A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

April 19, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake County municipalities on Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., at the Lake David Center, Groveland, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

Pledge of allegiance

Commr. Blake gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

joint planning initiatives update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, expressed appreciation for those who were in attendance, and commented that the County had partnered with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) who would provide an update on the joint planning initiative.

Mr. Joshua Sheldon, with the ECFRPC, relayed that he would give a quick overview, and noted that they had been working with the jurisdictions within Lake County to develop a model joint planning agreement (JPA) that could be used for the municipalities. He mentioned that these JPAs would be based off of a countywide conservation strategy and vision, and that it would consist of a combination of regulations for annexation, implementation of a conservation strategy, transfer of development rights (TDRs), and smart growth. He commented that they had been working on this project for about six months with the City of Groveland on a JPA to use as a template for the other municipalities, and that they had held two conservation strategy stakeholder workshops there. He related that they had started scheduling preliminary meetings with all the municipalities to discuss the following: JPA boundaries and interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBAs); the school concurrency entitlement map which could be used for all Cities in the County; the conservation strategy; and TDRs. He remarked that the goals included the following: to better conserve the County’s natural lands and agricultural resources; to improve land use and annexation processes between the County and the Cities; to improve the County’s transportation infrastructure and support unified transportation practices; and to enhance the local economy and support economic growth. He displayed their timeline, and noted that they had been working with the City of Groveland in the winter of 2022 on best practices by researching the local, statewide, and national JPAs; furthermore, in their first conservation strategy stakeholder workshop, they began developing their first drafts. He stated that in the spring of 2023, they held their second conservation stakeholder workshop, and that they would be holding introductory meetings with the City and County partners. He relayed that in the early summer of 2023 they would host community workshops on conservation strategy, and that they would continue meeting with all municipalities to workshop some of the context of the JPAs using the template model and changing it as needed. He opined that Cities wanted control of their growth, and said that they would work with them to support their strategies; additionally, in the fall of 2023, they would begin hosting community meetings with City partners to workshop JPA content. He related that they had partnered with Dr. Jason Evans, with Stetson University, and that they were compiling existing open space and conservation data to create the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) data layers to use in the Marxan modeling, noting that they would use inputs from the workshops to find what was critical for conservation.

Dr. Evans explained that the mapping and modeling would focus on the resources within the county, and that the FNAI had mapped the State of Florida with various layers. He relayed that 30 percent of Lake County was already in some form of conservation, such as conservation easements, the Ocala National Forest, the Green Swamp, and the State of Florida conservation lands; however, he opined that they all wanted more green space. He opined that there had been unchecked growth in the 1980s, and said that the population was still increasing in Lake County.

Commr. Parks arrived at 9:17 a.m.

Dr. Evans displayed a University of Florida map of the developed lands in Lake County from 2010, and opined that with the ongoing development trend, by 2070 the urban sprawl would be alarming. He relayed that with smart growth strategies and conservation strategies, the urban sprawl for that same population could be more contained, and that if better results were to be obtained, then there would have to be strategic action, which was hard work. He related that there were conservation land benefits that included the following; green spaces that promoted public health through exercise, enjoyment, and enhanced environmental quality; natural infiltration and storage for stormwater runoff, mitigating flood risk and protecting water quality; reduction of urban heat islands through natural soils and vegetative cover; and corridors for animal and plant species to migrate. He commented that they would take what green spaces were already available, such as those areas already in conservation, and determine how to keep those areas connected by using the Marxan model created by the Marxan Optimization Program, which was a software program originally developed in Australia in 2000 designed for decision support with complex conservation challenges. He elaborated that it created one map from multiple layers of information and integrated it into something that was easier to utilize, and that it was the world’s most widely used conservation planning software, noting that it could help minimize costs while maximizing connectivity in support of targets, such as greenspaces for groundwater recharge. He mentioned that they had a first draft map that had been marked by stakeholders to identify incorrect outcomes, and that the resulting map was intuitive and consistent with what the vision was, opining that the process had proven to be very productive. He related that FNAI had produced conservation needs assessment layers, and that they had classified each 15 by 15 meter cell in the State of Florida according to its greatest conservation attributes, including the following: strategic habitat conservation areas for 62 focal vertebrate species; rare species habitat conservation priorities; Florida ecological greenway network, which included the Florida Wildlife Corridor; under-represented ecosystems within the Florida State Park system; natural floodplain function; surface water protection; functional wetlands; groundwater recharge; and sustainable forestry. He said that they had taken this information and identified rankings through the stakeholder workshops, and that they would like those in attendance to also give input. He stated that in the workshop from December 15, 2022 in the City of Tavares, they had found that the layers had not identified the Palatlakaha corridor as a valuable resource; therefore, they had made changes in the program to capture this corridor. He commented that he had learned about the hydrology of the Green Swamp and Lake Lowery and about how it all flowed, opining that it was very interesting and very important. He relayed that there had been another workshop on April 7, 2023, and that the residents had showed them where there were gaps. He remarked that the next steps included taking this feedback and the feedback from those in attendance on the current day and developing and implementing conservation strategies, such as TDRs. He remarked that they would continue discussions with the County and the municipalities, and opined that because Lake County was large and very diverse, there would be different solutions for different areas.

open discussion

Commr. Smith asked if the presentation could be sent to Ms. Barker, and mentioned that she could disseminate it to all the municipalities.

Commr. Shields opined that the modeling and the software was great, and pointed out that it started with Lake County’s inventory of resources.

Dr. Evans commented that it could be modified.

A concerned citizen questioned if this was to intentionally create the County’s model.

Dr. Evans answered that this was the idea, and that the modeling provided decision support based on information; furthermore, the model could help clarify the decision by simplifying the complexity of the information into a more usable form. He mentioned that the Marxan model could guide planning decisions for the next 10 to 15 years according to what strategies made sense, and opined that there would need to be a plan to grow, including the use of cluster developments and TDRs. He pointed out that the State of Florida had identified over 50 years ago how crucial the Green Swamp was for the water supply of the entire peninsula excepting southeast Florida, and that it was recognized as an Area of Critical Concern. He elaborated that it was the headwaters for at least five rivers, and that keeping it as greenspace was very important for the water quality of the state. He relayed that Central Florida was a high growth area; therefore, it was necessary to maintain these resources. He opined that it could be done with these tools and the people involved, and that this was not a political issue because everyone agreed that clean water was important; however, accomplishing this was challenging because it required green spaces and conservation land.

Mr. Paul Larino, Montverde Town Manager, inquired if the maps could be uploaded to the Lake County interactive geographic information system (GIS), and mentioned that they could then be looked at more closely to determine how they affected their areas.

Dr. Evans indicated that they could, and that the he could send the link for the layers through the University of Florida, noting that they were statewide layers.

Mr. Larino opined that the Lake County GIS was the easiest one for them to use.

Mr. Sheldon mentioned that this would be a discussion for the County; additionally, they would have access to them at the meetings.

Commr. Shields asked how they obtained the two 2070 maps that showed the different outcomes.

Dr. Evans replied that the University of Florida worked with 1,000 Friends of Florida for a presentation with the new layers a few weeks prior, and that they looked at the growth patterns from the previous 50 years and used that pattern to show how the growth would be distributed if 100,000 people moved to Lake County, excluding the lakes, already developed areas, and existing conservation areas. He explained that for the alternative map, they assumed that the density would increase, reducing the footprint; furthermore, they identified critical areas to be conserved, such as wildlife corridors, and redistributed the development. He opined that if the development patterns of the past continued and nothing was changed, the trend map would portray how it would look.

Mr. Sheldon commented that it would be difficult to make changes to land entitlements to slow growth.

Commr. Shields opined that there could be cultural issues because as people moved to Lake County to live in wide open spaces, the density would increase, causing people to live closer to each other.

Dr. Evans agreed that these were difficult issues, and opined that there could be a cultural shift with denser areas. He opined that many of the current young adults liked an urban mixed use lifestyle even within smaller cities, and that there was more infill development occurring in downtown areas, which was smart growth because it helped reduced urban sprawl and traffic. He opined that where growth was concentrated, people could walk to more areas, such as to the grocery store, and that walkability was attractive to many.

Commr. Shields opined that there was a lack of affordable housing and workforce housing, and that it was more attainable in higher density areas because there were more apartments.

Mr. Vince Sandersfeld, Planning Director for the City of Mount Dora, wondered how to integrate the “How Shall We Grow” vision with some of their policy recommendations for population, TDRs, density, and property rights.

Dr. Evans commented that the “How Shall We Grow” movement was a long-standing initiative of the ECFRPC.

Mr. Sheldon remarked that it was all going to be tied together.

Commr. Parks mentioned that this was the old effort, and that it had played an important role at the time. He commented that the ECFRPC’s follow up was to see a comparison of what surveys were done, noting that it was 10 to 15 years prior. He relayed his understanding that even though there were some similarities, the “How Shall We Grow” program was not going to be extended another 20 years.

Mr. Sandersfeld stated that they did not want Lake County to look like the 2070 trend map as opposed to the conservation map.

Dr. Evans related that they were working on this program in Lake, Orange, Brevard, and Volusia Counties, and that even though the main issue was population growth, each County had different issues, such as flooding in Brevard and Volusia Counties and open space in Lake County.

Commr. Shields opined that it was in the interest of the whole State of Florida to protect the Green Swamp, and he inquired if there were State resources available to help the County do that.

Dr. Evans said that there were because the Green Swamp was part of the wildlife corridor, and that Florida Forever and other State funds, such as water management district funds, could be obtained for conservation efforts. He suggested that if the County could work through that process and identify acquisition priorities, they could appeal to Florida Forever, the water management districts, and others. He related that in Polk County there had been more encroachment into the Green Swamp than in Lake County, which was concerning, and opined that if the County wanted to protect a critical resource, it would need to be acquired. He mentioned that there could be strict easements, and that this was the main source of protection for this Area of Critical Concern, opining that it would work until the State Legislature changed its mind.

A concerned citizen questioned how an entity could change what was allowed in an Area of Critical Concern, opining that borrow pits and sand mines should not be allowed. She asked if it was the responsibility of the County, a City, or the State.

Dr. Evans replied that he was not qualified to answer this question, and that if there was something proposed regarding uses, it would have to be consistent with the Area of Critical Concern restrictions.

A concerned citizen opined that something as detrimental to the environment as mining ran contrary to what the State Legislators intended when they designated that area, and that in the 1970s that area was mostly agricultural. She also opined that it was time to reexamine what the County wanted for the rest of the open space, which was endangered.

Dr. Evans commented that those were large issues which could be addressed through the policy making process.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the participation of the municipalities despite their busy schedules, and opined that this was one of the most important issues for residents in Lake County. He mentioned that even though much time had been spent discussing the Green Swamp, there were other important natural areas throughout the county, and that for this strategy to come together, the participation of all 14 municipalities was needed to support the values of the residents. He relayed his understanding that there would be mapping done with the local governments to add levels of importance.

Dr. Evans indicated that this was correct, and said that besides the Green Swamp, there was also the Wekiva-Ocala Greenway, which was a critical corridor within Lake County. He related that within the spine of Lake County there were many green spaces with an agricultural heritage, and that keeping some of the agricultural lands and integrating those into green spaces was also very important. He commented that even though these areas did not stand out in the FNAI layers, critical agricultural lands were important for the rich heritage and the economy where there were still productive uses. He opined that if Lake County wanted to keep the agricultural areas, there may have to be policies enacted to incentivize farmers to keep that use and not sell out to developers; additionally, those uses were good for the wildlife corridor, which included cattle ranches. He opined that the bicycle trails were a good selling feature for Lake County because of the hills, and that all these things could be used for economic development and branding.

A concerned citizen opined that walkability was critical to planning and could help prevent urban sprawl; furthermore, she opined that if developers could be encouraged to dedicate a section of land for a medical center, grocery store, or cultural center, it could help with traffic issues. She also opined that many residents did not use public transportation because it was not reliable or practical.

Dr. Evans opined that there had been more mixed use developments in recent years, and that developers could be incentivized through the City and County codes. He also opined that walkability was good, and that car use could be minimized by building services closer to developments and homes.

A concerned citizen opined that this could also decrease road repair costs and transportation accidents, and that there could be a study done to see how that could be beneficial.

Commr. Smith wondered if they could highlight the rural protection areas (RPAs) and the wildlife corridor while mapping the county.

Dr. Evans indicated that they could, and said that those layers were weighted heavily in the modeling, noting that they could also supply those locations in the report. He related that there was a secondary corridor running through the middle of the county, and opined that residents wanted corridors, green spaces, and bicycle trails.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there was support for the wildlife corridor at the State level through continued funding for Counties and Cities.

Dr. Evans opined that there were no political boundaries for these types of issues, and that there was widespread support. He commented that as strategic areas and willing landowners were found, open spaces could be preserved through conservation easements and other ways, and that there were many creative ways to fund them, such as land trusts. He noted that the Alachua Conservation Trust was active in Lake County, and opined that it was important to act while there was strong support.

Commr. Shields questioned if he had seen many public/private joint conservation efforts, and if it was a trend.

Dr. Evans answered that it was a trend, and explained that the Alachua Conservation Trust, which worked statewide, was founded originally by Alachua County when they started their countywide land buying program. He elaborated that they started a private land trust to help close the deals using private and public funds, which was very successful. He relayed that the State funded some large land acquisitions about 20 to 30 years ago, such as fee simple acquisitions, and that there were some large landholdings within the State of Florida. He opined that what was being done now required creative public/private partnerships, such as land trusts, and that there was a need for more active regional land trusts within the Central Florida area, such as the Alachua Conservation Trust and Conservation Florida. He then handed out packets containing the FNAI needs assessment layer maps.

Commr. Shields asked if he would describe the layers.

Dr. Evans explained that the strategic habitat conservation area map was done through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and that they had identified 62 threatened or endangered vertebrate species that were not adequately protected by existing conservation lands with higher prioritization based on higher quality habitat and rarity of the focal species.

Mr. Larino inquired if the goal was to identify areas within the county that needed protection.

Mr. Sheldon replied that conservation tracking could help shape JPAs through TDRs and conservation subdivisions, and that it could be used to prioritize some areas.

Commr. Parks added that the countywide conservation strategy would not work without all 14 municipalities working with the County through JPAs and planning staffs working together.

Dr. Evans commented that this understanding of all the layers would go into the conservation map for the Marxan program, and that it would be necessary to rank which ones would be most important to put into the model. He relayed that they would go through these at the conservation workshops and rank them, and that an area with development potential and rights could show as an area of critical habitat on the map. He opined that a TDR could be used to take some of that development right out and send it to another area where they wanted more density, noting that this conservation map would identify those areas.

Mr. Brian Bulthuis, Clermont City Manager, asked if it would be better to go through these priorities at their conservation workshop rather than at the current meeting, and noted that he wanted to go over these layers with his staff.

Mr. Sheldon commented that they had city maps that would also be distributed.

Dr. Evans remarked that it could be useful to ask him questions at the current meeting as he would not be at the workshops with the municipalities.

Mr. Bulthuis inquired if there was a list of priorities for each of the maps so that they would understand what the different priorities were.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was a value associated with each one of the layers, and opined that there may be some confusion about each one. He questioned if there was an agricultural map or a soils map, noting that there was a sustainable forestry map.

Dr. Evans replied that the FNAI did not have an agricultural map; however, they could add it as well as a soils map. He mentioned that it did not have the same type of scoring, and that they would like any thoughts or data layers with existing agriculture in Lake County to help them create priorities.

Commr. Parks suggested that they could prioritize using crops or the agricultural use that was there.

Commr. Smith asked if he could review each of the maps, and relayed his understanding that priority one was the area they were trying to protect the most.

Dr. Evans related that the second map was the rare species habitat conservation priorities, and that the prioritization of occurrence based habitat for 281 species with conservation needs was given by rarity and diversity of species, opining that they could combine the first and second map. He pointed out that the Florida ecological greenway network showed the wildlife corridor and other priority areas, and the underrepresented ecosystems showed ecosystems that were rare and ecosystems that were not well represented within the existing conservation lands, such as pine flatwoods. He relayed that the natural floodplain function map ranked the floodplains according to how ecologically intact they were, noting that the priority one floodplain was an intact native community of plants and was hydrologically connected versus a floodplain that was invaded with exotic species or degraded in some other way. He explained that floodplain maps were created by the United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and he asked what year the FEMA floodplain maps were last updated.

Commr. Parks said that they were done 2012 to 2018.

Dr. Evans stated that FEMA maps did not convey flood risk, and that even if a property was not in a floodplain, it could still flood. He related that the surface water protection map prioritized the areas that were closer to outstanding Florida waters, national science waters and estuaries, shellfish harvesting areas, and water supply areas, noting that the more intact they were, such as natural shore areas, the higher the priority would be.

Mr. Sandersfeld relayed that in the City of Mount Dora, there was the Wolf Branch Creek and a sink with a direct connection to the aquifer, and that it was not ranked appropriately on the map.

Dr. Evans commented that if there was a sink that was a direct discharge, it needed to be priority one, and that they could change the ranking for that. He related that the functional wetlands map was ranked by how intact they were in terms of native ecosystems, and that the groundwater recharge map ranked the connectivity in the aquifer. He mentioned that in Lake County there were many high, sandy areas that were important for groundwater recharge, and that the Green Swamp was a recharge area for the entire aquifer; however, much of the recharge was from the higher ridges within the swamp.

Mr. Al Minner, Leesburg City Manager, inquired where he had obtained this information.

Dr. Evans replied that this information was from the FNAI, and that they obtained it from a water management district’s mapping of the aquifer, which included soils, clay layers, and sinks.

Commr. Parks remarked that this would be much of the same data obtained for conditional use permits (CUP).

Dr. Evans commented that if the information was wrong, such as the missing sink in the City of Mount Dora, then it should be pointed out, noting that it was important to make adjustments for critical resources that were incorrect in the FNAI model. He then relayed that the sustainable forestry map identified areas that were potentially suitable for pine-based forestry, including loblolly pine and slash pine forests, with priority given to larger tracts that were more productive and were within 50 miles of a mill, such as those in northern Florida. He noted that there was not a large market for pine forestry in Central Florida, and opined that it would be more important to have agriculture and soil maps.

Commr. Parks recalled that there use to be a mill in the City of Groveland many years ago.

Dr. Evans remarked that he was often asked when land was cleared, why the trees were burned instead of being taken to a mill, and he opined that it was too far to travel and not economically feasible.

A concerned citizen inquired if the maps had dates for the accumulation of data.

Dr. Evans replied that the dates and all the information that went into the layers on the maps had been updated in November 2021.

A concerned citizen opined that even though the Marxan model was up to date, the data used to create it may be older.

Dr. Evans remarked that there was constant land use change and a need for updating; however, the current maps were relatively new.

Mr. Minner questioned if there was one particular map that was more environmentally significant than the others, or if they all worked hand in hand.

Dr. Evans answered that they all worked hand in hand, and that the Marxan model would integrate and rate all those maps to create one map that showed the ideal conservation network for Lake County, noting that it would not protect everything but would maximize all those things together. He opined that it was a large amount of information to gather and integrate, but it was important. He stated that they were trying to identify those key resources that were priorities for keeping green spaces, and opined that this was the easy part. He said that the next steps included using this information to set a goal and writing policies to actualize it, which was also part of the JPA process with the 14 municipalities working together with the County.

Commr. Shields mentioned that urban sprawl and density had been discussed; however, there was also a need for economic development, which required the Cities’ participation. He asked if there was a layer for that, opining that the County and municipalities also needed that information to make these priorities and decisions.

Mr. Sheldon replied that once they obtained and processed this data, they could use existing areas as an overlay to see how that intersected.

Dr. Evans opined that TDRs could be used in areas that needed more density.

Mr. T.J. Fish, Director of Transportation and Public Works for the City of Groveland, opined that there was data that could be very helpful in planning utilities and infrastructure, which was a driver for land use, and should be taken seriously.

Mr. Sheldon opined that this was a difficult area because modern utilities were very protective about handing out that data because of homeland security issues; however, utility service boundaries could be used as a starting point.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was a status on obtaining the total entitlement data countywide.

Mr. Sheldon replied that they had taken the schoolboard concurrency maps as a start, and that they were given to the Cities to check them.

Commr. Parks opined that it would be important to know what was currently entitled, and that it would also help with the TDRs.

Mr. Sheldon commented that through these conversations, they could obtain the most accurate data possible.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they would have individual meetings with the municipalities, and that the next step would be another update, which would include a concept of the model.

Dr. Evans said that this was correct, and added that he had been tasked with writing an interim report that was due at the end of May 2023; furthermore, the next steps included the modeling exercise with the outputs and a review of conservation strategies with the pros and cons. He opined that it was both difficult and exciting, and that it was great to have many participants engaged in this.

Commr. Parks opined that Dr. Evans was very objective and well respected, and expressed appreciation for all he had done in this process.

Dr. Evans opined that Lake County was beautiful, and said that he was proud of what they were doing to keep it that way and proud to be part of it.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for all who attended, for the presentation, and for the participation of the municipalities, and opined that it was important for all the citizens of Lake County to hear what they were doing as a collective group.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK