percent wetlands. He stated that there was opportunity for some passive recreation, and that there was a second access at this location. He remarked that it was consistent with the County’s parks master plan where there was an opportunity to acquire property that was contiguous, and he said that there was an area used for water quality enhancement. He opined that this would be a great water quality project, and he related that the price per acre was about $5,000. He mentioned that there were some uplands which would offer the opportunity for some passive uses, and that there was a kayak launch area which could potentially launch larger watercraft. He opined that the property had all the values that the LCWA had in their mission in terms of enhancing water quality, and that it was a desirable location. He remarked that eventually, the intent was to connect these properties with a trail system consistent with the trails master plan, and he opined that there was value to bring cyclists and walkers to the site.

Commr. Campione asked about the timeline for restoration.

Mr. Bonilla replied that FWC had indicated that they were willing to extend their services into this property, and that Lake County had been at Pine Meadows for around the past eight years, noting that there had been much water quality enhancement. He said that he would put this in a 10 year plan, similar to what the County had with the original Pine Meadows property, which was a 10 year joint agreement with FWC.

Commr. Shields inquired if this was the property with a berm to separate a muck farm from the water.

Mr. Bonilla confirmed this and added that the FWC had breached this area to allow the water to flow into this lake. He mentioned that the County had FWC’s cooperation and resources, and that this would be a project ranked high under FWC.

Mr. Hendrick asked if there were any issues with the easement.

Mr. Bonilla clarified that there was a shared easement, and that another easement was part of a property, noting that this would be part of the due diligence to ensure that they had the titles and surveys for the property. He also said that there was an opportunity to tie this property to the other property, noting that a berm had been created and that the County was taking advantage of this and turning it into a trail system.

Mr. Hendrick inquired if they could move some of the traffic.

Mr. Bonilla explained that there was currently a residential road, and that they would bring them off CR 450A, noting that they would be removing traffic from residential communities. He opined that it would be more easily accessible and easier to identify.

Mr. Donohue asked if the LCWA already owned property off CR 450A.

Mr. Garcia replied that they owned a preserve, but it was to the north.

Mr. Proctor inquired if a land use expert had looked at these easements to ensure that they were not exclusive or had their use limited.

Commr. Campione thought that this would be part of due diligence to make sure that the easement could be paved and used for public access.

Mr. Bonilla added that the County staff member managing this site had spent 15 years with FWC working in aquatics, and he opined that it was a good fit to be assigned to the Pine Meadows property. He also mentioned that at Ferndale Preserve, the County introduced a drivable grass system about 12 years prior, which was supported by the SJRWMD and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); furthermore, it remained permeable.

Commr. Shields asked if the property owner could be paid over time, and Mr. Bonilla confirmed that there was financing available.

Commr. Smith asked to clarify if the County was asking the LCWA if they would be willing to cooperate with the purchase of this property.

Mr. Bonilla replied that this was correct, opining that it could be a great start to this transition and that the County and the LCWA could work together to have a piece of property that was a joint effort water quality project. He added that the County would look to the LCWA to take the lead in terms of funding.

Mr. Hendrick relayed that the LCWA had a workshop, and that the consensus was that this fit as a good piece of property for the County and the LCWA.

Mr. Proctor agreed, and he indicated his understanding that there had not been an environmental appraisal done since 2010. He was unsure if this had to be redone, and said that he would like to have a better answer. He opined that the easement access was a significant issue, noting that the property was a long way back and was on a private road; furthermore, it could be a busy road through a residential area. He opined that it was currently a suboptimal access from State Road (SR) 19, and that having another access would be great; additionally, he wanted to ensure that they found that they had the proper easements. He thought that they would also like to have an independent appraisal to find out what the land was worth.

Commr. Campione pointed out that when buying land for water restoration purposes, they were not looking at it from a value standpoint the same way they would if they were looking to develop or build on it. She clarified that they were looking at it from the standpoint of taking something that had been polluted, noting that it was an old muck farm full of nutrients, and restoring it to as close as possible as its original condition.

Mr. Hendrick said that he would ensure that all the due diligence was done.

Mr. Proctor inquired if the responsibility would fall to the LCWA or the BCC.

Commr. Campione thought that if they were doing this jointly, then they would assure that however the contract was drafted, it would cover all of the due diligence time and items that they needed assurance on. She also thought that if the LCWA was in agreement and wanted to move forward, then the County could work on the logistics and legal side.

Commr. Shields mentioned that it could possibly be a model for restoration projects, and that the LCWA could potentially transfer it to Mr. Bonilla when it was finished.

Mr. Proctor opined that if the County was going to have the LCWA purchase it, then it came down to either directing the LCWA to do this, approving the LCWA to do this, or including it in the budget.

Mr. Hendrick indicated that the highest price he would pay was the asking price, noting that he was not going to negotiate against themselves. He said that the LCWA needed direction on where to put it in the budget.

Commr. Smith thought the process with House Bill (HB) 1105 was that the LCWA identified a piece of property, budgeted it, and brought it to the BCC for their decision.

Mr. Donohue asked if a grant could be received for this.

Mr. Garcia believed that there was already a grant on the property with FWC for the restoration, but not the purchasing.

Mr. Bonilla opined that it could address this property as well for the restoration.

Commr. Parks mentioned that they could possibly come up with a funding model such as a payment spread out over a number of years, mixed with grants, out of the LCWA’s millage rate.

Ms. Zenishek asked where this idea came from, noting that the LCWA had been waiting two weeks to receive water samples from the lab.

A member of the audience indicated that the samples were similar from each side of the property, and that the clarity was better on the east side of the property.

Mr. Proctor commented that they were in the middle of the budget, and that if this was something that needed to occur in the next budget year, then he asked the BCC to approve or direct the LCWA.

Commr. Campione said that Mr. Garcia and Ms. Barker could look at the budget and come up with a purchase plan, noting that the County would be looking at the restoration from the standpoint of FWC and other resources to help with this. She thought that having the two directors meet was the way to go at the current time if they had a consensus.

The LCWA relayed consensus for this.

open discussion

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Brittany Lerch, a resident of Yalaha, expressed concerns about a proposed annexation of 160 acres into the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills for the Cedar Creek development.

Commr. Smith indicated that this issue was coming up at the April 11, 2023 BCC meeting.

Ms. Marsh relayed that this item was also going to the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills on April 10, 2023.

Ms. Lee Conger, a resident of Lake County, requested a copy of the presentation, and Ms. Barker said that this could be provided to her.

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

Mr. Proctor suggested to schedule another meeting on June 26, 2023, noting that three months from the current date would be near the Fourth of July and that many of the Board members would be unavailable at that time.

Ms. Barker relayed that they would work with staff to schedule the next meeting.

Mr. Bonjorn said that if the current meeting had more information on the agenda packet to let the LCWA know what the idea was and what they were looking to accomplish, then he thought that they could get more done.

Commr. Smith thanked everyone for attending.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.

_________________________________

KIRBY SMITH, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK