A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

April 11, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting. He indicated that they were meeting in person and were being streamed live via the County website.

Pastor Michael Watkins, with Friendship CME Church in the City of Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, explained that the current meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, requested to pull Tab 15, regarding an update on the efforts of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) on the joint planning agreement (JPA) and conservation effort for the county, noting that it would be presented at the County’s joint meeting with the municipalities on April 19, 2023.

employee awards

Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County, as follows:

FIVE YEARS

Alan Baron, Senior Building Inspector

Office of Building Services

James Beckner, Landfill Attendant

Public Works Department

Tiffany Enssle, Library Assistant I

Office of Library Services

Michael Goodwin, Installation & Maintenance Tech

Office of Public Safety Support

Cary Melvin, Survey Supervisor

Public Works Department

TEN YEARS

Sandy Beckett, Office Manager

Public Works Department

Michael Bragdon, Sign & Striping Technician I

Public Works Department

TWENTY YEARS

Edward Johnson, Fire Lieutenant/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

Matthew Roudabush, Fire Lieutenant/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

Jeffrey Coulthart, Fire Lieutenant/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue

Robert Perry, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

William Holtzman, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue

THIRTY YEARS

John Heffler, Maintenance Worker II

Office of Fire Rescue

QUARTERLY AWARDS

EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER

Elise Vancise, Library Assistant II

Office of Library Services

Ms. Nelson relayed that Ms. Vancise was on duty at the Astor Library when a citizen who came in to visit the library’s community food pantry suddenly collapsed and became unconscious. She added that Ms. Vancise quickly assessed the situation, called 911, and immediately began performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). She stated that Ms. Vancise continued administrating aid until emergency medical services (EMS) personnel arrived and were able to get the person breathing again through successfully administering CPR. She said that Ms. Vancise was instrumental in saving the citizen’s life, and she thanked her for her quick response and lifesaving efforts during this medical emergency.

SUPERVISOR OF THE QUARTER

Anthony Moore, Technical Systems Coordinator

Office of Public Safety Support

Ms. Nelson explained that during the past quarter, Mr. Moore had been managing the radio microwave project, noting that it involved handling, programming and distributing over 2,000 radios that utilized the countywide radio system. She said that he had worked with three hospitals, twelve police departments, eight municipal fire departments, and nine municipalities including general government, public works, emergency, and the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) to coordinate the reprogramming and distribution of these radios across the county. She remarked that he managed this project in addition to all of his regular duties, and that he greatly assisted his department and the local community.

T.E.A.M. OF THE QUARTER

KEEP LAKE BEAUTIFUL – COMMUNITY CLEAN UP TEAM

Facilities Management

Rolie Breeden

Paul Doran

Matt Dorn

Bill Campbell

Ray Cloutier

Ross Hansley

Mark Peck

Mike Driscoll

Ms. Nelson mentioned that the County was recognizing team members from the Office of Facilities Management who recently assisted the Office of Public Safety with an extensive office move. She noted that during the quarter, several members from the Office of Facilities Management assisted both Office of Fire Rescue and Office of EMS administrative teams with moving, relocating and restructuring several of their offices; additionally, this team worked hard to coordinate schedules, to paint, to make repairs, and to move and reassemble furniture and various equipment in a short amount of time. She said that the Office of Public Safety greatly appreciated their hard work, attention to detail and excellent customer service through their transition.

annual comprehensive financial report

Mr. Gary Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, thanked those whose hard work brought them to this point. He recognized his finance staff for their work on the external audit and preparation of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and their Popular Annual Financial Report, which the Board had been provided on the current day. He said that the following team had helped put this together: Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; Ms. Mary Burns, Accounting Director; Mr. Kevin McDonald, Budget Director; Ms. Tracy Zeller; Ms. Julia Wilson; Ms. Cyndi Richardson; Ms. Connie Rodgers; Ms. Merrilyn DiVenanzo; Ms. Lisa Yanco; and Ms. Bonnie Brown. He relayed that Lake County had been awarded the Certificate of Achievement from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for this act for the past 41 years, noting that this continued, and that this had also been awarded for the past 12 years for the Popular Annual Financial Report, which was as long as the award had been given. He also thanked the Board personnel, noting that they participated in the GFOA Distinguished Budget Program, and said that the Board had received this award for the past 16 years; furthermore, his office had received this award for the past 31 years due to Mr. McDonald. He also recognized Ms. Kelly LaFollette, Information Outreach Manager, for the cover designs on this award and for her assistance with the Popular Annual Financial Report. He thanked Ms. Diana Magrum, a Board staff member who assisted with printing, and he introduced Mr. William Blend, a shareholder with Moore Stephens Lovelace (MSL). He explained that MSL was their external auditors, and that they ensured that his office got this correct each year for the Board; additionally, Mr. Blend would present the financial report.

Mr. Blend thanked the Constitutional Officers and the various County staff. He commented that the document exceeded 200 pages, and that his organization was always available if the Board had any questions about it. He related that for the required communications, the auditor’s responsibility was to perform their services in accordance with all the applicable audit standards, which they did, and that management’s responsibility was to be responsive to their inquiries and provide the requested information, noting that this had been done. He explained that they evaluated the County’s internal controls, and that they had no significant matters to communicate. He mentioned that they had received the appropriate management representation letter, which was required by the audit standards, and that Ms. Mullane was the main contact from the County who oversaw their services. He relayed that for the audit schedule, they were present in the first meeting in April 2023, which was good, and that generally in government accounting and reporting, having financial statements issued with that six month window was the requirement of the GFOA, noting that it was timely reporting from a government perspective. He listed the deliverables in the document, mentioning that the Independent Auditor’s Report was a new audit report due to the audit standard change. He explained that there was also a separate section that provided some highlighted areas in the audit process under the auditor’s responsibility. He said that the Board had received the unmodified opinion, which was the foremost level of assurance that they could receive as it related to the financial information, noting that it essentially meant that they had audited that financial information in accordance with the audit standard; additionally, from a materiality perspective, his organization had no issues with that information. He stated that Lake County qualified and had a federal and state single audit, noting that there was a clean opinion on those programs. He also commented that the report on internal control was required by government audit standards and that there were no findings. He remarked that the management letter was a requirement in the State of Florida by the Auditor General’s Office, and that this had been provided with nothing additional to report. He mentioned that the accountant’s report’s major component was their compliance with the investment statute, and that the County essentially had clean reports. He presented the financial highlights and said that it was the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) best practice to accumulate all the County’s assets and liabilities and present the financial statements. He mentioned that their assets and deferred outflows significantly exceeded their liabilities and deferred inflows, noting that under the net position component, the majority of the funding related to their investment in capital assets. He mentioned that they had a good ratio of assets divided by liabilities, and that their net position as a percentage of their expenditures was better than it had been over the years, noting that it had generally improved year over year. He thought that they saw a slight decrease there, which he would relate to getting back to normalcy, noting that a significant influx of federal funding was winding down and was being spent out. He stated that for the General Fund, which was the main operating fund of every government, this did not include long term liabilities such as pension or debt; therefore, this was more of a current activities statement, and the County’s assets far exceeded their liabilities. He added that the County’s unassigned fund balance was about 25 percent of their expenditures, and that they were currently in a good position with a positive net change. He commented that the organization essentially budgeted a loss in the current year, and ended up in a positive position, noting that significant changes were related to revenues exceeding the budget. He thought that generally, Lake County did a good job in having a conservative budget process, and that they had spent less than they budgeted. He mentioned that proprietary funds included the landfill and that the County had almost a break-even point, noting that their internal service funds generally were not moneymakers and were where the County had their insurance activities. He mentioned that these losses, if any, were offset via transfers from the governmental activities. He concluded by requesting the Board’s approval to accept the financial statements.

Commr. Smith thanked him for his report and for the work he did for the County.

Mr. Cooney added that these reports would be available online and that members of the public could view them.

Commr. Campione asked if the other mentioned reports were online, and Mr. Cooney confirmed that they were on the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller website.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board accepted the financial statements.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of February 16, 2023 (Special Meeting), February 28, 2023 (Regular Meeting) and March 7, 2023 (Regular Meeting).

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, said that he was on the audit committee for the Lake County School Board. He opined that the ACFR did not evaluate efficiencies, effectiveness and economy, and that it did not audit the grants or special programs which were not considered to be part of the financial statements. He opined that it did a good job of indicating that the County’s financial statements were accurate, but not how efficient or effective their operations were. He opined that it also did not cover regulatory compliance, and he relayed that he had not seen any real action by the County’s internal auditor in a long time, opining that the internal auditor could review some of the areas that were not covered in the ACFR.

Mr. Samuel Mehalick, a resident of Astor, opined that there needed to be sidewalks in Astor off some of the roads. He relayed that a new library was being constructed, and he questioned how children were expected to reach the library. He expressed concerns for speeding on Alco Road near the library, opining that there was no one there to enforce the speed limit due to being 45 minutes from the police department. He opined that children walking or riding their bikes to the library was a safety concern for the drivers, the children and anyone else walking on the sidewalk. He believed that there needed to be sidewalks on Alco Road and River Road, and he questioned why the County had not asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for grants for storm drainage and sidewalks.

Ms. Deb Bianchi, a resident of Lake County, relayed her understanding that as part of the conversation between the RedTail and Elimwood communities, there was going to be some fencing along that trail in order to prevent individuals from being hit by errant golf balls. She noted that she did not see this in the paperwork, and she asked about the status of this.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, explained that for the property agreement, the golf course was not requiring them to put in the fence; however, the County was still investigating whether a wall would be needed there.

proclamation 2023-27 water conservation month

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Water Conservation Month Proclamation 2023-27.

Commr. Parks read and presented Proclamation 2023-27 to Ms. Gretchen Smith, Water Conservation Coordinator for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).

Ms. Smith noted that it was the 25^th year that they had designated April as Water Conservation Month. She noted that everyone could do something to save water, and she mentioned that there were 1,000 new residents per day moving to the State of Florida. She opined that they would have to be more creative when it came to conserving water, and she thanked the County for this proclamation.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 4, as follows:

List of Warrants

Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

City of Umatilla Ordinance 2022-112

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2022-112 from the City of Umatilla.

City of Mascotte Ordinance 2023-02-638

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2023-02-638 from the City of Mascotte.

City of Minneola Ordinances 2023-09 and 2023-08

Notice is hereby provided of having received Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2023-09 and Rezoning Ordinance 2023-08 from the City of Minneola.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Smith mentioned that he received a comment card for Tab 4, and he suggested that they pull this tab to the regular agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 13, pulling Tab 4 to the Regular Agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend approval of Law Enforcement Proclamation 2023-39, per Commissioner Smith.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval to conduct a Closed Session of the Board of County Commissioners to be held on April 25, 2023, to discuss Lake County Voices of Reason, Inc. vs. Lake County, Florida, Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County, Florida, Case No. 2020-CA-000799.

COUNTY MANAGER

Recommend approval of an interlocal funding agreement with the City of Clermont for soil and groundwater testing.

The fiscal impact will not exceed $31,050.50 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

Recommend approval for the Chairman to execute a letter of support and agreement to the Florida Attorney General regarding the Crime Stoppers Grant Program. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Extension Services

Recommend approval and adoption of a Room Usage Policy to set guidelines, process, and terms of use of space at the Lake County Extension Services Office.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Facilities Management

Recommend approval of the removal of one 1,000 gallon Underground Storage Tank (UST) and the installation of a new 1,000 gallon diesel Above Ground Storage Tank at Central Energy Plant 75, 315 W. Main Street, Tavares, Florida 32778.

The fiscal impact is $100,800 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 3.

Recommend approval of the removal of one 1,000 gallon Underground Storage Tank and the installation of a new 1,000 gallon diesel Above Ground Storage Tank at Sheriff's Administration Building, 360 W. Ruby Street, Tavares, Florida 32778.

The fiscal impact is $100,800 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 3.

Housing and Community Services

Recommend approval:

1. Of a Substantial Amendment of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan and approval of related Resolution 2023-41; and

2. To authorize the Office of Housing & Community Services Director to execute any documents required by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and approval of authorizing resolution; and

3. Of a budget transfer in the amount of $200,000 reallocating CDBG-CV3 Capital funds from Contractual Services to CV-Rent and Mortgage Assistance. The net fiscal impact is $0 as the requested budget transfer reallocates funding from one expenditure account to another.

Public Works

Recommend approval of a Purchase Agreement with Elimwood Orlando Golf Resort, LLC for the right of way needed for Phase A of the Wekiva Trail, Segment 2 project in the Mount Plymouth area and authorize the Chairman to execute all necessary documentation.

The fiscal impact is $481,550 plus closing costs (expenditure – FDOT funding) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 4.

tab 4: international dark sky week proclamation

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Marty Proctor, a local dark sky advocate, thanked the Board for taking the time to do this, noting that it was part of a nationwide and global effort. He said that Lake County would be one of around 100 governments that was going to be approving this kind of a proclamation, and he opined that dark skies were important. He said that the technology and momentum were present to make these changes, noting that the City of Groveland had approved an enforceable and legal dark sky ordinance, and that the goal would be to have the other municipalities consider and pass a similar ordinance along with Lake County employing the same thing. He specified that it outlined specific items for the lighting that code enforcement staff could enforce, and he opined that it was making a difference in the community already.

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

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved International Dark Sky Week Proclamation 2022-33.

discussion regarding cedar creek property annexation

Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, said that the purpose of this item was to consider the request from the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills to allow a non-contiguous annexation under the South Lake Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) for the property referred to as Cedar Creek. He provided the following background information: on March 7, 2023, residents raised concerns to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) regarding a potential annexation of the Cedar Creek property; in June 2022, a first reading for annexation was held by the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; on April 10, 2023, the Town approved transmittal of a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Future Land Use (FLU), which allowed up to four dwelling units per acre with 25 percent minimum open space, along with a rezoning to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR-2), noting that the annexation of the first reading was repeated due to the length of time; and the Town had submitted a letter to the County asking to present a request for a non-contiguous annexation to the BCC pursuant to Section 3(c)iv of the South Lake ISBA. He displayed the property location and noted that it was off Number 2 Road, to the west of the Town limits and south of Mission Inn Resort and Club. He mentioned that pursuant to the South Lake ISBA, should the Town desire to annex property not meeting the requirements of Part I, Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, it shall obtain written approval of the County prior to annexation; additionally, the County shall give consent only when the Town demonstrates a direct link between the annexation and the creation of jobs or other economic activity other than residential construction.

Mr. Alex Stringfellow, a land planner representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed development. He displayed an image of a roundabout that would meet County standards, noting that it was the entryway design for the neighborhood. He showed an image of the area and commented that about 1.7 miles to the east was downtown Howey-in-the-Hills, and to the north was the Mission Inn Resort and Club; furthermore, there were two other larger areas slated for development in the near future within the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. He displayed an FLU map and relayed that they currently had the following three FLUs: Urban Low, which was four units per net acre; Rural Transition, which had variable density allowed based on the provision of open space; and Rural, which was one unit per five acres and was essentially a rural protection FLU. He showed the history of the site and noted that in 2021 they were initially looking at 50 foot lots and development across the entirety of the site with around 38 percent open space; furthermore, through conversations and review, they decided in 2022 to leave the Rural FLU western portion of the property as open space. He added that they were also looking at a higher percentage of open space approaching 50 percent, which was the highest provision of open space for the highest density in Rural Transition. He said that after another year and conversations with the Town, there was a desire to look at the opportunity on the western property for utilities, particularly wastewater facilities that would be dedicated to the Town in the future. He mentioned that there was currently a community development district (CDD) operated by Mission Inn which was at capacity, noting that they controlled the provision of wastewater for anything in the town. He pointed out that upland areas in the western portion of the property were left open for the potential wastewater treatment plant, and that there would be no residential development west of that property line. He commented that the request was for an FLU of Public, so that it could only be used for public uses such as wastewater, open space and conservation. He added that to the east was their request for 174 lots, which had been decreased from 313 lots, at 75 feet wide. He recalled that on the previous night, the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Council had made a motion to increase the lot size from 75 feet to 80 feet, and to create a deeper pad, noting that the applicant had tentatively agreed to this. He remarked that there would be almost 50 percent open space and protection of the rural areas to the west. He then displayed conceptual pictures of the proposed development and amenities, and he clarified that this was a straight zoning request and was not a planned unit development (PUD). He commented that there was a 50 foot buffer that ran along all wetlands within the property, and that there would be a significant amount of natural landscaping on the site. He showed a comparison of their development proposal with approved developments, along with a traffic distribution map that showed percentages and allocations of traffic impact. He explained that for the most part, traffic would be eastbound over to State Road (SR) 19 and running south, and then some traffic would distribute west. He said that when looking at some of the forthcoming approved PUDs to the east with substantially more development than the subject development, they were required to create connectivity from SR 19 and Number 2 Road; therefore, in the future there would be connectivity to create parallel corridors to SR 19 and provide alternative routes. He displayed an image of the proposed roundabout, and said that there was a curve on Number 2 Road at their entry; therefore, to the greatest extent possible they would straighten this out and create a terminating vista and a point of friction for cars as opposed to conventional turn lanes. He said that they had been looking at proportionate shares for particular intersections and improvements to roads, noting that they would also be participating in the improvement of the intersection planned for SR 19 and Number 2 Road.

Mr. Jay Duvall, with Traffic Planning and Design and representing the applicant, said that they conducted a traffic study based upon the Lake County standards, and that the results showed that some improvements were needed, including a segment of SR 19 from County Road (CR) 48 to Central Avenue; however, the applicant’s site would only be contributing 33 p.m. peak hour trips which was less than five percent of the existing capacity of the road. He mentioned that the developer was willing to pay their proportionate fair share.

Mr. Tim Loucks, an individual representing the applicant, explained that one of the issues the applicant encountered in this area was the capabilities of getting wastewater from Mission Inn, noting that Mission Inn had pretty much reserved all the capacity and were many years out from expanding the plant. He mentioned that the applicant decided to propose a wastewater treatment facility to serve their development and to be expandable; additionally, there would be a system that would generate reclaimed water for their subdivision and additional subdivisions. He relayed that it was a modular digester type plant and that it would basically all be underground except for the control circuits, noting that the odor limit was almost none. He added that they would be dedicating it to the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and that it would be the first time the Town would have sewer capabilities without relying on a third party. He felt that that the centralized sewer would benefit the town as a whole, along with the County’s desire to remove people from septic tanks. He opined that the economic benefit was significant for the town, and that it would allow them to go to the commercial end of the market as the area grew. He felt that the noncontiguous annexation met the qualifications of the ISBA agreement, and he said that the Town would be providing municipal services such as water, police and other services. He opined that the economic benefit to the town was the expenditure of the applicant to develop a wastewater facility and dedicate it to the Town.

Commr. Smith reminded everyone that they were not present to discuss a development; rather, they were present to discuss whether the BCC would allow annexation into the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills.

Mr. Loucks clarified that the density on this project was only 1.08 units per acre.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. John Blodgett, a resident on Number 2 Road, displayed a presentation which opined that the subject area was not urban in character, opining that this was a requirement for annexation under Florida Statutes.

Ms. Terri Blessing, a resident on Blue Sink Road, opined that this was the first presentation which indicated that the applicant wanted the wastewater plant done for economic development. She relayed her understanding that on May 9, 2022, the County and Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator, had considered a proposal for the Onsyte septic developmental system; however, it has been voted down. She indicated an understanding that the Town was offered $400,000 in grant funding, and that the County had $1 million in grant funding, along with the County offering to match a $1 million grant. She opined that the Town had opted not to pilot this, and that using a sewer system as economic development was a stretch when there were other options if they maintained Rural Transition. She said that she could not see the amount of people being brought to economic development through a sewer and wastewater treatment center because it was specific for that property.

Ms. CJ Forward, a resident on Blue Sink Road, opined that the applicant had not considered the impact to the roads, specifically Number 2 Road. She asked about traffic lights and if anyone gave consideration to Eagle Tail Landing on Number 2 Road, which she opined would increase traffic on the road. She expressed concerns for annexing a property that would add more traffic to the road, and she relayed that Number 2 Road was the only road that went straight through from SR 19 to CR 48; additionally, she opined that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had not considered potable water for all the new development. She asked if schools had been considered, along with the impact to the police department and fire rescue. She indicated a concern for a potential 85 percent increase of population in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and for the development likely interfering with dark skies. She believed that there were other options, potentially at no charge for the Town, to bring in a water sewage treatment plant. She also questioned how many jobs would be created by the annexation of this property, and she requested that the Board vote no on the annexation of this parcel.

Mr. Josh Lerch, a resident on Bloomfield Avenue, displayed a letter in which the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had claimed that the proposed annexation had a direct link to the creation of jobs and other economic activity, specifically the development of a wastewater treatment facility on the property. He opined that a development of this size would require a 30,000 gallon per day treatment facility, and that based on Florida Administrative Code and Florida Administrative Register Rule 62-699.310, the staffing requirements for a facility of this size would range from one half hour per day, for five days per week and one visit on the weekend, up to one hour per day, five days per week with one visit on the weekend. He opined that since the larger end of this range only required five hours per week with a weekend visit, he did not believe that this showed an impactful link to the creation of jobs and economic activity as a criteria that must be met in the ISBA. He asked that the Board deny the request to annex this property.

Ms. Brittany Lerch, a resident on Bloomfield Avenue, opined that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Council did not listen to concerns and did not follow the recommendation of their planning and zoning board to lower the density of this project; additionally, she relayed her understanding that they had reduced the buffer from the wetlands to 40 feet, which was below the Lake County standard of 50 feet. She opined that the Town was concerned that if they did not develop this land, then Lake County would, relaying that this was the first time that residents had heard that this treatment plant would serve beyond the proposed community. She questioned how many sewage treatment plants the town needed, noting that the Mission Inn plant was 1.8 miles away and the Drake Point plant would be one mile away. She asked why the Town did not purchase property and build a sewage treatment plant, and she relayed that the Town claimed that the plant generated jobs and other economic activity; furthermore, she inquired about this plan. She relayed her understanding that the Mission Inn treatment plant only spent about $8,000 per year in labor, and she opined that economic activity which would be lost included money spent in the town by motorcyclists, car enthusiasts and cyclists who enjoyed riding on Number 2 Road. She said that Number 2 Road had lanes which were eight to nine feet wide, and that Lake County’s transportation design indicated that a capacity for a lane of that width was up to 300 vehicles per day. She opined that Number 2 Road was already seeing 1,300 vehicles per day, and that this development would add over 1,700 more, which would increase it 10 times over capacity. She opined that larger vehicles had to drive on the middle of the road to fit, and she questioned what would happen when there were construction trucks headed to the subject property. She opined that the road was dangerous and that it was negligent to add more vehicles to it. She also opined that the development was purely residential and did not provide any economic development or jobs. She asked the Board to vote no.

Mr. David Miles, a Howey-in-the-Hills Town Councillor, relayed that the Town had passed the following three ordinances: an ordinance to provide a land use, with a vote of 4-1 to make it medium density; an ordinance for zoning, noting that they had closely followed what their planning and zoning board recommended of a low density category, in addition to increasing the size of the lots to 80 by 130 feet; and an ordinance asking for the annexation of this property. He opined that there would be an economic benefit, noting that Mission Inn Resort and Club had basically promised all of the available capacity to other developers. He stated that the Town required all new developments to have sanitary sewer, and he opined that the Town and its residents would like to be in control of the development of their immediate area. He said that the subject development was only 1.7 miles outside the center of the town, and he mentioned that there were existing developments and an industrial juice plant facility. He asked the Board to approve this annexation.

Ms. Wendy Zermenio, a resident on Bloomfield Avenue, opined that this was an overreach by the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and that she would like the subject property to remain rural. She indicated that she was the President of the Lake County Cattlewoman’s Association, and she expressed interest in keeping the subject property rural and it not being developed or annexed into the town. She believed that the Town could buy Mission Inn’s wastewater plant, and she opined that there was not a reason for them to annex this property.

Mr. William Sullivan, a resident on SR 19, showed a map of the area and said about 200 feet beyond the property was the first guardrail, which was 320 feet long. He relayed that the pavement width on the guardrail was 17 feet, and that the guardrail was 24 feet wide total. He opined that Number 2 Road was an issue and that the County had to decide what they needed to do with it. He opined that it was a substandard road, and he expressed concerns for a community being placed there. He relayed his understanding that the County had right of way on Number 2 Road going to the east, but that there were prescriptive easements west of the subject property. He mentioned that the County may want to consider filing a maintenance plat and taking over the prescriptive easement, opining that they had to address the road before having more trips there. He also showed an image of a school bus taken on the current morning, and he pointed out that the school bus was not on its own side of the road.

Mr. Jochim indicated his understanding that the applicant did not have community meetings, and he opined that it could have been worked out if a process was adopted that mandated community meetings. He believed that this project would generate more traffic, and he asked why there was not a standard for low density of one or two units per acre when annexing or developing rural land. He indicated an understanding that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills’ planning and zoning board had recommended low density, but that the Town Council had supported medium density. He thought that the Board should deny annexation until the applicant had community meetings to address the understanding of the issues and the solution.

Mr. Stringfellow said that the applicant had brought their presentation to give some context that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had been looking at this as a town property with town services and to be treated as an urban use. He clarified that the intent of the annexation was to bring the future development into the town and provide a level of service that was compatible with paying the ad valorem taxes that came along with it.

Mr. Loucks explained that the purpose of the 2013 ISBA was to memorialize the utility service boundaries, noting that it also had a method to define contiguous and noncontiguous annexations and how they should be done. He believed that the applicant met the criteria in the ISBA, noting that they were within the utility service boundary of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and that the Town would be providing services such as potable water, police, etc. He opined that the economic benefit for the town was to find a future benefit in the ISBA, and that areas in the state without wastewater treatment grew slowly and were limited in what they could build, especially in the commercial sector. He opined that the economic benefit and growth that the applicant was referring to for the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills was immeasurable once the system went in, noting that it was ready to be expanded and could be connected to by commercial businesses. He opined that it would allow much economic opportunity and job growth for the town, and he believed that they met the methods outlined in the ISBA to allow this noncontiguous annexation.

Ms. Pam Roustio, a resident on Turkey Lake Road speaking via Zoom, recalled that in October 2021, she had asked the BCC if the urbanization of the protected areas under the rural protection area (RPA) was a forgone conclusion, and that the Board had indicated that they would try to keep this from happening. She commented that the proposed development bordered properties zoned as Rural or Rural Transition, with only about 25 percent zoned as low density residential. She opined that there was some concern by a few Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Councillors about the decision to amend the Comprehensive Plan FLU, rezoning and annexation of this area; furthermore, the Town had discussed holding off on the decision to revisit how they wanted to grow their town. She asked that the Board deny this request for annexation.

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

Commr. Blake stated that he was a property owners’ rights absolutist in most cases; however, he relayed his understanding that the way this case was before the Board had nothing to do with traffic concerns or whether it was a nice neighborhood, noting that the legal question was whether it qualified as an economic benefit. He relayed that he did not see how it met this threshold, and that he was inclined to follow State law.

Commr. Campione agreed with the concern for the language in the ISBA, opining that this was what the Board had to focus on. She said that she appreciated any time someone tried to take an initial development with pushback and come up with ways to make it more in keeping with the surrounding area; however, in this case, the question was whether the ISBA requirements could be met. She opined that it did not appear that this was the case, and she thought that it was important for the Town of Howey-In-The-Hills and the County to continue a dialogue with regards to Number 2 Road and the Town’s vision for how it would like to grow, in conjunction with the community’s vision of what they would like to preserve. She relayed that everyone from the unincorporated side who had reached out had been very reasonable about their recognition of growth in the area and the demand being seen. She thought that everyone was coming at this from the standpoint that they were reasonable and that they understood that growth was occurring, but questioned what they could do in a situation like this, especially when they already had Rural, Rural Transition and RPA designations. She thought that the Board could support the idea that they could continue talking and find ways to work together. She noted that at some point, the question would not be whether the Board had to sign off on a noncontiguous annexation, and that it would become contiguous; therefore, the Board would not have any input. She thought that this was the time to start having those discussions about how they could blend these visions together and come up with something that the Town Council and the unincorporated residents would be happy with.

Commr. Parks said that he did not think that this item met the economic test. He thought that when the ISBAs were done, the intent of having this direct connection to economic activity might have been for cases near an existing city limit that had a targeted industry or large opportunity which needed to be done almost in an emergency fashion.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he was a supporter of property rights for people who owned and were around land, but that this was an ISBA concern to see whether the Board was going to allow noncontiguous annexation into the Town of Howey-In-The-Hills with specific guidance in the ISBA. He did not think that this property met this guidance.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied a proposed annexation of the Cedar Creek property by the Town of Howey-In-The-Hills and consideration of the developer's request to allow a non-contiguous annexation under Section 3.c.iv of the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement dated June 19, 2013.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:40 a.m. for 10 minutes.

regular agenda

tourist development council award recommendation

Mr. Ryan Ritchie, Director for the Office of Visit Lake, presented the Tourist Development Council (TDC) capital funding application from the City of Leesburg for the Susan Street Sports Complex. He explained that the City of Leesburg was seeking Tourist Development Tax (TDT) funding for a new construction project at the Susan Street Sports Complex, and that the current Susan Street Sports Complex was a 26 acre sports venue that consisted of four youth baseball fields, one multipurpose field, restrooms, concessions, and a scorer’s tower. He related that the new construction project would include the following items: removal of all existing fields and facilities; a 300 to 400 seat stadium with field turf playing surface, locker rooms, concessions, restrooms, and an office building; four multi-purpose fields; an enhanced entrance and parking lots; an equipment building; perimeter fencing; and complex signage. He commented that the City was committed to their emphasis for sports tourism for the Susan Street Sports Complex, and that sports tourism involved the traveling of persons for the purposes of watching, playing sports or visiting a sports destination for competitive and noncompetitive undertakings. He listed the following goals and objectives related to sports tourism: stimulates the growth of the local economy; markets the destination for sports tourism; great for entertainment and experiences within the community; and quality of life is enhanced through sports. He remarked that the project was designed to enhance sports tourism events that the City of Leesburg and Lake County currently hosted, and to attract new events looking to take advantage of the expanded facilities; additionally, the project would assist and enhance the operations of the hosted sports tourism events and attract targeted events such as regional, state and championship events, per the applicant. He said that the average estimated room night generation was 11,257 annually, post construction year three due to the first couple of years taking some time to build relationships and partnerships with entities and organizations that would be hosted there. He indicated that the estimated project cost was $4 million, and he displayed the capital projects impact model (CIM) that his office used to establish the total award. He relayed that the CIM was developed to assist Office of Visit Lake staff with making a determination on capital projects funding, and that the model determined the present value of the projected future stream of TDT revenues to be generated by the projects, converting this impact into a base funding award; furthermore, this base award was $630,000. He stated that the model then awarded bonuses up to 70 percent of the base award based on the economic impact of the project, frequency of use, and applicant contribution. He added that the total award was generated based on the number of events, participants and visitors attending each event that the applicant indicated, and that the economic impact bonus included taxes and spending assumptions for retail, food and beverage and transportation. He commented that the applicant contribution was the match from what the City was requesting, and that the frequency of use bonus was how many days per month it would be used for sports tourism related activity; additionally, this came out to be about five to ten days per month. He then relayed the following staff analysis findings: the Office of Visit Lake analysis involved a thorough review of the applicant’s application, discussions with City of Leesburg staff, analysis of event organizers, potential recruited events and discussions with their industry stakeholder and partner the Greater Orlando Sports Commission (GO Sports); staff believed that this was a viable project and would contribute to the economic health of Lake County’s tourism industry, though it was difficult to determine the accuracy of estimates of project demand numbers associated with room nights, participants, and spectators; it was imperative for Office of Visit Lake staff and the City of Leesburg to collaborate on recruiting initiatives, obtaining room night certifications and reports from local accommodations; and the project would contribute to solidifying Lake County as a destination for sports tourism. He read the requested action for the funding for the Susan Street Sports Complex TDC capital improvement project.

Commr. Blake asked if the City was going to improve the access to the complex, noting that it had been an issue.

Mr. Travis Rima, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Leesburg, confirmed that they would be changing the entrance. He said that there were two areas that they were looking at off Red Raider Road and off U.S. Highway 27. He mentioned that the City was working with their attorney to ensure that they could legally use an old rail bed, and that they wanted to move the access away from the neighborhood there.

Commr. Smith inquired if this would exit onto Griffin Road, and Mr. Rima said this was correct.

Commr. Parks agreed that it was a viable project, and he said that he had reviewed the joint TDC and BCC workshop on September 29, 2021, as well as the follow up meeting on January 25, 2022. He inquired about what they were doing as a follow up to this, relaying his understanding that there were some projects discussed in September 2021, and that in January 2022 the Board decided to hire a consultant to help them do strategic planning for expending capital funding. He asked about the status of this and if the current item was premature.

Mr. Ritchie explained that staff was in the process of hiring a consultant that would do a destination strategic plan, and within that scope of services was the evaluation of this program.

Commr. Parks recalled that there were questions about the fairgrounds multipurpose building and if they would be using TDT funding for this, and that trails and the South Lake Regional Park were also mentioned. He said that his challenge with the current item was how all of this would fit.

Commr. Smith mentioned that Commissioner Shields was the TDC Chairman.

Commr. Shields said that they started on strategic planning and that they were short on ball fields. He thought that this was a great project, noting that the TDC had agreed. He relayed that the plan was not written yet, and he opined that this item would dovetail in with it.

Ms. Alison Strange, with Alison Strange and Associates, stated that she had been working with the City of Leesburg for the past two years on their sports tourism plan, and also in partnership with Mr. Ritchie. She relayed that they were moving forward in the direction of a plan, and that the City had invested in this. She added that this was part of a three pronged plan for the City, noting that they had also made an investment at Sleepy Hollow Sports Complex and that the City was further investing in this. She explained that the objective was that in the northwest region of the county, they would have a regional 10 field diamond complex at Sleepy Hollow Sports Complex, and on the west side of the same city they would ultimately have a seven field rectangle complex. She opined that this supported not only the community needs, but would also allow them to help pay for these facilities with the use of tourism operations. She opined that having diamond sports at Sleepy Hollow Sports Complex and rectangle sports at Susan Street Sports Complex, of a large capacity that allowed them to be regionally and nationally recognized, was proactive, creative and was a great use of community resources. She added that this was part of the City’s master plan, and that the current item was the first piece of a five year plan which included the Susan Street Sports Complex, the Sleepy Hollow Sports Complex and the lakefront at Venetian Gardens.

Commr. Campione noted that the request said that the plan was for $4 million, but the award would be not to exceed $996,000. She inquired if this would allow them to reach seven fields.

Ms. Strange clarified that this item was for phase one of the Susan Street Sports Complex, which would be a five field complex with a stadium, turf and the four additional fields. She indicated that the additional fields were phase two, and that the City of Leesburg had submitted the five year plan, noting that other Cities were working on their plans to be provided as part of the overall strategic plan.

Commr. Campione asked if the other $3 million would be the next phase.

Ms. Strange replied that Susan Street Sports Complex phase one was a $4 million project, and that the City of Leesburg was paying $3 million of this and was asking for about $1 million in support.

Commr. Campione stated that she would be interested in moving along on the overall capital facility plan with regard to sports tourism because she thought that there were other Cities that would like to fill those gaps; additionally, there were opportunities with the County’s parks system. She expressed appreciation for Ms. Strange’s participation, noting that she brought much to the table with regard to making connectivity between the heads in beds part of this and keeping the program vibrant so that the County could afford to do some of these other things in the future. She opined that they had reached a saturation rate for their hotel availability.

Ms. Strange mentioned that the City of Leesburg had $3 million that had been in the account for some time, and that a project like this that they could be ready to be moving on and filling the park in August 2024 was going to put them one year ahead of where they would be if they waited for the strategic plan. She also indicated that this was a great step in the direction of what they believed would be the overall plan.

Commr. Shields confirmed that there were issues with hotel availability, and that they were working to get more in place; additionally, they were considering possibly having bonuses for events to address gaps in the calendar.

Commr. Smith said that they potentially needed to have Mr. Ritchie come back with an update on the strategic plan.

Ms. Barker clarified that staff had a short term strategic plan for the Board’s consideration as the following agenda item.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the current item would be a tiered structure in providing funding.

Mr. Ritchie confirmed that there was a performance review within the agreement, which was agreeable to the City of Leesburg, and that there was an accountability methodology within it.

Commr. Smith noted that the City of Leesburg was also contributing a significant amount of funding.

Mr. Ritchie said that typically with these projects, it was a 50 percent match; however, this project was only a 25 percent match.

Commr. Smith indicated that he liked active economic development programs, including sports, and that he liked this project. He thanked the City of Leesburg and Ms. Strange, and he thought that Mr. Ritchie was doing an excellent job.

Commr. Shields stated that some previous projects had been funded, but there was no one responsible for doing the marketing; however, this was currently being addressed.

Commr. Blake reminded everyone that this was TDT funding that was paid by individuals who stayed in hotels or Airbnbs, noting that this funding was then earmarked to attract more tourism to the area; furthermore, it was not coming out of property taxes.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that there would be a performance type provision so that it would be a responsibility of the promoters, the City, etc. to keep track of the room nights.

Mr. Ritchie said that this was correct.

Commr. Parks thought that it was a great project, though he would be opposing it only because he thought that it was premature and that they should wait until the strategic plan was done.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the following items: the TDC recommendation to provide $996,000 in TDT funding to the City of Leesburg for the Susan Street Sports Complex Project; to include a performance requirement provision in the Tourism Development Tax Capital Project Funding Agreement between the Lake County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Leesburg; to authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement with the City of Leesburg; and a budget transfer in the amount of $996,000, from Special Reserve - Capital Fund to Aids - Government Agencies.

Commr. Parks voted no.

one-year strategic plan for office of visit lake

Mr. Ritchie presented the 2023 Office of Visit Lake one-year strategic plan. He indicated that the purpose of this item was to provide guidance to the TDC and BCC on priorities for the use of TDT funding, and to adopt a one year plan with goals and strategies to be completed by end of the current year; additionally, the plan would achieve short term and ongoing goals which included increasing revenue in mid-week and shoulder months, as well as increasing brand awareness. He said that his office had a done a great job of capturing small wins, adding Madden Media as their leisure travel advertising agency, having their long term partnership with GO Sports, and recruiting several large sports tourism events to the area. He mentioned that both partnerships had benefited Lake County by bringing additional visitors who stayed in their hotels, shopped at their downtowns, and ate at their restaurants. He commented that this all contributed to the economic impact of their area, and that they had partners such as Zartico and Key Data that provided data on why people visited Lake County, where they were going and how the County should tailor their marketing campaigns. He mentioned that staff had established their new brand as Discover Lake County with a logo, and that they had hosted international familiarization tours for travel writers; additionally, they had hosted 10 Tampa Bay’s Great Bay Live television (TV) show to provide several videos about why Lake County was a great destination for tourism. He added that they had recruited several sports tourism events, and that they were continuing to build great relationships with their local accommodations, attractions and assets throughout the county. He commented that his office hosted a strategic planning session on February 17, 2023, with a subcommittee of Lake County business leaders. He added that the session was moderated by Madden Media, and that it was to establish a vision statement, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, and identify key business objectives to accomplish by the end of 2023. He mentioned that they wanted to be authentic and genuine, and that their vision statement was “To curate and introduce the natural beauty, authentic experiences, small town charm, premier events, and tranquility of Lake County to the world.” He then reviewed the SWOT analysis and provided the following information: strengths included small town feel, unique charm, scenic backroads, the parks and trails system, lakes, and the Florida Region of United States of America (USA) Volleyball being headquartered in Lake County; weaknesses included a lack of lodging, brand awareness, a lack of sports facilities, and congestion; opportunities included agritourism, the culinary scene and experiences, wellness campaigns, airport awareness marketing efforts, and athletic training opportunities; and threats included unanticipated weather events, economic instability, and regional competition in other destinations. He said that they wanted to identify three key objectives to create positive momentum for Discover Lake County, which focused on measurable performance perspective standards. He commented that some of the objectives identified were to increase hotel occupancy by five percent year over year and fill in the shoulder gaps, increase brand awareness, and collaboration with stakeholders. He listed the following strategies for increasing hotel occupancy by five percent year over year and filling in the shoulder gaps: create mid-week visitation by identifying audiences that could travel during this timeframe from a leisure perspective, such as birders, antiques, golfers, boating and agritourism; work with area restaurants to provide specials for visitors, which could possibly be a “Dine Lake” program; target remote workers and encourage the new “bleisure” traveler; focus on the area golf offerings and craft packages that offer deals for lodging and golf; and offer gift cards to local restaurants, attractions and shopping destinations for people that book a stay in the county. He reiterated that the next objective was to increase brand awareness, and he listed the following strategies: rethink and reimagine the Discover Lake County website, focusing on creating a site that would inspire someone to travel to the county, and utilize the power of search engine optimization to drive brand awareness from organic web traffic; focus on key markets and drive marketing efforts into those cities to share the brand, creative assets and content; drive the County’s own channels like social media with more content to continue to have the brand on top of mind; continue public relations engagements, not only with local media, but with media in key markets to share news of events and new developments; and utilize local ambassadors to be stewards of the brand and tell their story. He then shared the following strategies for the objective of collaboration with stakeholders: create a new tourism summit and invite the entire county to learn about the role of their county tourism office, the Discover Lake County brand, and how one could market the area to visitors and book events within the county; craft a quarterly industry newsletter for key partners so that they would be informed on what was happening within the county; and build a partner portal that would consist of events taking place in the county, as well as events that Discover Lake County had a hand in bringing to the area, noting that his office wanted to ensure that stakeholders were not booking events against other events. He said that for the next step, staff wanted to approve the short term plan; additionally, he announced that they were initiating a five year destination strategic plan, noting that the scope of services was advertised on March 13, 2023. He mentioned that they were close to seeing the bids come in, and that there would be an evaluation committee and selection process. He commented that they were looking at August 2023 for the final draft of the plan, with the final presentation coming to the Board for approval in September 2023. He mentioned that the scope of services would include the evaluation of the capital improvement program and the event sponsorship program to review, evaluate and develop a new rubric for a simplified application process. He requested approval of the 2023 One-Year Strategic Plan for the Office of Visit Lake, and approval of business goals and strategies for 2023.

Commr. Smith noted that he had a comment card for this item.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Jochim suggested that the County could consider knowledge workers looking for technical information seminars. He relayed his understanding that there were firms around the country and that the County could start to develop connections with them to have some of their seminars in Lake County, opining that those individuals could possibly participate in other activities in the county. He also opined that artificial intelligence was a growth area for seminars.

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

Commr. Shields mentioned that the County would also be coordinating with Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD).

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the 2023 One-Year Strategic Plan for the Office of Visit Lake, along with business goals and strategies for 2023.

commissioners

waiving res judicata for harbor shores/goose creek rezonings

Commr. Smith explained that the subject developments would not be discussed; rather, they were only discussing if there had been significant changes to the design to bring it back for discussion.

Commr. Campione said that this request was to waive the one year res judicata requirement, which would have required these particular developments to wait until October 2023 to reapply. She relayed her understanding that the changed circumstance was the acquisition of additional right of way that would allow the connection of the parcels referenced as the Goose Creek parcels. She added that the acquisition of right of way with additional land granted from Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) property would bring Goose Creek Road to the Goose Creek property, thereby giving it a direct access to CR 44 rather than requiring it to go over to Harbor Shores Road and further compounding the issues there. She opined that this right of way being able to be acquired and used for this purpose was a substantial change in what the Board had previously reviewed. She said that until she looked at what would be proposed, how it would be connected, and what other improvements might be made to accommodate and address traffic concerns, she could not say whether she would vote in favor of the item; however, if the Board did not review it at the current time, they would likely be receiving an application in October 2023 to review it based on these changed circumstances. She questioned why the Board would not hear what the applicant was proposing to do and see whether they would look at it differently, or whether there were other things that the Board would want to require if it were to go forward. She commented that after the case was denied, she had brought up that the applicant already had zoning to do a development on all that land, noting that they were requesting a PUD. She also indicated that when the denial occurred, the applicant had asked for dispute resolution, which was essentially litigation and asserting their rights against the County. She opined that with this in mind, since the applicant could be back in October 2023, and now that they had the changed circumstances, then it seemed to her that it warranted the Board to review these cases.

Commr. Smith reiterated that the Board’s job on the current day was only to try to decide if there was enough substantial change to bring the item back early.

Commr. Parks asked about the Board’s basis of review in their code for determining if something was a significant improvement.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, displayed the res judicata requirements, and explained that essentially what the courts had said was that what constitutes a substantial change in circumstance was primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority, which would be the BCC in this particular instance. She added that examples would include items such as the following: newly discovered evidence; a new access point, noting that safety on Harbor Shores Road was one of the reasons why the BCC had denied the projects; and changes in law. She stated that it was really a matter of what the Board thought was a substantial change, and that if they felt that having a secondary access point or primary access point was substantial, then they could bring it back and have a rehearing on the zoning for both applications; additionally, the Board could also choose just one application.

Commr. Parks inquired if one person’s interpretation could be that it was an access, but additional changes might meet a threshold within another individual’s mind.

Ms. Marsh replied that for the current’s day’s purpose, what had been presented by Commissioner Campione was that the applicant had a new access point. She added that the Board could hear from the developer if they had additional information; otherwise, they could make their decision based on what Commissioner Campione had presented.

Commr. Campione said that the map in the presentation gave some context with regard to road access, and she thought that it would be helpful to hear from the applicant.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. William Beverly, a resident on Trout Lake Drive, opined that there was a school bus situation in the area, and he did not see how this change would alleviate any traffic. He did not think that there had been any change, and he described a traffic issue in the area with regard to a school bus. He expressed concerns for adding more vehicles, and he opined that he did not see where the item needed to be brought up again.

Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney representing the applicant, remarked that since October 2022, the applicant revised the site plans to change it from one access that put all traffic from two separate PUDs onto Harbor Shores Road, to instead have them go to Goose Creek Road, Eagle Point Court and Harbor Shores Road. She opined that the modification of those access points also triggered them to run an updated traffic analysis in January 2023, noting that it showed that a signal at Harbor Shores Road and CR 44 was no longer warranted. She recalled that at the first hearing, those types of improvements were not possible because there was a lack of right of way, and that since then, in December 2022 there was a dedication by the LCWA that dedicated 1.4 acres to provide for 60 feet of right of way to allow for the access point on Goose Creek Road. She added that the right of way was dedicated specific to this project, and that there was the ability to have a new access point, which provided for an alleviation of some access issues and transportation deficiencies for the Shangri-La by the Lake residents, as well as allowing for better emergency accessibility to that area. She opined that these were some significant changes to the plans they had before, that they had run the numbers on the transportation analysis accordingly, and that they would appreciate the opportunity to bring this item back at a public hearing; additionally, she indicated that residents in attendance and anyone within 500 feet of the property would be receiving a notice that the applicant would be holding a community meeting on April 24, 2023 to present the plan. She opined that the significant change in circumstances for access, removing a signalized intersection, providing better emergency access, and dedication of right of way were significant enough and would meet case law thresholds for being able to bring this item back under the County’s new Ordinance 2023-18 for res judicata.

Mr. Ray Hayden, a concerned citizen, displayed a video in which he questioned why community opposition was ignored and why their participation was excluded from negotiations. He relayed his understanding in the video that during the LCWA Board’s November 16, 2022 meeting, LCWA Chairman Marty Proctor requested a volunteer from the LCWA Board to act as a lead negotiator between the developer, the community and the LCWA Board; furthermore, Ms. Kristan Zenishek, a LCWA Board member, had volunteered. He said in the video that on November 18, 2022, Mr. Jason Sayre had reached out to Ms. Zenishek to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter and show the impact it would have on the local community. He opined in the video that there was no indication that Ms. Zenishek had reached out to anyone in the community, although many people spoke on record during the November 16, 2022 LCWA meeting and their contact information was readily available. He stated in the video that during the December 14, 2022 LCWA Board meeting, for which he opined there was no evidence that the public received prior notice, Ms. Zenishek reported that they had the opportunity to create a safe, effective and community positive agreement that would benefit all the parties involved. He said in the video that during the December 20, 2022 BCC meeting, for which he opined there was no evidence that the public received prior notice, the BCC voted 3-2 to allow the deed of the LCWA property to Lake County to be held in escrow, pending the development moving forward. He requested in the video that the BCC table this agenda item until the promised joint negotiations between the developer, Ms. Zenishek and a community representative could take place.

Mr. Robert Peyton, a resident on Quail Run, opposed the waiver because he opined that the developer was trying to bundle two developments into one motion and because nothing on the access road to Goose Creek Road changed the issues or concerns of the community on Harbor Shores Road regarding traffic. He opined that if the Board voted to approve the waiver, then they should at least remove the Harbor Shores Road development from consideration because nothing had changed. He opined that nothing in these projects helped water conservation, nor did they increase the tranquil beauty and natural environment of the county. He also opined that the developments would be in opposition to the dark sky lighting initiative, and he relayed his understanding that there was an active eagle’s nest in the Harbor Shores Road development area. He commented that residents were looking into legal representation to oppose this development, and opined that the residents needed time for this.

Mr. Jason Sayre, a resident on Harbor Shores Road, opined that new evidence had been presented, and he felt that the community was not properly informed. He commented that the community had opposed this item at the original LCWA meeting, noting that he had reached out to the LCWA. He indicated an understanding that this land was owned by the citizens of Lake County; however, he was not notified in December 2022. He relayed his understanding that at some point, Lake County thought that this piece of property was important to preserve, and had placed it under the control of the LCWA. He added that the local government had fenced off the area and placed signs around it saying that it was protected property, and he asked why, under threat of litigation, they were willing to come off 1.3 acres. He also recalled that in November 2022, it was suggested by the LCWA Board to work with the community on this project, noting that he had volunteered to work with them. He said that he had followed up with an email, and that to the best of his knowledge he had not received correspondence, nor was any member of the public contacted to discuss this meeting. He questioned how a governing board could suggest that a member of their own board work with the community on a piece of land owned by the community, and then agree to transfer the land without working with the community on the transfer. He asked if it was a normal business practice for the LCWA Board to agree to sell or transfer previously protected land to a private for-profit developer, and he questioned if this set a precedent for Lake County selling its preserved land to developers for a profit for the developer. He also indicated concerns for gopher tortoises on the subject properties.

Commr. Campione asked if Mr. Sayre thought that having another access to this area made it safer if they needed to have a first responder or ambulance access the area.

Mr. Sayre opined that it was substantial evidence and new information presented, and he agreed that it made it safer because it would minimize traffic on Harbor Shores Road and bring some traffic to Goose Creek Road and its parallel roads. He opposed giving up land that Lake County had taken as a preserve for a developer, and he asked why the land was purchased and why it was necessary to fence it off and say it was protected. He expressed concerns for a developer threatening the County with litigation and the County coming off 1.3 acres. He expressed interest in meeting to discuss what they could compromise, and he opined that the community’s goal in the previous hearing was to build a community that met their needs and kept the infrastructure and the services present.

Commr. Campione relayed that if nothing happened on the current day and if there was no dedication of some of the LCWA land for public right of way, then these properties were already zoned for residential and could already be developed. She added that if this happened, then they would use Forest Lake Road to Harbor Shores Road and would come out on CR 44. She mentioned that if the BCC, looking out for the public interest, had an opportunity to make it so that there could be a way for additional access for EMS, first responders and people coming and going from their homes, then she opined that this was a changed circumstance and that it was worth considering.

Mr. Sayre opined that the community was not involved in this process for the entitlement of the 1.3 acres. He agreed about the first responder response, but he said that he did not feel that his community was properly informed and heard in giving acreage to a private developer.

Commr. Campione clarified that it was public access.

Mr. Gary Wiepking, a resident of the Shangri-La by the Lake community, agreed with Mr. Sayre that it would be helpful if the community was informed about some of these meetings. He opined that the community was not opposed to the applicant developing, and that it would be nice if they would meet with the community and see if something could fit into the community. He also opined that there was an active eagle’s nest in the area.

Ms. Melodie Downey, a resident of the Shangri-La by the Lake community, opined that there was no change other than there being activity of the eagle’s nest. She also opined that the road width was still a safety issue.

Ms. Elaine Wiepking, a concerned citizen, opined that there was a water issue. She relayed her understanding that new homes in Eagle Point Court had issues with water power, and she opined that a lift station was supposed to have been installed. She indicated an understanding that increasing the pressure for Eagle Point Court impacted her 121 home neighborhood’s pipes, and she asked if a $2 million investment from the applicant would be in writing and if someone would monitor to see if a lift station was installed. She also indicated concerns for drilling for water for new homes.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the Board did not know what changes the applicant had in their design, nor did they know the width of the road; furthermore, the Board was just trying to determine if they needed to bring the item back so that they could understand what was changed.

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

Commr. Parks said that he understood both sides, and be hoped that there would be some compromise going forward. He stated that he did not support this item moving forward on the current day primarily because he had opposed the LCWA dedication, noting that he had viewed it as a way to obtain access for this development. He commented that based solely off this one new access point, it was his interpretation that he would not support it on the current day; additionally, he asked to hear it in June 2023 if it did move forward.

Commr. Smith thought that there was enough evidence for a significant change, and he said that he wanted to see what the applicant had planned. He also believed that the applicant’s attorney had indicated that they would have a meeting on April 24, 2023.

Commr. Blake agreed and thought that an additional access point constituted significant change.
Commr. Campione opined that having another access point constituted change, and she pointed out that at the time when the LCWA was considering this, they also had a similar case in the Okahumpka area. She elaborated that there was an easement in place to open up a property owner’s property, which facilitated development; however, the property would have been developed regardless. She added that the LCWA had voted in favor of releasing an easement, and that there were some tradeoffs similar to the current item to make the conservation land accessible for possible future trails, etc. She opined that they were similar situations where they had public land, but it served a public purpose to do a dedication or a release. She opined that the current item met the criteria for the Board to hear it again, and that this would be the developer’s opportunity to present other information or changes.

Commr. Campione made a motion to hear the case again according to the res judicata provisions.

Commr. Blake seconded the motion.

Commr. Parks added that he agreed with the statement that the cases should be separated. He opined that if this was interpreted as a significant change, then it would be for the Goose Creek development, but not the Harbor Shores Road development as well.

Commr. Smith disagreed because without this change, all the traffic would be going onto Harbor Shores Road.

Commr. Campione thought that once they had a secondary access, or a primary access for each parcel, then the circumstances had changed for both.

Ms. Marsh asked if the cases would be brought back on May 2, 2023 or June 6, 2023.

Commr. Smith inquired if the applicant was amicable with June 6, 2023.

Ms. Tedrow thought that when they previously discussed this with staff, they were anticipating it coming back at the next meeting in May 2023; however, they could defer to the Board’s decision.

Commr. Smith noted that the applicant was having a meeting with the community on April 24, 2023. He also thought that June 6, 2023 would be amicable.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to waive the one-year res judicata requirement pursuant to Section 14.00.09, Land Development Regulations, for the Goose Creek PUD (RZ-22-08-3) and Harbor Shores Road PUD (RZ-22-07-3) rezoning applications; additionally, the cases would be heard on June 6, 2023.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

bring lcwa staff under bcc & provide management services

Commr. Smith said that this item was a recommendation to bring all employees of the LCWA into the BCC organization, and for the BCC staff to provide the management services for all LCWA functions. He commented that this was done to align everything together, and he thought that it was better for all of Lake County, noting that it could make it easier as they transitioned. He recalled that the LCWA had requested that the County take over multiple functions to assist them, and that this was another step to make it streamlined and easier.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, attorney for the LCWA, remarked that the Board of Trustees of the LCWA had voted on both of the easements discussed in the previous tab solely on the benefit that they perceived to the particular preserves. He clarified that the LCWA did not care about or support the developments, nor did they oppose them; therefore, it just had to do with it if was better or worse for their preserves. He then said that the LCWA was in support of the current item, and that they believed that the October 1, 2023 deadline for the official transfers of the employees would probably be best. He asked the BCC if they would be in agreement for a transition team to meet and work out these details, and he remarked that they would be transferring management of all the preserve property and all the employees. He proposed that they could work on agreements that could be brought back to the BCC and the LCWA for approval.

Commr. Parks asked if Mr. Crawford was proposing that this be done before any decision would be made on the current day.

Mr. Crawford denied this, and clarified that the details would need to be worked out. He asked if the decision made on the current day would be to start the process of transitioning the LCWA into the County for personnel purposes, noting that they had also discussed preserve management. He added that he did not want to delay any BCC action.

Commr. Campione mentioned that what got her thinking about the timing of this was that the LCWA was interviewing for an executive director position. She questioned how this would work if they had management of the lands be under the County parks system, and then try to bifurcate water management issues. She thought that they should just move everyone under County employment, and that Ms. Barker could be the one overseeing the selection of someone who would be addressing water management type issues; additionally, the County could bring in their water lab and aquatic plant management team. She thought that the County Manager was in the best position to decide how to organize this, recalling that there had previously been a de facto transition team during the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transition. She expressed concerns for issues with a transition team, and she thought that they should let Ms. Barker be the one who determined how to organize it, noting that Ms. Barker could call in the expertise of individuals she needed to help develop this plan.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, asked about the fiscal impact of this item, relaying her understanding that fiscal concern was a reason behind the bill that started this. She also inquired how it would affect both budgets and if funding would have to be transferred from the LCWA to the County for the cost difference.

Mr. Crawford mentioned that there was a consensus on the LCWA Board to not move forward with the director position hiring, and that there possibly would not be an executive director of the LCWA after this transfer took place. He said that he did not want the County to have any concern that the LCWA was going to make significant moves before this transition was completed, and that they did not want to hire someone who would be superfluous once this was done. He believed that this would likely be an item of discussion and a vote at the April 26, 2023 LCWA Board meeting, and he said that they were happy to work with Ms. Barker and her team to address this. He hoped that the employee rollover could wait until October 1, 2023 to allow the LCWA’s Executive Director to retire and to allow this change to be done in a regular process. He mentioned that there were many things to work out on preserves and personnel, and he opined that the LCWA Executive Director could possibly be more like a water resources director.

Ms. Barker confirmed that they had an internal transition team and that they met once early in the process, noting that the team included leaders from the executive management team and finance. She commented that if the County moved further, then they would bring in Mr. Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the LCWA, to assist them in understanding the positions, the roles they served, and the current organizational structure.

Commr. Smith asked if the current meeting was advertised for the LCWA Board, and Mr. Crawford confirmed this. Commissioner Smith then inquired if the LCWA Board wanted to speak on this issue.

The LCWA Board indicated that they did not wish to speak.

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

Commr. Campione said that when it came to the specific projects that the LCWA was involved in, she thought that this was where interacting with individuals within the LCWA who had the most knowledge about those projects would be key. She mentioned the contract in place with regard to the Nutrient Reduction Facility (NuRF), and she thought that these were the kinds of details they could work out on an informal basis. She thought that Ms. Barker could bring back what the organizational structure could look like and review the fiscal aspects. She also thought that the key had been efficiency, getting the job done and eliminating redundancy so that they were fulfilling the mission, but were doing it more effectively and efficiently.

Commr. Shields opined that the date of October 1, 2023 made sense.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that this item was to approve bringing all LCWA employees and water functions under the BCC, and he thought that it would be prudent to possibly not give it a timeline, noting that Ms. Barker could possibly get it done earlier. He mentioned that as soon as the County Manager and the LCWA Executive Director felt comfortable with the organizational change, then they could potentially set their own timeline. He added that this item was just for approval to bring everything under the BCC as it existed at the current time.

Commr. Parks asked if staff would bring back a hierarchal structure and how it would all fit for the BCC to review, and Commissioner Smith confirmed this. Commissioner Parks then inquired about starting it on October 1, 2023 because it would be a new budget year.

Commr. Campione added that they could have it in place by the fiscal year change, and she opined that from a fiscal standpoint it could be challenging to do it midyear.

Ms. Barker anticipated that staff would be able to present a vision and a structure in summer 2023, with an anticipated start date of October 1, 2023 because it was easier with the budgets being adopted.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to bring Lake County Water Authority employees into the Board of County Commissioners organizational structure, and for the Board of County Commissioners staff to provide management services for all Lake County Water Authority functions, based on the understanding that Ms. Barker would work on the organizational structure and the details with LCWA staff and any contractors; furthermore, this would be brought back to the BCC.

public hearing: ordinance 2023-27 criminal history checks

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 2-81, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS; ESTABLISHING EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN PERSONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-27 amending Section 2-81, Lake County Code, entitled Criminal History Checks.

public hearing: impact fee ordinances

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented Tab 21. She provided the following background information: impact fees were required to be updated every few years to have the most recent localized data and the calculation of the fee; in August 2021 the Board accepted the library, parks and fire rescue impact fee study as provided by Benesch; in April 2022 the Board was presented with the transportation impact fee study; in July 2022 an overview of all the rates was presented, and the Board directed staff to hold the required public workshops to present the demonstrated need study, which justified an increase greater than 50 percent of the current rates; in August and September 2022, the County held the workshops; in January 2023 the Board was presented with an overview of the impact fee studies and had requested for staff to provide information on phased approach options for the transportation impact fees; in February 2023 the Board was presented with an overview of all the impact fee studies and information for phased approach options for the impact fees, noting that the Board directed staff to move forward with creating the west transportation impact fee district and the phased approach options to establish new rates for library, parks, fire rescue and transportation impact fees. She displayed an overview of the impact fees using the phased approach, noting that for the south and northeast/Wekiva benefit district, it reflected a phased approach should the five percent discount of the full calculated rate be adopted. She then showed the changes for the central and north/central districts using a five percent discount, or 95 percent of the calculated rate for transportation fees, along with a comparison of the rates within the proposed west benefit district; furthermore, she said that current fees were based on the central benefit district rates, as the proposed new west district was within the central benefit district. She displayed a breakdown of parks and recreation impact fees, noting that the current fees reflected a five percent discount, or 95 percent of the full calculation of the current adopted rates. She also showed a schedule reflecting the fire rescue impact fees using a phased approach, should a five percent discount of the full calculated rate be adopted. She displayed a schedule reflecting a phased approach, should a five percent discount of the full calculated rate be adopted for the library impact fees, and she concluded that the requested action was approval and adoption of ordinances establishing new rates for library, parks, fire rescue and transportation impact fees, and an ordinance creating a new impact fee district to be known as the west transportation benefit district.

Ms. Marsh stated that because this was an adoption hearing, she would need to read the ordinance titles.

Commr. Smith requested to hear public comment first.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Lisa Templin-Rayborn, a resident speaking on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Lake-Sumter (HBA-LS), opined that Lake County had a significant housing affordability issue. She expressed concerns for how significant increases by the government with fees and taxes on every new piece of construction for houses, apartments and new business negatively affected housing and community affordability. She relayed that $20,000 in taxes and fees went to the government just for the right to turn a shovel of dirt for one house, and she opined that increases in new housing prices were directly proportional to existing housing prices. She opined that sometimes there was no direct benefit to the homeowner from any of the impact fees, and she asked about the data that supported the needs. She opined that they needed to encourage for-profit companies to make investments by making philanthropy attractive, and encourage community investment. She opined that owners covered the hard costs upfront and passed them on to the end user, and that impact fees negatively affected housing affordability; furthermore, she opined that homebuilders supported the American dream of homeownership. She opined that Lake County impact fees were large and were the result of Commission approvals. She also opined that impact fees were used to prevent affordable housing, and that much of the new housing was for people who already lived in Lake County. She asked what governments did before impact fees were utilized, and where the funding came from to build cities and towns across the country. She also opined that the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) mentality was selfish and did not address the housing affordability crisis, and that this was what the Commission needed to help with; additionally, she opined that the infill lots were mostly irrelevant because they were not in desirable locations. She shared that according to the Orlando Regional Realtor Association, new listings were down 23.5 percent, new contracts were down 23.6 percent, closed sales were down 30 percent, median prices were up 3.8 percent, and the average days to sale was up 47.6 percent just from year over year. She opined that 95 percent was high, and that the County needed to protect housing affordability.

Ms. Lisa Hayden, a concerned citizen, displayed an image regarding some accidents that occurred on CR 44, and which included a map of new housing. She opined that they needed improvements on CR 44, and that the largest obstacle was the placement of the utility poles, noting that it could be expensive to move them.

Mr. Josh Lambert, Government Affairs Director for the Realtors Association of Lake and Sumter Counties, said that his organization was concerned about the affordable housing issue. He opined that the state was facing a housing affordability crisis, and that both rental and home purchase prices outpaced the national average. He relayed that Lake County was one of the fastest growing counties in the state because the supply of housing was not keeping up with the demand, and he opined that until the supply could meet the demand, the affordability would not alleviate itself. He opined that the County should be encouraging developers to place more houses in their areas, and not impose impact fees that create another obstacle for developers to develop.

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

Ms. Marsh noted that there were four ordinances, and she asked if the Board wanted to address them one at a time for votes.

Commr. Smith confirmed this.

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 22-40, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED TRANSFER OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS; AMENDING SECTION 22-41, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED IMPACT FEE TRUST ACCOUNT AND USE OF MONIES; AMENDING SECTION 22-42, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICTS, TO CREATE THE WEST IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Marsh explained that this ordinance was just creating the west impact fee district for transportation.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-23 creating a new Impact Fee District to be known as the West Transportation Benefit District.

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE: SECTION 22-4, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; SECTION 22-54, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ADJUST THE PARK IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that the County did not have separate districts for the park impact fee, and that this ordinance would be to move to the 95 percent.

Ms. Marsh said that this was correct and that it would be over four years.

Ms. Barker clarified that there were three separate districts for parks; however, they were all the same rate.

Ms. Marsh added that this ordinance was also set to become effective on October 1, 2023, and that the Board had time in case the Attorney General’s (AG) opinion came back and they wanted to make changes.

Commr. Parks made a motion for approval of this item.

Commr. Shields seconded the motion.

Commr. Smith thought that Commissioner Blake had a good motion at a previous meeting, and that they needed to hear from the AG first before he would vote on extenuating circumstances. He did not think that it was right to put the citizens of Lake County up for a possible lawsuit, and said that he would be voting against this item because they had not heard back from the AG.

Commr. Shields asked if the Board would be better off tabling this item until they heard back from the AG.

Ms. Marsh replied that it was up to the Board, and that if the AG said that this did not meet extraordinary circumstances, then the Board could repeal these ordinances. She added that it typically took the AG four to five months to respond, and she relayed that if there was pending legislation, then the AG may choose to decline to respond. She indicated that she had not received any confirmation from the AG’s Office yet, but there was pending legislation that changed the terminology and provided a definition.

Commr. Parks asked that if the AG came back and said that the County could not do this, then could the BCC repeal it effective immediately.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that staff would bring it back for the Board to make the decision to repeal, adjust rate schedules, or whatever the Board wanted to do. She added that this was why these ordinances were not going to be effective until October 1, 2023.

Commr. Campione asked Commissioner Smith if it was the threat of litigation, or if he wanted to know for a fact where the AG stood. She commented that if the AG would not rule on it because there was legislation proposing a change to the definition of extraordinary circumstances, then they may say that they cannot opine. She remarked that once the session closed, the definition would go into place if it was adopted.

Commr. Smith relayed that the session would close before October 1, 2023.

Commr. Campione inquired if this would remove the pending legislation issue.

Commr. Smith commented that they had a Commissioner who requested to receive a definitive answer from the AG, and he said that there was currently legislation in the Florida House of Representatives concerning what was extenuating circumstances and defining it better. He expressed concerns for moving forward with something that the AG had not opined on, adding that the legislation had not been done. He proposed to wait and see.

Commr. Blake opined that it made no difference to the Board members who were supporting the increase because they had already determined that they would delay it. He relayed his understanding that they did not have the supermajority necessary to impose this increase, and opined that tabling this item would likely be the best thing unless they wanted to comply with House Bill (HB) 377.

Commr. Campione thought that it complied with the house bill and the law; however, she understood that the Board did not currently have four votes to pass it. She noted that they would still be waiting until October 1, 2023, and she hoped that the bill passed that further defined such circumstances. She added that if the bill did not pass and the session closed, then the AG could hopefully get back to the County; additionally, if there was no decision by October 2023, then perhaps Commissioner Smith would consider revisiting this item.

Commr. Shields asked when the Board would have to make a decision due to the study no longer being valid.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the study had just been done in October 2022, and that they typically redid them every three years. She believed that there was language in the new bill that changed this timeframe.

Ms. Barker added that the first studies were done in fall 2021, and that the transportation study was completed in 2022.

Commr. Shields commented that the Board could possibly address these items in the order of when the studies started.

Ms. Barker said that the fire, parks and libraries studies were completed and accepted by the Board in August 2021.

Commr. Blake stated that he was not in favor of this option, opining that the other option was to table it or comply with the existing options in HB 377, which was the 50 percent cap, tiered over a number of years.

Commr. Campione stated that they would go backwards and their rates would decrease in some of the categories.

Commr. Smith indicated that he was amicable with the 50 percent.

Commr. Campione thought that they would lose funding in their fire rescue fund.

Commr. Blake opined that given that there was legislation pending on this subject, and that there was a pending request that the Board had approved, he agreed with Commissioner Shields that tabling the item was appropriate.

Commr. Shields withdrew his second.

Commr. Parks withdrew his motion.

Commr. Smith asked if he wanted to table the remaining three ordinances.

Ms. Marsh said that the Board had just approved the west district and that they did not have rates for it; therefore, they could table these ordinances, but staff would need to bring back an ordinance to set rates for the west district to be effective October 1, 2023. She also added that it would be 26 percent of the calculated rate. She explained that as one motion, the Board could table the park, fire, library and transportation impact fee ordinances, and that by their consensus staff would draft an ordinance to bring back rates for the west district and advertise it separately.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to table ordinances establishing new rates for the library, parks, fire rescue and transportation impact fees; additionally, an ordinance for the rate for the West Transportation Benefit District would be advertised separately and brought back to the BCC.

appointments to the library advisory board

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by vote of 5-0, the Board approved to re-appoint Ms. Leslie Temmen as the primary and Ms. Jane Tomlinson as the alternate to the Library Advisory Board as members representing the Town of Montverde.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

meeting with four corners commissioners

Commr. Shields mentioned that he had a good meeting with the other Four Corners County Commissioners.

tourist development council meeting

Commr. Shields relayed that on the previous day, he had a TDC meeting with the three new council members.

commissioner parks – district 2

lighting at county ball fields

Commr. Parks indicated his understanding that the cost for lighting at County ball fields was charged because of the energy providers for this. He wondered if staff could look into if there was another option, such as solar, for some of the County’s ball fields, park facilities, and possibly for some of their building facilities to see if the numbers worked. He noted that the goal would be reducing the fee for what the County was being charged for energy on a monthly basis, and then translating it to a savings for everyone using the fields.

Ms. Barker said that staff could review this.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

medical examiner advisory committee meeting

Commr. Blake remarked that there was a Medical Examiner Advisory Committee meeting in the previous week, and that they were reviewing the requests for proposal (RFPs) for a possible public/private partnership for the new facility. He added that they were targeting a 25 mile radius of their existing facility in the City of Leesburg, and he specified that the RFPs were for the land and the facility. He recalled that the cost of this project had increased considerably since it was first discussed, and that the committee was discussing how to weigh the different items they were looking for; additionally, they had all ranked cost last in both RFPs. He noted that he had gone on record and had thought that for the Lake County BCC, cost was not the least of their concerns.

Commr. Smith thanked him for representing the BCC well on that board.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

happy birthday

Commr. Smith related that the previous day was Ms. Barker’s birthday.

national 8-track tape day

Commr. Smith said that the current day was National 8-Track Tape Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK