A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

May 23, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 23, 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; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that it was being streamed on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom.

Pastor Drew Fletcher, with East Coast Believers, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

special guest

Commr. Parks introduced Ms. Kylie Bryan, a senior at Leesburg High School, noting that she had recently interviewed him. He added that she would be going to Girls State at Florida State University (FSU).

Commr. Campione congratulated Ms. Bryan for this accomplishment, and said that she could possibly come back and tell the Board about everything she learned. She mentioned that it was a great opportunity for children across the state to participate in a program that taught them how the government in the State of Florida functioned; additionally, they would have a chance to work on bills and legislation, along with running for offices and competing with each other. She also indicated that they would learn about camaraderie and working together, remarking that it was competitive and that it was an honor to be selected.

Commr. Smith relayed that it was nice to see young people being involved in their community.

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 4, noting that staff did not have a proclamation at the current time. She also requested to pull Tab 20, clarifying that it would be brought back at the June 13, 2023 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting. She indicated that updated language had been added to the background summary for Tab 6, as the proposed ordinance was scheduled to be presented to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Advisory Committee on May 16, 2023; however, the meeting had been canceled due to the lack of a quorum. She concluded that Tabs 24, 25 and 26 were added as addendums since the agenda was first published, and that Tabs 24 and 25 were on the consent agenda; additionally, Tab 26 was on the regular agenda under Commissioner Campione’s business.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of March 29, 2023 (Special Meeting), and April 3, 2023 (Special Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Laura Campbell, a resident of the City of Tavares, spoke in favor of LGBT rights and equality. She hoped that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) wished to see every member of their community protected, and she expressed concerns for causing harm and fear to thousands of individuals; additionally, she opined that mental health mattered.

Ms. Danielle Olivani, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, asked the Board to honor a proclamation for LGBTQIA Month, and she opined that some individuals in Lake County did not feel safe. She also expressed concerns for legislation which she opined was causing harm, and for suicide rates rising in the community.

Mr. Richard Carlins, a resident of the City of Fruitland Park, recalled that he had introduced a health freedom resolution that Collier County recently passed, and he expressed concerns that human rights were being threatened. He mentioned that he was looking for Lake County to protect those rights, and he indicated concerns for health mandates from the World Health Organization or another international body. He also expressed concerns for a loss of morality.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake 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 and 2, 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.

Cascades at Groveland CDD Resolution 2023-06 and Budget

Notice is hereby provided of having received Resolution 2023-06 and corresponding approved proposed budget for FY 2023-2024 for the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District in accordance with Florida Statutes.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Blake asked to pull Tab 7 for a separate vote.

Commr. Smith requested to pull Tab 14.

Commr. Shields asked to pull Tab 17.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 18, with the addition of Tabs 24 and 25, pulling Tab 4, and pulling Tabs 7, 14 and 17 to the Regular Agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend approval of Proclamation 2023-28 designating June 2023 as Tobacco - Free Parks Month in Lake County.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval of a Mediation Settlement Agreement regarding the property which is the subject of an eminent domain case concerning the County Road 466A Road Project: Lake County vs. John J. Mackin, et al., Case No. 2022-CA-1181 (Parcel Number: FP-101). The fiscal impact is $83,562.50 (expenditure). Commission District 5.

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Chapter II, Division 5, Lake County Code, regarding the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Advisory Committee. There is no fiscal impact.

Recommend approval for the County Manager to grant an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Waiver that will take priority behind a first mortgage and/or other mortgages associated with affordable housing programs. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-58 in support of the application and pledge of matching funds for a Florida Division of Historical Resources Special Category Grant.

Information Technology

Recommend approval:

1. Of the grant agreement for the Local Government Cybersecurity Grant Program with the State of Florida Department of Management Services; and

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

There is no fiscal impact.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 23-719 for Paved Trails Maintenance and Related Services to Faithworks Total Ground Maintenance, LLC (Eustis, FL).

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated fiscal impact is $182,700 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

Probation

Recommend approval of the Lake County Mental Health Transportation Plan in accordance with Section 394.462, Florida Statutes. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Works

Recommend approval:

1. Of two Local Agency Program Supplemental agreements; and

2. To adopt supporting resolutions with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding funding the construction and inspection services for County Road (CR) 42 Intersection with CR 439 Traffic Signal in the Altoona area (Resolution 2023-59) and CR 452 Intersection with CR 44 Traffic Signal in the Eustis area (Resolution 2023-60); and

3. To adopt Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2023-61 adding $1,191,277 to the Federal/State Grants Fund for the County Road 42 project.

The estimated fiscal impact is $3,968,048 (revenue/expenditure – 100 percent grant funded). Commission Districts 3 & 4.

Recommend approval of Resolution 2023-62 to post “No Trucks Over 26,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Local Delivery Exempt” signs on North Austin Merritt Road, Austin Merritt Road and Youth Camp Road, in the Groveland area.

The fiscal impact is $400 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 1.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-63 to install stop signs and all way plaques on Good Hearth Boulevard at Highland Woods Drive in the Clermont area.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $150.00 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend approval to accept the final plat of Sanctuary Phase 3A and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Sanctuary Phase 3A final plat.

The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 1.

Recommend approval to accept the final plat of Ridgeview Phase 4 and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Ridgeview Phase 4 final plat.

The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 1.

Transit Services

Recommend approval:

1. To purchase the Low Floor Gillig buses through the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) contract (P-18-005) with Gillig, LLC (Livermore, California); and

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated fiscal impact is $596,220 (revenue/expenditure - $476,976 grant funded, and $119,244 in County funding), and is within the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

tab 7: ordinance for lcwa board compensation

Commr. Blake said that he would be voting against this item, and recalled that he had been opposed to it when the BCC had a workshop with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA). He did not think that it was a great time to do this, and he relayed that there had not been board compensation of this level for these positions since it was created in the 1950s; furthermore, he opined that it was not justified.

Commr. Smith clarified that the current item was only a recommendation to advertise.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the only item covered was the compensation issue.

Ms. Barker added that the LCWA could also provide security for their assets or their maintenance purview.

Commr. Campione said that the Board would have a vote on the substance at a subsequent meeting, and that she was in favor of moving it along; however, she still had reservations about the compensation issue as to whether she thought it was appropriate.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to advertise an Ordinance amending Section 24-8, Lake County Code, entitled Board Compensation, to establish compensation for the Lake County Water Authority.

Commr. Blake voted no.

tab 14: relocation agreement with seco

Commr. Smith mentioned that this item regarded the County allowing SECO to put buried lines in a certain section of road, and he expressed concerns that it would be at the County’s expense should the County require SECO to move, alter or adjust the lines. He opined that there were times where utility companies did not always place their facilities where they should be placed, and he asked if there could be a clause that if the lines were not placed properly, then it would be on SECO to address this.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, clarified that it would have to be within the 10 foot easement, and that it would actually be placed one to two feet off the right of way line, noting that the rest of it was just for access. He indicated that staff could add that it would be within two feet of the right of way line, commenting that this was where it was supposed to go.

Commr. Smith inquired if the Board could add language indicating that if the lines were not placed in the designated alignment, it would be SECO’s responsibility to move them.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, responded that the Board could include this as part of their motion, and that staff could bring it back if SECO would not agree to it.

Commr. Campione stated that the County wanted the lines buried, and she wished that they could see more of this occurring; furthermore, she expressed concerns for possibly making SECO not want to participate in this process. She questioned that if the line was outside of the easement, then was it not on SECO anyway to address it. She relayed her understanding that Commissioner Smith was saying that in the future, if something had to be done to this road and the County came across SECO’s lines and realized that they were in the wrong location, then it would be on SECO to address this.

Commr. Smith confirmed this. He added that if SECO placed the lines properly in the designated area, then the County would pay for the relocation and alterations.

Commr. Campione asked that if it was improperly placed, then would it not be on private property at that point.

Commr. Smith clarified that it could possibly be outside the 10 foot utility corridor inside the right of way.

Commr. Parks expressed support for this, and opined that SECO was good to work with.

Commr. Campione commented that it seemed like SECO would not take offense to this, and that it was just saying to put the lines in the correct location.

Commr. Blake added that it was protecting taxpayers from SECO’s possible mistake.

Commr. Campione asked who did the surveying.

Mr. Earhart replied that the County’s contractor would provide this to the County, and he opined that SECO likely would not have an issue with the wording.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a Relocation Agreement with SECO to use Schofield Road right-of-way to relocate its power service from above ground poles to underground electric lines, with the modification that if the lines were not placed in the designated alignment, it would be SECO’s responsibility to move them.

TAB 17: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR COUNTY ROAD 466A

Commr. Shields commented that the County was using Infrastructure Sales Tax (IST) funding to address issues with road impact fees, and that this item was $4.5 million of IST funding. He relayed that Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, had indicated that he needed $5 million for boat ramps; additionally, there were two parks which he opined could take 20 years at the rate they were going. He added that they also had $40 to $50 million of trails that the County needed to fund, and he expressed concerns for utilizing IST to address an issue with impact fees, opining that the County was supposed to be receiving $5,000 per home in impact fees when they were only receiving $1,000 per home. He opined that the process was in place for how the County built new roads, and he did not think that this was it. He indicated that he would make the motion to approve this item with the caveat that they did not use IST funding.

Commr. Blake indicated that the IST was passed promising people that a third of it would be spent on roads. He added that the County was obligated to spend some of it on roads, and that this item was a small percentage.

Commr. Shields opined that the County needed a roadmap of a way that they could balance these things out. He also opined that if the County had charged the impact fees that they were supposed to, then this would not have been an issue.

Commr. Parks added that if the County had the full impact fees or some level closer to what they should be in order to fund the road needs, then there might be additional road infrastructure projects that they could be doing with that portion of IST.

Commr. Blake recalled that he had previously brought up the question of if the County was obligated to spend a certain amount of funding from the IST on certain projects, and that they were not. He recalled that when this was presented to the public in the referendum, there were examples given; however, it was somewhat changeable. He recalled that one way he had recommended to catch up on some of the things that Commissioner Shields mentioned was to suspend some of the expenditures, opining that it was more important to have roads without potholes than new trail networks. He elaborated that his idea had been to take a year or every other year until they caught up, and spend everything or significantly more from the IST to get where they needed to be. He mentioned that they were limited to how they could spend impact fee funding because it was specifically for increasing capacity, relaying that IST was not limited in this way. He also indicated that the subject project preexisted his time on the BCC and his time working for the State Legislature when a $2.5 million appropriation was received to help complete it. He added that the current item was the last piece of the project which had been in the works for a long time.

Commr. Shields opined that if the County had the impact fees in place, then they would not have to utilize the IST funding for this project.

Commr. Blake believed that if they went to 95 percent of the calculation, then the figure was about a $10 million difference to the County. He commented that this would be $10 million that was not present in the previous year, but opined that it was also $10 million that belonged to someone else. He opined that the County was not automatically owed this funding.

Commr. Shields opined that IST and gas tax were regressive taxes, and that the working class paid a larger portion than the wealthy. He relayed that with most of the homes costing $400,000 and being paid for with cash, it seemed like a fairer way to get roads funded than through IST.

Commr. Parks relayed that the County was supposed to use some of the IST for infrastructure projects, noting the possibility of having a schedule of impact fees that was more conducive to economic growth. He thought that the impact fee system was flawed; however, impact fees were an investment into infrastructure, and to not have this, they were not investing in their infrastructure. He thought that there was a balance, and that if they had an impact fee that was more favorable to investment and infrastructure, then the County would have more funding from the IST to put back into infrastructure as well. He opined that the IST reflected the values of all the residents and businesses, and that people wanted the County to spend the funding on projects such as a trail, a park or an animal services center.

Commr. Blake opined that the current item qualified as a priority for this funding, and that the voters understood that it would be used for projects like this when they approved the IST.

Commr. Campione opined that the impact fee needed to be increased somewhat, and she stated that this project had been out there for a long time. She opined that it was an appropriate use of IST funding; however, she thought that the amount that the County was utilizing from IST would be lower if they had a more reasonable and appropriate impact fee in this district. She expressed support for moving forward and getting this done, and she thought that people in this region of the county would be thrilled when the project was finished.

Commr. Blake added that this item would address something that had been on the list for a long time and free up funding. He also expressed support for eliminating regressive taxes, and said that he would like to find other places to reduce taxes if the Board chose to raise impact fees.

Commr. Smith indicated that this project was for capacity reasons.

Commr. Shields clarified that he was in support of the project, but that he was not for how it was being funded.

Commr. Parks agreed, but said that he would support the motion because he thought that it was a project they needed to complete.

Ms. Barker relayed that the County was awarded federal funding for this project in the amount of $3.6 million; however, there was a discussion with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding whether they could use that federal funding when they were receiving State funding as well. She said that if this was worked out, then the County could also use federal funding for this project, which would free up the IST. She added that at the current time, staff had to give the Board the funding sources as they knew them.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the following items: a State Funded agreement; to adopt supporting Resolution 2023-64 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding funding the construction services for County Road 466A from 150 feet east of Timbertop Lane to 350 feet east of Poinsettia Avenue in the City of Fruitland Park area; and to adopt Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2023-65 adding $3,611,561 to the Federal/State Grants Fund for the County Road 466A project.

Commr. Shields voted no.

presentation of fiscal year 2023 fire assessment study

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this presentation was to discuss the 2023 fire assessment update. She provided the following overview information: the fire assessment was used to fund fire protection services; it could not be used for advanced life support (ALS) services; a study had been performed annually; assessment rates were calculated annually based on the allocation of resources and the assessable portion of the proposed budget; and Benesch had been tasked with the 2023 study. She mentioned that they would provide an interim annual update, and that the last update in 2022 included the 2012 to 2021 incident data and the fiscal year (FY) 2023 requested budget, noting that the rates were not changed.

Ms. Nilgun Kamp, with Benesch, indicated that the current update included the incidents from 2013 to 2022, and updated property unit data, noting that they were using the FY 2024 requested budget; furthermore, they were removing any expenses related to ALS since it was a legal requirement. She also indicated that they were subtracting any dedicated revenues, and that any expenses related to having a fire assessment program were added. She commented that the FY 2024 requested budget was a total assessment eligible funding requirement of about $28 million, and that the total budget was almost $49 million, which was about a 15 percent increase from the budget that was the basis of current rates. She added that if nothing else changed, then all the rates would increase by 15 percent. She summarized the following findings: the assessment factor, which was the percent of non-ALS resources, had decreased; there was an increase in the budget; there were changes in the incident and resource distribution between the land uses; there was some increase in the property units for residential and non-residential land uses; there was a corresponding decrease in vacant parcels; and they calculated the maximum rates. She mentioned that the components of the calculation started with the incidents and total resources, and that the study identified portions used for ALS versus non-ALS, as well as how many resources each land use was using. She added that they also identified the assessable budget, and that they updated the property units and calculated the rates. She displayed a chart with the distribution of the total resources between ALS and non-ALS, noting that they considered not just the frequency of the incidents, but also the time that staff spent on each incident and how many vehicles had to go; furthermore, the non-ALS percentage was at 62 percent, which was a decrease from almost 73 percent from two years prior. She also said that this showed the higher level of ALS incidents that the department was responding to. She showed a chart with the distribution of non-ALS resources among land uses, noting that there were fluctuations ranging from 0.3 percent to negative 23 percent in the case of agricultural land, noting that by legal requirements, agricultural land was not charged. She mentioned that of the land uses that were charged, there were fluctuations up to around 10 percent. She displayed a chart with the assessable budget and a distribution of it among different land uses based on their utilization of the resources, and she reiterated that the budget increased by about 15 percent; additionally, when the resource utilization was relatively stable, the change in the total budget allocation for a given land use was about 15 percent, such as for residential. She also indicated that the other land uses fluctuated depending on changes in the resource utilization. She said that they updated the property units, and she showed a chart with increases in the developed uses, noting that vacant land had a decrease as it was developed. She elaborated that they then took the assessable budget for each land use and divided by the units to calculate the maximum assessment rate. She relayed that residential would increase from $201 to $225, which was about a 12 percent increase. She stated that as the units increased, the given budget was distributed among a larger number of units, which moderated some of the budget increase. She remarked that they had tiers for nonresidential such as commercial, industrial/warehouse and institutional, and she showed an example tier of 15,000 square feet; furthermore, she pointed out that the percent changes fluctuated from negative six percent to about 19 percent.

Ms. Teslia indicated that on June 1, 2023, the County would be receiving the preliminary taxable values, which was what they would be using to calculate the fire rescue municipal service taxing unit (MSTU), which was what funded the ALS services provided by fire rescue, along with costs incurred by fire rescue that could not be funded by the fire assessment. She then listed the following next steps for 2023: on the current day, staff was presenting the assessment study; on July 11, they would be presenting the initial fire assessment resolution with updated assessment rates; and in September they would have their public hearings and adopt their budget. She concluded that the requested action was to accept the fire assessment study prepared by Benesch.

Commr. Parks said that a large part of the study was to look at the assessment and how things had changed. He asked how much depth it considered for the increase in costs to provide the service.

Ms. Barker clarified that this would be addressed during the budget presentation for fire services, and that it was reflective in this rate calculation because Ms. Kamp started with the total budget as requested. She elaborated that Ms. Kamp then broke it down between ALS and non-ALS and what could be funded with the assessment, noting that she also went through the different call data for the distribution of resources among the land uses. She commented that the budget presentation would be coming to the Board in June 2023, and that the Board would see the increases for the service.

Commr. Parks opined that it was good to have a discussion regarding why these items sometimes increased because of the increased cost to provide the service. He added that Lake County was being affected similar to anyone else.

Ms. Barker confirmed that inflation affected local government as well.

Commr. Smith pointed out that BLS services had decreased in a 10 year period; however, the request was for an increase. He also indicated that he did not like the increase for commercial businesses, and that he did not like having this fee on vacant land. He relayed his understanding that the current item was just to accept the study.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, and added that it was not to set any rates. She stated that the study was based on the information gathered, and that once the Board heard the budget presentation from the Office of Fire Rescue, staff would come back in July 2023 to request a consideration of a rate increase, decrease, or nothing. She elaborated that this would be the rate included on the truth in millage (TRIM) notices for residents.

Commr. Blake agreed with Commissioner Smith’s comments, and he indicated that he would vote in favor of the current item because it was for acceptance of the study.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept the Fiscal Year 2023 Fire Assessment Study.

public hearing: vacate right of way in leesburg area

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented vacation petition #1279. He indicated that the applicants were Mr. Robert Kuntz Byrne and Ms. Judith Kuntz Byrne, the owners, and that they were represented by Mr. Patrick Salmon, an attorney. He said that the vacation was located east of Lake Griffin in the City of Leesburg area, in Commission District 4, and he showed a map and aerial image of the proposed vacation. He mentioned that the applicants had submitted for a unity of title through the Office of Planning and Zoning, and that they had letters of support from their neighbors; furthermore, there was no opposition or any reason to recommend denial. He recommended approval of this vacation request.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-66 to vacate unimproved platted rights of way, in the City of Leesburg area.

public hearing: vacate right of way in mount dora area

Mr. Schneider presented vacation petition #1281. He explained that the applicant was Mr. Mark Simpson, the owner, who was represented by Ms. Tara Tedrow, an attorney. He mentioned that the proposed vacation was located in the northeast area of the City of Mount Dora, within Commission District 4, and he displayed a map of the area and the proposed vacation. He explained that this was right of way that used to connect to other right of ways, and that it was platted in the 1914 plat of Sunset Heights; additionally, it did not connect to any other right of way at the current time, and there was no public purpose that staff could find. He also said that unity of title was not required because it did not serve as access to anybody else. He recommended approval of this item.

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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-67 to vacate a platted right of way, in the City of Mount Dora area.

public hearing: west transportation impact fee 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 22-5, ENTITLED RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; SECTION 22-13, ENTITLED CHANGES IN SIZE OR USE; SECTION 22-36, ENTITLED SHORT TITLE, AUTHORITY; TO ADOPT THE LAKE COUNTY IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; SECTION 22-37, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE FOR 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 added that this ordinance would have an effective date of October 1, 2023.

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.

Commr. Blake commented that he was in favor of creating this district; however, he would be voting against it because there were rate increases included in the creation of this district, even though it was tiered.

Commr. Campione opined that the rate increases were relatively mild in terms of having a separate district to address a developer that captured a large portion of their trips. She thought that it was a fair trade off.

Commr. Blake clarified that he was in favor of this as the alternative to the large increases which were being considered.

Commr. Parks said that the large developer in this district did an internal rate of capture well, along with covering infrastructure on their own. He thought that the current item was reflective of this.

Commr. Smith opined that the County was keeping up with the times, and that it was currently necessary and good to have.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-32 establishing the rate schedule for the West Transportation Impact Fee Benefit District and amending other provisions of the Lake County Code pertaining to Impact Fees.

Commr. Blake voted no.

regular agenda

discussion concerning site specific isba with city of eustis

Commr. Campione recalled that several years prior, there was an issue with the City of Eustis regarding a proposed annexation where it was proposed to utilize a passive County park purchased with public land funding as a basis to become contiguous to land on the north side of County Road (CR) 44A, which was rural. She elaborated that they were going to work their way down until they reached Thrill Hill Road and annex some property there; however, the County proceeded to seek to stop this type of an annexation. She handed out a map of the area and said that the property highlighted in red was the land that Hanover Land Company (Hanover) was seeking to annex at that time, noting that the County had been looking at the parcels that would get them to this location. She explained that the situation with the City of Eustis had created tension with the two Boards, and she opined that the BCC stood their ground and did not think it was appropriate to work their way into these rural areas and use a passive park as the basis to be contiguous. She stated that Hanover was intent on getting to this property, which was owned by one landowner, and that they began to work in another direction and come from Estes Road, noting that they annexed property and began to enter into agreements with property owners who had large rural tracts; furthermore, Hanover was offering to pay them to annex their properties. She opined that Hanover was very motivated to get to the subject property, and said that while this was occurring, the County had asked the City of Eustis to honor the old joint planning agreement (JPA) map and not go across Thrill Hill Road, along with honoring the densities in the JPA map. She indicated that she began to have conversations with the Mayor of Eustis and Hanover about the possibility of doing a site specific interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) that was noncontiguous to accommodate Hanover and the City, rather than land being annexed into the city prematurely. She added that they could hopefully come up with a development plan that would be a blending of what the County would think was appropriate when considering their land use map, what the City would deem appropriate, and what Hanover was seeking to do, blending them together and potentially coming up with something that could be a win-win, knowing that everyone would walk away getting some of what they wanted. She remarked that Hanover agreed to work with Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, to come up with a conservation type development plan for the subject property, and that Hanover was agreeable to the concept, noting that they were hoping that they could formulate a product that everybody could rally around. She mentioned that Mr. Arendt had worked on a concept plan, and that the land was 230 acres. She relayed that the City would be providing water and sewer services, and that they had a meeting about this concept. She commented that the point of an ISBA would be to work out the services, and that she and the Mayor of Eustis would like to see if they could join their Boards together to review this idea. She requested for the opportunity to attend a Eustis City Commission meeting and present the concept, noting that everyone would have to weigh in on the details; however, this would be a framework to start with. She mentioned the possibility of starting with a draft agreement, and then everyone could provide input. She proposed that the tradeoff for working with the City to do a site specific ISBA was that the City and the County would agree to embark on a small area study of the surrounding area, noting that the County’s rural protection area (RPA) started at Thrill Hill Road and that it was in the Wekiva Study Area. She added that it was also in the area that the City had designated as the Wekiva Springs Protection Overlay, commenting that it was hydrologically a unique area and that there were agricultural uses and large tracts, along with two large blueberry farms, Lake May, and rural lifestyles. She mentioned that the small area study would be a way to review this and see if they could come up with densities, land uses, perimeter buffers, wildlife corridors and transfers of development rights (TDRs) to help preserve the character, provide for a transition, and allow some growth on the part of the City while keeping the rural character of the area intact to the greatest extent possible. She proposed to suggest to the City to do a site specific ISBA and that in return, they would work on a small area study. She added that they would not hold up Hanover and the City from moving ahead, but they would all be in agreement that while they were working on the small area study, the old densities in the JPA would remain in place. She specified that this was called map 19, which was one unit per acre with 50 percent open space, along with a dividing line that went to 2.5 units per acre with 35 percent open space as they got closer to Estes Road. She said that the City would hopefully agree to honor this as part of this arrangement, and that they would work on a small area study with the intent of having something more updated which reflected what the City wanted and what the County was trying to do with their rural conservation design.

Commr. Smith inquired if this item was just asking the BCC if they were amicable with Commissioner Campione going to the City of Eustis with this concept, and Commissioner Campione confirmed this.

Ms. Barker added that this would just be consensus, and that Commissioner Campione would be able to attend the Eustis City Commission meeting on behalf of the BCC and discuss the project.

Commr. Shields expressed appreciation for the work, and said that if they could stay close to County densities and come up with a better product, then he was in support.

Commr. Parks asked about the status of the JPA efforts, noting that they were working on a countywide effort. He stated that it seemed like this item would fit into this, and he expressed interest in the understanding that this would be incorporated in the JPA, noting that the goal was to have JPAs with all the Cities. He also opined that a study for the area was warranted because it was unique.

Commr. Campione indicated that it meshed with the JPA process, and she recalled that Commissioner Parks had met with the Mayor of Eustis when this situation was occurring; additionally, she thought that the goal at that point had been to do a small area study that focused on this area, as the City of Eustis wanted to grow east but was coming up against the County’s RPA. She thought that it would work with the JPA because if they did a small area study, the agreement could be that the study would be incorporated at some point or would be an addendum to the JPA.

Commr. Parks inquired if Hanover realized that with Mr. Arendt, it would be 50 percent open space.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the County’s density was one unit per acre with 50 percent open space on the east side, but because they also had property on the west side, they were asking to blend their open space and their densities across both sides. She commented that if the County’s position was that it should be one unit per acre with 50 percent open space, and the City of Eustis’ position was that it should be something like three units per acre and 35 percent open space, then they could possibly end up between 2.3 and 2.5 units per acre with 40 percent open space. She relayed that Hanover would like to achieve 535 units on 230 acres, which was pushing to 2.5 or 2.6 units per acre; however, almost 40 percent open space was drawn into the design. She added that it included primary conservation and secondary conservation, noting that some of it was forested areas that remained 100 percent intact without any disturbance, or with minimal disturbance. She indicated that an artesian well was located on parcel three, and that this parcel would stay 100 percent protected with just some delineation of setbacks off the well and possibly some primitive walking trails. She said that Mr. Arendt had gotten into karst features, slopes and vegetation, and she stated that she wanted to let Hanover present what Mr. Arendt came up with at the Eustis City Commission meeting. She added that it would be coming back to the BCC for further discussion.

Commr. Parks mentioned that a City could say not to annex, but then the County did not know what a City Council or Commission would do in the future. He opined that this was a company which was very persistent and driven to maximize land use, and he indicated interest in being proactive and trying to discuss it to get the best they could.

Commr. Blake questioned how much the study would cost.

Commr. Campione stated that this would have to be determined, and she thought that the City of Eustis would be looking for the County to take the lead on it. She indicated that another idea she had was that the development review would be on the County side up until the point where the plat was recorded, and at that time it would move over to the City to issue building permits. She elaborated that the County would be able to be actively involved in ensuring that the things they agreed to in the ISBA and Mr. Arendt’s plan were being complied with. She also indicated that Mr. Arendt could possibly be a good planner to do the small area study, and that the County could see what he would charge for this.

Commr. Smith indicated that he was amicable with Commissioner Campione going to the City of Eustis and proposing this, as long as it came back to the BCC.

reports

county manager

OFFICEs closed FOR MEMORIAL DAY

Ms. Barker remarked that County Offices would be closed on May 29, 2023 in observance of Memorial Day.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

ORLANDO ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP MEETING

Commr. Shields mentioned that he attended an Orlando Economic Partnership (OEP) meeting in the City of Sanford, noting that they had done a survey of their businesses and opined that there was no recession coming to the state or the City of Orlando; furthermore, the businesses were still hiring.

PUSHBACK CEREMONY

Commr. Shields relayed that some Commissioners had attended a firetruck pushback ceremony.

EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Shields commented that there was an East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) meeting at Seminole State College, and that he got to see how they were preparing firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs). He added that the ECFRPC had done a study for Lake County regarding a risk assessment for Lake County Fire Rescue and the risk reduction plan.

commissioner parks – district 2

PUSHBACK CEREMONY

Commr. Parks remarked that the firetruck pushback event in the City of Mascotte was great.

AAU of florida FACILITY IN WELLNESS WAY

Commr. Parks said that the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) of Florida had recently announced to build a major facility in Wellness Way at Olympus, which would include a 100,000 square foot indoor volleyball center. He added that it could also do basketball, and that there would be medical offices and hotels that were planned to go with it. He stated that this was a significant move by the AAU into Wellness Way in terms of operations and events, and he congratulated the City of Clermont, noting that this facility would be in the city limits. He also indicated that there were plans for a 5,800 seat ice rink to be built within Wellness Way near this AAU facility; furthermore, they were promoting triathlons and triathlete services as well. He commented that it was significant to have a performance institute for the athletes there, and that it was great to hear this news.

Commr. Campione asked if there would be any other uses for the ice rink, and Commissioner Parks thought that this was their plan. Commissioner Campione then mentioned that there was a need in the county for larger venues.

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

Commr. Parks wished everyone Happy Memorial Day.

commissioner campione – district 4

EUSTIS CITY COMMISSION MEETING

Commr. Campione relayed that she would attend the Eustis City Commission meeting on June 1, 2023, and said that she would report back to the Board.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

medical examiner compensation for testimony

Commr. Blake remarked that the Medical Examiner was frequently called to testify in trials about autopsies that she, and other doctors that worked for her, had to perform. He elaborated that they had never been compensated by the District Attorney’s Office in the past for this testimony, and that it ended up costing a significant amount of money when someone had to fly to testify; therefore, the Medical Examiner’s Office was trying to look into doing this.

florida legislature prohibition

Commr. Blake expressed support for the Florida Legislature’s prohibition of sexual performances in front of children, opining that it was a common sense red line for a society to have.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

hope 2 restoration in city of leesburg

Commr. Smith related that he had met with an individual from Hope 2 Restoration in the City of Leesburg, noting that she was doing great work in north Lake County for getting people back on their feet.

community meetings

Commr. Smith said that he had several community and homeowners association (HOA) meetings.

liberty tree celebration

Commr. Smith commented that the County’s Liberty Tree celebration would occur on the following day, and he invited everyone from the public to visit the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) location in the City of Mount Dora to learn about and understand what the Liberty Tree was, what it reflected, and how it affected the country.

pushback ceremony

Commr. Smith stated that there would be another firetruck pushback ceremony on the following Thursday in the City of Fruitland Park.

national lucky penny day

Commr. Smith relayed that it was National Lucky Penny Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK