A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

June 27, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 27, 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; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting. He indicated that they were meeting in person and were being streamed live via the County website.

Ms. Jocelyn Williamson, from the Central Florida Freethought Community, 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 through 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, relayed the following updates: on Tab 9 the language was updated in the recommended actions to include the 2021 date of House Bill (HB) 735; on Tab 11 the partially executed contract was attached; and on Tab 24 a Form 9 disclosure form was added for Mr. Dencov Bryant.

Presentation on the School Board Approved Educational system impact fee study

Ms. Nilgun Kamp, with Benesch, stated that they had prepared the impact fee study for the school district, and noted that school impact fees were last updated in 2019 at their full rate. She explained that the purpose of the study was to update the input variables to reflect the most recent and localized data, which was one of the legal requirements to meet the burden of proof for public agencies, and noted that impact fees were a one-time capital charge to new development that covered the cost of new capital facilities and helped implement capital improvement programs and work plans. She elaborated that the primary goal of impact fees was to maintain the level of service, and that they calculated the cost of growth, which was most needed when there were high growth levels and limited alternate funding. She related that Lake County was a large county in terms of population, and she provided as the following information about Lake County: 17^th out of 67 Florida counties in population; sixth in projected annual growth rate; 12th in absolute population growth; 17^th in residential permitting; 36^th in student generation rate; 35^th in capital millage revenue per student; and 27^th out of 30 Florida counties in sales tax revenue per student. She mentioned that some of the challenges facing Lake County included the loss of capital revenue when the State of Florida reduced the millage in 2009, which resulted in about $170 million in lost revenue since then, and that the only other options for capital funding included sales tax, which required voter approval, and issuing debt. She relayed that the study used a consumption based methodology, which was very common, and that it charged new growth based on the value of the school infrastructure that was consuming, noting that fees were calculated at a rate that could not generate sufficient revenue to correct existing deficiencies. She explained that the basic impact fee formula looked at the cost of providing school infrastructure, such as school buildings, and subtracted any non-impact fee revenues allocated to capacity, and that the net cost was multiplied by demand, which equaled the number of students per residential unit. She said that the legal requirements included the following: the studies needed to be based on the most recent and localized data; there was a minimum of 90 day notice for any fee increases after adoption; and if there was any challenge to the fee, the local government needed to demonstrate that those fees were correct. She related that HB 337 placed limits on how much the fees could be increased, which was no more than 50 percent, and that it had to be phased in over four installments, noting that the district’s fees were within that 50 percent increase. She remarked that findings of the study included the following: cost per student had increased since the last study; credit per student decreased, suggesting that other revenue sources allocated to capacity were decreasing which increased the fee; demand decreased, meaning that the student generation rate decreased which decreased the fee; and the fee increased about 35 percent for a 2,000 square foot single family home. She relayed that there were about 42 traditional schools, which did not include charter schools or private schools, and that the prototype schools being built, in terms of square footage per station, were more compact than the older schools. She commented that costs included all the items needed to build a school, such as design, site improvement, construction, and the land purchase. She explained that for the cost estimate, they reviewed any construction completed by the school district, any bids and estimates, and the insured value of the buildings, and then they supplemented that with data from other jurisdictions and discussions with architects; additionally, land value was estimated by looking at recent purchases and vacant land sales throughout the county of similar sized parcels. She stated that overall, the total cost per square foot was estimated from about $400 to $425 per square foot, and that the square foot per station total was from about $53,000 to about $68,000 per station. She remarked that the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) placed a limit on how much the districts could spend in building new schools, and that school districts were not allowed to exceed those limits; otherwise they would be penalized. She mentioned that the school districts were trying to meet those limits; however, in the previous several years, there were more districts not being able to meet those limits with the recent increases in cost. She commented that the FDOE cost ranged from about $30,000 to $43,000 per station, which was about 35 percent lower than actual local costs were, and noted that the school district’s adopted standard was one station per student, making the cost per student the same as the cost per station. She relayed that the other two cost components were the transportation costs, such as buses, which were about $900 per student, and costs for ancillary facilities, such as the maintenance and transportation buildings, which were about $1,400 per student. She stated that revenue credits were calculated for non-impact fee revenues used for capacity projects and future payments of outstanding debt associated with capacity projects, noting that the overall total cost was about $40,000 per student, which after taking out credit of $1,400 totaled a net cost of about $38,500. She explained that student generation rates were calculated based on student addresses matched with the Lake County Property Appraiser database to see what type and size of unit the students were coming from. She commented that to provide some relief for affordable housing purposes, tiers were added, and that the smaller homes with fewer students were charged less. She related that the student generation rate for a single family home that was 800 square feet or less was decreasing by about 50 percent compared to the last study, and that a larger single family home was decreasing by about 11 percent. She relayed that for multifamily housing, the decreases ranged from five percent to 77 percent as the units became smaller, and she said that the overall generation rate decreased by about 12 percent for all units and all students. She explained that the students per unit generation rate multiplied by the net costs equaled the calculated impact fee, and pointed out that it decreased for single family homes 800 square feet or less by 25 percent and increased by 35 percent for larger single family homes. She stated that if approved, there would be a decrease of 65 percent for smaller multifamily homes and an increase of 44 percent for the larger multifamily homes; additionally, mobile homes would see about a 40 percent increase. She displayed a chart showing a comparison to other counties with school impact fees, and noted that they ranged from about $2,500 to $7,800 for smaller counties and about $8,200 to $13,000 for larger counties. She said that if it was adopted, the fees that were decreasing would be implemented immediately, and that increasing fees would be implemented over four years. She mentioned that the school district wanted an approval of the ordinance, and that if it was approved, the fees would be effective in October 2023.

Ms. Kelly Randall, Executive Director of Facilities and Growth Planning for Lake County Schools, recalled that in the prior year they had come to the BCC to discuss the school project programmed in their five year capital plan, and that thanks to the cooperation of the County and the implementation of the impact fee, they were able to do those projects. She then provided information about the following future impact fee projects: building a City of Minneola relief K-8 school; making additions for the Villages Elementary of Lady Lake School and Windy Hill Middle School; modernizing and adding capacity to Fruitland Park Elementary School and Beverly Shores Elementary School; and pursuing an opportunity to build a high school in the Wellness Way area to relieve East Ridge High School and provide capacity for the Four Corners area.

Mr. Scott Ward, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Lake County Schools, reviewed some of the capital outlay funding that the school district had. He remarked that the State of Florida had withheld funding for a number years, and that they had not been funding new capacity in schools since around 2010. He stated that the State had capped the capital millage from 2.0 mills down to 1.5 mills, and that Lake County Schools had been able to keep up with demands using the impact fees for new construction and sales tax for maintaining older facilities. He relayed that they had researched other school districts and their impact fees, and that some had more funding per student through their capital millage program because they had higher property values per student. He noted that many districts used sales tax for capital, and that areas with more industry or tourism had more sales tax revenue per student. He mentioned that one alternative to the impact fee was for the school district to obtain debt to cover these facilities, which would burden future taxpayers, and that those debt issues were between 20 and 25 years, noting that as millage funds stayed the same, they would be paying debt in the future that they would not have funding for. He related the following comparisons: Seminole County generated $500 more per student out of their capital millage because of higher sales tax revenue per student and had issued $15 million in debt in 2019; Polk County’s impact fee was similar to Lake County, with a slightly lower student station cost because they used the 2019 study, and they had issued $160 million in debt in 2019; Brevard County generated $225 more per student and had a higher sales tax revenue per student; Alachua County had twice the sales tax revenue per student as Lake County and had issued $92 million in debt in 2020; Volusia County had issued $153 million in debt; and Duval County had issued $561 million in new debt. He opined that without the impact fees, they would be considering that situation, and opined that Lake County had been good stewards by not burdening the next 25 years with debt.

Ms. Diane Kornegay, Superintendent for Lake County Schools, expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to present this information and for their partnership, and said that as Lake County continued to grow, they would continue to work together to ensure that the needs of every student was being met.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that HB 1 increased the number of awards that a child could use towards a private school, and he asked how this was anticipated to impact the capacity needs in Lake County.

Mr. Ward replied that it was unknown at this point. He related that they had not seen students leaving their schools to go to the private schools; however, individuals who were already enrolled in private schools were now receiving funding. He pointed out that the school district was now required to share a proportionate share of their capital millage with charter schools, which was another loss of revenue for the district.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that Seminole County had much more funding per student through ad valorem taxes than Lake County.

Mr. Ward explained that this was the amount of capital millage that was generated yearly divided by the number of students, and that Seminole County generated $500 more per student than Lake County.

Commr. Parks opined that the more Lake County relied on residential growth, the more homestead exemptions came along with that, placing more of the burden to fund schools back onto the residents. He opined that the tax base in Seminole County was different, and that it was making it better for them. He relayed his understanding that it cost about $65 million for a high school of about 1,500 students, and to put that into perspective, the General Fund was about $270 million, noting that it would be a large percentage of the General Fund.

Ms. Randall commented that they had been fortunate with Lake Minneola High School because they contracted that at the bottom of the recession, and noted that according to the FDOE numbers, it would cost about $60 million for a 1,500 student high school. She related that they were expecting at least a 35 percent increase, and that based on when they would build, it could take five to six years, making that cost increase even more. She relayed her understanding that Orange County was having to pay $300 million for a high school, and opined that they may have to pay up to $150 million for the next high school in Lake County.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there were shortages in capacity which could soon include middle schools, and she asked how they would accommodate students if there was not sufficient capacity according to the capacity analysis on a large development. She also inquired how many proportionate agreements were in place or had been used in the past for large developments.

Ms. Randall replied that it was part of the school concurrency process covered under an interlocal agreement, and that for a new development, if the school district had the capacity and had programmed the capacity within the first three years of their capital plan, then that capacity was counted. She elaborated that they took that development and those students generated off of the capacity that they had already programmed, which was one of the reasons why they had to keep up with their programmed projects, and noted that they had committed to the community and those developers that there would be capacity available. She mentioned that if there was no capacity available in that concurrency service area or in an adjacent concurrency service area, then they would enter into a proportionate share mitigation agreement with the developer. She explained that there would be a tri-party agreement with the County or the City, the school board, and the developer, and that the developer would pay proportionate share mitigation and receive impact fee credits as they developed, noting that they would be paying for the student stations in advance for impact fee credits. She remarked that they were currently collecting from proportionate share mitigation agreements in south and north Lake County for high school capacity, and that there was a need for this in the City of Leesburg area for elementary school capacity; however, the new additional capacity that they had programmed in that area made it unnecessary to collect those any longer in that area.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that when they calculated what was owed by a developer in those situations, it was based on the findings of the study, and that the credit they received was based on the impact fee amount, noting that if the County lowered the impact fee or did not keep up with the calculated impact fee, then there would be a gap.

Ms. Randall indicated that this was correct, and added that it was based on the per student station cost that was in the study. She mentioned that there would always be a gap because the calculated impact fee was based on the cost of construction from that current year, and that the impact fee would not necessarily rise through that four year implementation period, noting that they dealt with that by keeping their costs down as much as possible.

Commr. Campione questioned if taking on debt required them to go to the voters.

Mr. Ward replied that they were allowed to borrow up to the debt threshold, allowing them to borrow without going to the voters; however, depending on how much was needed, they would eventually have to obtain a general obligation bond which would require voter approval.

Commr. Campione asked if they would pay the debt back with a combination of what the State allowed them to use towards capital in addition to impact fees collected.

Mr. Ward answered that it was difficult to pay the debt back with impact fees, and that they had to ensure that the impact fee going to pay the debt was for new student stations.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that per Florida Statute they were not allowed to use other funds for capital, which was a set amount they were allowed to use.

Mr. Ward remarked that they could have some discretion; however, their millage had been rolled back for several years prior, and that the funding from their general fund was not much better than the funding from their capital fund, noting that there was not much surplus to be used.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for the presentation and for the staff and School Board members he had spoken to about this, and noted that he had issues with this item.

public Hearing: educational system impact fees

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, 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 RELATED TO EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IMPACT FEES: SECTION 22-21, ENTITLED LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; SECTION 22-22, ENTITLED IMPOSITION; SECTION 22-25, ENTITLED REVIEW AND UPDATE; TO ADOPT THE LAKE COUNTY SCHOOLS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES UPDATE STUDY FINAL REPORT DATED APRIL 21, 2023; 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.

Mr. Richard Carlins, a resident of Lake County, opined that tax and cost increases were always a burden on the consumer, and that many residents in Lake County were retired with an income that was not increased or adjusted to inflation. He expressed concerns about the current school system, and opined that the parents were the best arbiters for the outcome of their children and for the oversight to build schools.

Mr. Mike Trainor, a resident of Lake County, expressed concerns about the use of electronic devices which placed culture issues in front of children, and opined that schools played a vital role against these issues. He asked the Board to fund the schools as much as possible without incurring debt, opining that children were the future. He opined that children should be educated in reading, writing, grammar, mathematics, western civilization, and American civics, and that they should know what their true heritage was as opposed to what they saw on electronic devices.

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, displayed a map of Lake County residential developments, and opined that each new development required more government spending for roads and schools. He opined that incurring debt or taxing residents to fund growth was wrong, and that the impact fee was a good tax. He expressed appreciation for the Board, opining that they were conservative and would not listen to developer requests to reduce or discount the impact fees.

Ms. Lisa Templin-Rayborn, a resident of Lake County, opined that developers and builders were not against children and schools, and that many had children who had gone through the public school system. She expressed concern about being reliant on impact fees, and opined that impact fees directly affected affordable housing since the current impact fees for an average single family residence in Lake County would add about $50,000 to any mortgage. She opined that affordable housing was not 800 square feet, and that this number should be higher because there were hardly any houses in Lake County that size.

Mr. Bill Mathias, a member of the Lake County School Board, commented that the BCC had fully funded the school district when it was $438 million in debt and spent $45 million per year to service the debt, which came directly out of programs and capital needs. He mentioned that this allowed them to begin their debt reduction programs, which had brought the debt down to about $115 million and to $15 million per year, allowing them more funding for programs, such as their aviation program and construction academies, and for teacher pay as well as infrastructure needs, which had all been met. He opined that the main reason people came to a community was because of the schools, and that Lake County schools were stellar and needed to be kept that way.

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

Commr. Campione recalled that several years prior, she had worked with the school district on an infill waiver, and noted that the school board had been supportive of that for several years. She opined that it had worked very well, and that it provided a way for existing lots, which were close to current schools and urban centers, to apply for a waiver from the school impact fee. She relayed her understanding that this was in partnership with the school district for about $250,000 per year, and that they had not yet reached that amount. She inquired if the school district would continue to fund that.

Mr. Mathias expressed appreciation for this relationship, and said that the intent was to provide this waiver for small builders to develop infill lots. He opined that there were large developments being built that were creating demand, and that this was where they needed the support.

Commr. Campione opined that once the developers started building houses, the demand would increase quickly; however, building on infill lots would create slower demand. She opined that some children would be able to walk to school and not use the buses, and that there was already infrastructure there. She stated that if there was a project targeted as a workforce project or an affordable housing project, the County grant either a full waiver or a partial waiver, and opined that the effect on the overall formula in the study should be taken into account.

Commr. Smith commented that he had an issue with the 800 square foot homes, and opined that it should be higher. He relayed that it would be good to have more affordable houses, opining that there needed to be some adjustments there.

Commr. Campione opined that a home between 800 square feet and whatever the Board thought was appropriate should receive a waiver, and that Benesch could factor that into the overall formula to show how that would affect the school district’s actual capacity.

Commr. Shields remarked that the County had been trying to encourage workforce housing.

Ms. Barker explained that the 800 square foot tier mirrored the impact fee tiering on the study the County had recently completed, and that they were trying to match that.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that a home could not be built smaller than 600 square feet, which was the minimum size for a primary unit on a parcel. He related that there had been some innovative things done with pocket neighborhoods and cottage neighborhoods in the northwest United States (U.S.), and that the City of Seattle had done an impact fee study which showed that there was a minimal impact from these types of homes. He said that the City eliminated the impact fees for those homes to encourage the development of these neighborhoods, which traditionally went to empty nesters or young professionals who did not impact their school system.

Commr. Smith stated that according to the study, the impact fee for an 800 square foot home would change from $8,927 to $6,897 while the impact fee for a larger home would go up to $12,021, opining that it was a huge increase for a 900 square foot home.

Commr. Blake opined that even though the school district was trying to reduce the debt, they were transferring the debt to a resident’s 30 year mortgage, and that it should be considered that the builder would pass these fees onto the consumer.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that if a developer wanted to build an affordable housing project and could bring the houses down to $250,000 for working people in Lake County, the County could waive those impact fees.

Ms. Marsh stated that the Board had previously passed an ordinance which allowed 100 percent of the fees to be waived, including application fees, for affordable housing; however, affordable housing and workforce housing were not the same thing. She explained that affordable housing was set by statute with very specific income levels that had to be met to be either moderate, low, very low, or extremely low, and that those projects would qualify for a 100 percent waiver. She related that workforce housing projects for those making more than the affordable housing moderate levels, such as public safety workers and teachers, could not receive a 100 percent waiver; however, the fees could be offset from some other funding source to pay for a waiver for them. She remarked that the program for affordable housing was limited to 50 single family waivers per year, noting that the County had not met its limit yet because people were not applying for that program, and that those who had were being approved. She mentioned that there was also an infill waiver, which was not income based, and that the school board assisted paying for the waiver by using another revenue source.

Commr. Campione commented that in some of those applications for infill waivers, they were building single family homes and duplexes, opining that they were either selling or renting them, which served that need. She opined that it was a great tool and should be promoted by the Home Builders Association of Lake-Sumter (HBA-LS).

Ms. Marsh added that there was also an accessory dwelling unit deferral program, and that those fees were not waived outright, but they were deferred until the home was sold.

Commr. Shields pointed out that other Counties were using sales tax and other methodologies to fund their school districts, and suggested having a discussion on the best way to fund a growing county. He said that he was in favor of the impact fees and did not want more debt, and opined that the school district needed more capacity. He expressed appreciation for the smaller home tiers, opining that it would encourage builders to build more affordable housing.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County had based the other impact fees, such as the transportation impact fee, on the 800 square foot tier, and that basing this impact fee on the same model was consistent with that; however, she opined that there were not many 800 square foot homes being built currently.

Ms. Barker pointed out that the County had not formally adopted that tiering system into the County structure.

Commr. Campione opined that this measurement should be increased, and that if the County wanted to encourage tiny homes, the impact fee could be waived because this type of housing was not common for families with children.

Ms. Marsh commented that there was a provision in the land development regulations (LDR) that required a minimum structure size to be between 850 square feet and 1,500 square feet, depending on the zoning district. She noted that in an Agriculture zoning, the house size would have to be at least 850 square feet, and that 300 feet of that could be porches and garages; therefore, if the County did not do away with the minimum structure size, there were not going to be any structures of 800 square feet unless the square footage requirement was waived through a planned unit development (PUD). She stated that she had been asked to draft an ordinance to remove that from the code, which would probably come before the Board in July or August 2023.

Commr. Smith remarked that currently no one would be able to take advantage of the 800 square foot single family home until the new ordinance alleviated that issue.

Commr. Parks asked if a smaller minimum square footage would be proposed, such as 400 square feet.

Commr. Blake opined that the market should decide, and that if someone wanted to live in a shed, it would still have to be built to code. He related that there were major corporations, such as Boxabl, trying to help with the housing crisis, and that he would like for the code to be hospitable to some of these innovations to provide housing.

Ms. Marsh stated that the minimum structure size had been in the County code dating back to at least 1991, and that there was a provision in the code that required every single family dwelling to be a minimum of 23 feet four inches in width to prohibit single wide mobile homes; however, this could be specified to mobile homes.

Commr. Parks commented that a 400 square foot home would be 20 feet by 20 feet.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the City of Tavares had several small cottages that were under 800 square feet, opining that they were great for young professionals, such as lawyers and nurses.

Commr. Campione opined that this change should be done before adopting the study, knowing that no one could build 800 square foot or less homes.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that the school impact fee ordinance would not go into effect until October 1, 2023, and that she could have the LDR changes to the Board by July 2023, noting that if it passed, it would be in place before the impact fee went into effect.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that a developer could obtain a PUD to lower the square footage, which would require them to rezone, noting that if the code was fixed, then someone could build something smaller with straight zoning, including on an infill lot.

Commr. Blake remarked that he had an issue with all impact fees. He opined that the transportation impact fee benefited all residents who used the roads; however, he opined that many residents did not benefit from the school impact fee. He expressed concern about school report cards in Lake County, along with impact fees increasing the cost of housing, and he opined that people should not be compelled to invest in the schools.

Commr. Smith opined that there could be another way to fund the schools other than impact fees, noting that the intent of an impact fee was to mitigate the impact that people moving into the area had on the roads, schools, parks, and libraries. He opined that some of those people would not have an impact on the schools but still have to pay impact fees, while others moving in would have an impact on schools but not have to pay. He said that he did not like the 800 square foot tier, opining that some 1,400 to 1,600 square foot houses were nice houses; however, people should not have to pay an exorbitant amount.

Commr. Campione commented that some other states paid for services, such as schools, with income taxes, and that the State of Florida did not have income taxes, opining that this was another reason people liked to move to the state. She opined that many of these people were seniors who wanted educated people providing services, such as medical, dining, and shopping services. She also opined that the most important thing that could be done to prevent homelessness and social decline was to have an educated population. She stated that the Board worked very hard on economic development by trying to attract companies to come to Lake County, and opined that the best way to do that was to have an educated workforce. She opined that there were many issues with the schools that were beyond the control of the school district, teachers, staff, and school board members; however, the students she had interviewed for Girls State had been well rounded, well educated, and leaders from attending Lake County public schools, noting that it was very competitive for them to be selected. She opined that there were great things happening in this school district, and that even though there would always be challenges, the County should make the resources available. She opined that large developments were hard on the school district because the houses went up quickly, and that the students there immediately needed a place to go to school. She remarked that she was in favor of discussing other ways to fund the schools; however, the County needed to deal with what it had currently and work within the framework to make it better. She said that she would be in favor of an adjustment of the square footage, and noted that the increased impact fees would be phased in over a few years. She related that considering the alternatives, including going into debt, this was the better choice to keep up with the impacts and the need for new student stations. She opined that the cost of building schools was too high, and she thought that there could be an opportunity to dual purpose the buildings to meet other needs in the communities, such as places where kids could play sports, such as basketball and volleyball, and have clubs, such as the Boys and Girls Club. She suggested that the school facilities could commit to work with the County and Cities to find ways to make some of the new school facilities available for meeting rooms and other needs in the community.

Commr. Parks opined that it was important to find out why it cost so much to build schools and government buildings and to fund government projects, and that there needed to be a concerted effort to work together. He stated that he supported the motion, and that there were many tools to address affordable housing and workforce housing. He opined that there were issues in every school district, and said that he appreciated the comment about the culture war. He mentioned that he had children going through the Lake County public schools, and opined that the parents should be involved. He opined that it was difficult to place a dollar value on an educated community, and that residents who did not have children in the school district still benefited from an educated workforce. He believed that there was a flaw in collecting impact fees; however, it was what the County had to work with currently. He opined that another possibility was to make changes with the State legislature to enable the County to possibly collect documentary stamp tax at a future date; however, until that was changed and construction costs reconciled, he would support the motion.

Commr. Smith commented that he would like to explore other ways of funding the school system.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-39 amending the Educational System Impact Fees.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of April 25, 2023 (Regular Meeting), April 29, 2023 (Special Meeting), and May 2, 2023 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Frank Schifano, a resident of Tower Pine Road, expressed concerns about a neighbor who had requested that his address be changed to a road that was within the boundaries of his property, opining that this neighbor did not have legal access to this road. He opined that this neighbor had paved a driveway over land that he owned without any notice from the County, and that this driveway was in violation of safety rules, setbacks, and required regulation by a public access road. He inquired why they had not received notice since the permit issued stated that it could not adversely affect neighboring property, opining that they were directly affected. He requested that the driveway permit be revoked, and asked that the address change be denied, noting that they had an injunction against these neighbors.

Ms. Angela Schifano, a resident of Tower Pine Drive, expressed concerns about the actions of their neighbors, opining that they had adversely affected her family. She asked that their neighbor’s request for an address change be denied, and opined that it would be dangerous to her family.

Ms. Marsh stated that this involved a non-exclusive easement deed granted to the County in 1991, noting that the easement was dedicated to the public for road and road-related utility purposes. She mentioned that there was a misconception about publicly dedicated easements that she had observed, and that there could be an easement dedicated to the use of the public that was not County-maintained. She commented that this did not invalidate the easement, and that as long as the public was using that easement, that easement was generally valid. She relayed that the neighbors had applied for an address change, and that she had reached out to addressing and had it placed on hold, noting that they currently had an address on the adjacent road. She displayed a map showing Tower Pine Drive between the two properties, and said that the easement was 50 feet from the property line, which would legally touch the neighbor’s property. She related that she had asked the County surveyor to speak with the Schifanos’ surveyor as soon as they had given their permission to see if there was any gap between the easement and the neighbor’s property. She noted that the property owners along Tower Pine Drive could potentially apply for a vacation of the public interest; however, every person with a legal right to use that easement would have to give cross easements to each other, ensuring no one was denied access to their property. She relayed that the County had no involvement with this, and that this was a boundary line dispute between the two property owners. She explained that an address change would not come to the BCC, and that if the neighbors met the requirement of the code, they were entitled to the address change. She recommended that if the Schifanos wanted to invalidate the easement, then they should file that action soon, and that this would temporarily place the address change on hold. She asked for permission from the Schifanos for the County surveyor to meet with their surveyor to reconcile the differences, and said that if there was a gap between the 50 foot easement and the neighbor’s property, then the County would not issue an address change.

Mr. Tim Behler, a resident of Tower Pine Drive, expressed concerns that the County would grant access to their privately maintained road to a property address located on an adjoining street, and opined that it would increase traffic on a one lane road that was already in need of repairs and increase animosity created by the situation. He opined that this address change could result in additional conflict in the future and danger to his family, noting that this neighbor would then have dual access to his property. He opined that the County should not grant the address change, and that the existing residents should be allowed to decide and manage the future of Tower Pine Drive.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione 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 9, 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 Clermont’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report

Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Clermont’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and the CRA Annual Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021.

Lake Harris Community Development District Proposed Budget for FY 2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Lake Harris Community Development District proposed budget for FY 2024 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Windsor Cay Community Development District Proposed Budget for FY 2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Windsor Cay Community Development District proposed budget for FY 2024 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Central Lake Community Development District Proposed Budget for FY 2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Central Lake Community Development District proposed budget for FY 2024 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Founders Ridge Community Development District Proposed Budget for FY 2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Founders Ridge Community Development District proposed budget for FY 2024 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Wellness Way Community Development District Proposed Budget for FY 2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Wellness Way Community Development District proposed budget for FY 2024 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Lands Available List

Notice is hereby provided of having received a list of property placed on the Lands Available List.

Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Proposed Budget FY2024

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2023/2024 in accordance with Section 190.008(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

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

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 15, pulling Tab 7 to the regular agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend approval of Proclamation 2023-38 designating July 2023 as Parks and Recreation Month in Lake County.

Recommend approval of Proclamation 2023-73 declaring July 2023 as Pride in America month, per Commissioner Sean Parks.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance to amend Section 2-4, Lake County Code, entitled Trespass Notices for Public Property. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Procurement Services

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 23-549 with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Columbus, OH) for banking services; and

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $192,950 (revenue) for Fiscal Year 2023, with future years anticipated to be at least $330,300 based on acceptance of Contract 23-549.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Building Services

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Chapter 6, Lake County Code, entitled Buildings and Construction. This change is required by House Bill 735 (2021). There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety Support

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 23-421A for site preparation, construction, and relocation of existing equipment to Fire Station 14 in Altoona to Clifton Tower Services, Inc. (Altoona, FL); and

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

3. Of a budget transfer in the amount of $167,654 to reallocate available funds.

The fiscal impact is $826,654 (expenditure). The first phase of the project is $617,541, which will be expended in Fiscal Year 2023 and the second phase of the project is $209,113, and will be expended in Fiscal Year 2024. Commission District 4.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Library Services

Recommend approval:

1. Of a contract resulting from Invitation To Bid 23-918 for Construction Services for the Astor Library to GSB Construction and Development, Inc. (Wildwood, FL); and

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

The fiscal impact is estimated at $3,327,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 4.

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. To allow for an increase to the annual expenditures for Contract 20-0522 for sealcoating paving repairs and striping services, on an as-needed basis, with Pro Way Paving System, Inc. (Gibsonton, FL); and

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $500,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Annual expenditures will not exceed available funding in future fiscal year budgets.

Public Works

Recommend approval of the Fiscal Year 2024 Detailed Work Plan Budget for Arthropod Control for the Lake County Mosquito Control Program pursuant to Section 388.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-13.022, Florida Administrative Code.

The fiscal impact is $68,756.25 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Recommend approval of Resolution 2023-74 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a portion of unimproved right of way, lying south of CR 48 and west of Bloomfield Avenue. The closest municipality is Leesburg.

The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 3.

Recommend approval to award the CR 42 Intersection with CR 439 Traffic Signal construction project (Contract No. 23-530) to The New Florida Industrial Electric, Inc. (Lake Mary) for $214,131.79.

The fiscal impact is $214,131.79 (expenditure - 100 percent grant funded by the Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement with FDOT), and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 4.

tab 7: Distributed Wastewater Treatment System msbu

Commr. Blake stated that he was uncomfortable with the County being involved with the utility aspect of this ordinance, opining that there could be a long-term or permanent status established for those addresses.

Commr. Smith commented that he had also expressed concerns at a prior BCC meeting; however, the current item was only to approve to have it advertised.

Commr. Campione remarked that she would like to have an update of the change to the State of Florida laws regarding septic tank requirements, opining that residents would eventually have to use these advanced systems. She opined that the County was providing a service by giving residents a lower cost system that would require less maintenance, and that an update on what the law was currently requiring could be very helpful. She also opined that the County was being forced into a position of giving residents an option.

Commr. Smith explained that his issue with this item did not come from whether or not this was a good system, but whether or not the County should be in the utility business.

Commr. Parks noted that the County was providing a long-term option, and that because of what was coming from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), most Florida residents would not be on septic tanks within 20 years.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to advertise an Ordinance establishing the Distributed Wastewater Treatment System Municipal Services Benefit Unit.

Commr. Blake voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:43 a.m. for 10 minutes.

presentation on wellness way

Ms. Mary Ellen Stern, Executive Director for the Office of Economic Growth, stated that the purpose of the presentation was to provide an update on the Wellness Way area, which was one of the four strategic corridors in Lake County, and that Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, and Mr. Brian Bulthuis, Clermont City Manager, would be presenting it.

Dr. Levey relayed that he would provide an overview of Wellness Way, and that Mr. Bulthuis would present the City of Clermont’s portion, noting that Mayor Tim Murry, with the City of Clermont, was also in attendance. He explained that in 2019 there was an extensive stakeholder process for this City/County effort, which involved every element of interest in the community, and that both the City of Clermont and the County had adopted the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment for Wellness Way and the design guidelines. He elaborated that the Wellness Way Area Plan (WWAP) had some unique land use categories, and that the design guidelines included the following: a higher quality neighborhood design; a trail system integrated into neighborhoods and employment areas; a clay trail preserved; large regional employment centers; a higher percentage of protected open spaces; parks closer to home; and a regional roadway network being built by developers. He displayed a map of the various sections of the Wellness Way area, and pointed out U.S. Highway 27, Project Olympus, the Cemex Mine, the county line with Orange County, and State Road (SR) 516, which was the Lake/Orange County Connector. He related that there were four roads that provided the roadway network, and noted that they were the only roads in Wellness Way that were eligible for transportation impact fee credits.

Mr. Bulthuis showed a map indicating where the city limits were, and he noted that Wellness Way was 15,000 acres with over 6,000 acres in the City of Clermont. He mentioned that a large portion was owned by Conserv II, which was owned by Orange County and the City of Orlando for their reuse water, noting that it was not going to be developed. He expressed appreciation that the City and the County had joint agreements and matching standards, and said that their goal was to uphold those standards without variances. He relayed that the City had extended their water and sewer lines over three miles from their plant to Wellness Way because nothing could happen until the utilities were there, and noted that the cost of over $18 million was paid with impact fees by the developer. He commented that they had brought water and sewer to the northeast corner of Olympus, which was a 250 acre development area, and that they were waiting for the final construction plans to be approved to bring water and sewer into the development; furthermore, he wanted to bring utilities there to begin commercial development and to start the job creation that had been planned. He displayed a map of the development, and said that Integra and David Weekley Homes were currently developing on the southern end, which received water and sewer from Sunshine Utilities, noting that people could be moving in there by October 2023. He related that the Olympus area also included the following: a medical park, which was 170,000 square feet of medical facilities that had already been sold; a retail and commercial area; a town center; a tennis center; sports hotel; soccer complex; fire station; an Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) multi-sport fieldhouse, which was a 100,000 square foot facility for multiple sports, such as basketball and volleyball; and the ice center. He stated that regarding the road network, the only major east/west roads currently were SR 50 to Florida’s Turnpike, which was at capacity, and Hartwood Marsh Road to SR 429, which had roundabouts and slow speed limits; therefore, they would construct a road called Wellness Way, which would be 14 miles of direct route from U.S. Highway 27 to SR 429, with limited traffic lights and stop signs. He relayed that Schofield Road and the Lake/Orange County Connector were also under construction, and that within the following five years, those three roads would be completed. He expressed appreciation for County staff working on these projects, and opined that they did a great job. He showed a video of the progress on the Wellness Way road, and asked the Board to adjust the impact fees appropriately in south Lake County to provide more funding for these projects. He hoped that Conserv II would approve the next road agreement because Pulte Homes was ready to build the next section of road through that property, which could be built by July 2024. He said that the County and the City had placed all the pieces for development to occur, opining that they would see that development in the following 18 months.

Dr. Levey recalled that when the Wellness Way plan was adopted, there was a specific goal to have the master infrastructure in before the development impacts, and that this was not always possible because master infrastructure and road capacity could lag. He mentioned that the County and the City had adopted policies and standards that required the roads to go in ahead of time, and that there were three projects working their way through the development review system, such as the Schofield PUD, the Trout Lake PUD, and the Hickory Groves PUD. He stated that he would discuss five critical issues that were occuring in Wellness Way, including the following: SR 516 or the Lake/Orange County Connector; irrigation and water supply; unincorporated utility services; wildlife corridors; and schools. He related that regarding the Lake/Orange County Connector, the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) had finalized the authority to make written offers for right of way, and that they were going to start on the east side in Orange County at the interconnect with SR 429, which would take the longest, and move west, noting that they anticipated advertising for construction near the end of 2023 and completing the project in 2025 or 2026. He opined that this road would have a great impact on changing traffic movement and creating economic activity and opportunity because of the Olympus development and other anticipated job centers. He relayed that one issue was an insufficient reclaimed water supply to serve the development in this area, and that the interim solution was for the developers to seek permits from St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to use either historic agriculture wells or new wells, which was a short-term solution, opining that long-term permits for groundwater for irrigation was not in the best interest of managing water supply in the region. He remarked that some long-term solutions included the following: cooperating with Conserv II; reusing stormwater from the stormwater ponds associated with the expressway; and creating new landscape designs to significantly reduce irrigation demand. He mentioned that Sunshine Utilities was a private utility provider outside of the City of Clermont that provided water and sewer along U.S. Highway 27, and that the City of Clermont had extended their services down to their utilities service area; additionally, areas adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 could all be served by Sunshine Utilities from their existing plant capacity. He commented that near the SR 516 and County Road (CR) 455 interchange in unincorporated Lake County, there were no water and sewer utilities in place, and that they had tried to persuade landowners to dedicate some land for utility plants for Sunshine Utilities without success, opining that this could cause a delay in development and job creation. He stated that regarding the wildlife corridor, the County plan and design guidelines required the protection of a major wildlife corridor in the Wellness Way area, and that the obligation was on the developers to provide for the corridor through the entitlement process and rezoning. He remarked that the County had the ability to ensure that those standards were met, and that there were stakeholders and landowners working to identify workable solutions. He relayed that an elementary school and a high school had been proposed, and that there were two school sites under negotiation with landowners by the Lake County School Board.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for the presentation by Dr. Levey and the City of Clermont.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for Dr. Levey and the City of Clermont for their leadership along with the County staff, and said that local government leadership and landowners with property rights had been working together for over 10 years for this. He opined that if this had not been done, there would have been piecemeal growth, such as housing developments, that would have to be paid for by the residents of Lake County. He pointed out that the developers were paying for the capital part upfront, and that the municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) had been put in place along with the use of the municipal service benefit unit (MSBU) to ensure that taxpayers in north Lake County were not paying for the resurfacing of these roads in 25 years. He opined that the SR 516 and County Road CR 455 interchange would be one of the most beneficial interchanges to Lake County economically, and that it was unacceptable that it would have to open in two to three years without water and sewer services. He opined that the County could find a way to work with the City of Clermont and Sunshine Utilities to implement a plan to make those utilities available. He mentioned that regarding the alternative water supply, potable water sources could not be used for the irrigation of landscaping plants, and that even though there was a temporary solution through the SJRWMD for a five year permit for an irrigation well, there would eventually have to be another alternative water supply. He opined that there would have to be good leadership for the following couple of years to address these issues, and that if it all worked out, in 20 years Lake County would be able to say that this was a good move.

Commr. Shields commented that regarding the sports projects proposed for Olympus, he met with Mr. Ryan Ritchie, Director for the Office of Visit Lake, and Mr. Bulthuis to plan how to market it, and that they offered the developer their assistance for tourism success.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the update and all those who had worked very hard at this by attending meetings and keeping focused on the ultimate vision. She expressed concern that the water for irrigation would not come from Conserve II with their capabilities, and opined that the alternatives should be looked at because of the key job center being proposed there.

Commr. Blake inquired what the width of the wildlife corridor would be.

Dr. Levey replied that the technical stakeholder group was dealing with this issue, and that they had started with a 500 foot wide corridor. He relayed that areas to the south of the Wellness Way area were in a conservation subdivision district which required 50 percent open space, and that they were not worried about the majority of the south end; however, after it crossed U.S. Highway 27, there were other developments. He remarked that they had included experts from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) who were doing wildlife corridors around the state, including road crossings, and that some additional science had been entered into the discussion. He stated that there was discussion of a 300 foot range, and that there had been input from FDOT, Florida State Parks, and FDEP. He mentioned that the wildlife corridors required maintenance, such as specialized fencing and vegetation management, and that they were exploring methods to fund this, including the MSTU, making the landowners in the Wellness Way area responsible for maintaining it. He commented that they had not determined the final points, and that they would be negotiating with the landowners on the County’s behalf to bring forward a PUD with the right kinds of conditions in it.

Supervisor of Elections lease of the sears buidling

Ms. Barker recalled that in February 2022, the County purchased 13 acres on Lane Park Road to construct a new Supervisor of Elections facility; however, the estimated cost of construction, which was now $25 million, made it prohibitive. She stated that on September 2022, the County approved a lease agreement with the Lake Square Mall for the former Sears building, containing 68,450 square feet to be used for the Supervisor of Elections’ entire operation; additionally, the Board approved the use of an architect and construction manager for design and construction of the required renovations at the Sears facility, which had been approved for a budget of $3.5 million. She explained that the lease provided for the following: a monthly lease rate of about $44,000, which was about $7.70 per square foot; an annual lease rate of about $527.000; a reprieve from making any lease payments until June 1, 2023 while contemplating renovation; an initial lease term of 10 years with two five-year renewals; a three percent annual rent increase; the County’s right to terminate after the first five years with six months written notice and no penalty; and the landlord’s right terminate with 12 months’ notice and reimbursement to the County for any unamortized value of improvements, not to exceed $4 million. She elaborated that in the first part of 2023, the County was notified that the facility contained asbestos, which required remediation, and that it was estimated that the project would cost approximately $8.3 million, which substantially exceeded the original budget approved by the Board of $3.5 million. She related that after discussions with the Supervisor of Elections and the Chairman, staff was directed to explore other options, and that on June 13, 2023, staff presented seven options to the Board for consideration, noting that the Board directed staff to bring back more information on three of the options. She stated that one option included utilizing the former Sears building for an estimated cost of $4.2 million in renovations for other County purposes, including the following: warehouse needs of the Supervisor of Elections; warehouse needs for the County for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) logistics; and any Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) purposes. She remarked that the Board would need to terminate the contracts with the architect and the construction manager, and that the work would be performed by the County’s on-call design and construction contractors and be an in-house project. She said that another option was to purchase the existing Supervisor of Elections facility in the City of Tavares, which contained 25,000 square feet divided into two areas, including about 18,800 square feet for the Supervisor of Elections and about 6,000 square feet leased to the SouthState Bank, which was effective November 1, 2007 through 2027; however, SouthState Bank had an additional five year renewal through 2032. She relayed that if the County purchased the existing facility, there was a $4 million purchase price, and that the Supervisor of Elections had requested the additional renovation of the entire 24,000 square feet, which would be approximately $6.7 million. She elaborated that the warehouse space would be turned into office space, and that the current office space would be renovated to meet the request, noting that the leased space could be renovated at a later date. She commented that the work could be performed by the County’s on-call design and construction contractors and be an in-house project, and that the total cost would be about $10.7 million. She remarked that the County had reviewed the existing facility for any maintenance or renovation needs, and that the roof inspection showed minimal work needed for about $9,000 for cleaning and re-coping joints; furthermore, the initial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) review showed that all of the units were in good shape. She stated that the other option was to move forward with construction of a new facility on the Lane Park Road 13 acre property purchased in 2022, which was previously estimated to cost about $24 million and would currently cost about $26 million. She commented that the needs study the Supervisor of Elections had conducted earlier projected approximately 48,000 square feet of space would be needed through 2042, and that the current design professional and construction manager contracts could be utilized. She summarized that the options included the following: utilizing the Sears building for other County purposes, which would require terminating the architectural and construction manager contracts; purchasing the existing Supervisor of Elections leased facility in the City of Tavares; combining those two options for office and warehouse space; and moving forward with development and construction of the Lane Park Road location, noting that the Supervisor of Elections had found an opportunity for a public/private partnership to provide funding for this option.

Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, stated that with growth in Lake County, they had added a net of more than 60,000 new voter registrations in the prior few years, and that they currently had over 283,500 voters in Lake County. He commented that voter list maintenance activities were ongoing, and that they had deleted over 50,000 registrations that were no longer on their active rolls, opining that growth was not slowing. He pointed out that the County was making monthly payments of almost $44,000 on a building that could not be used now or in the near future, opining that this was a result of incomplete information. He recalled that a request for proposal (RFP) was issued in November 2021 for a 50,000 square foot building with a budget of about $9 million for the whole project not including cost for the 13 acres of land as it was already owned by the County, and opined that this number was too low, noting that the architects and construction management firms he interviewed stated that it would take considerably more than that amount. He opined that the Board did not have a full understanding of their true need, as none of the BCC had served as a Canvassing Board member. He noted that former County Commissioners had served in this capacity, and that they had seen firsthand the crowded conditions during election season. He expressed concern about the crowded lobby and the conditions of staff, and stated that recent legislative changes had caused a need for more room to accommodate the reasonable access dictated by the new legislation. He mentioned that the architects were instructed to do a needs assessment, which indicated that they needed a building of about 48,400 square feet, and that the estimated cost was $13.3 million for the building with additional costs for site work, furniture, fixtures, and fees. He opined that the budget of $3.5 million to renovate the Sears building was unrealistic, and noted that including asbestos abatement and nonfunctioning HVAC units, it would cost about $8.3 million. He mentioned there was also the cost for the 10 year lease, which would cost about $6.2 million, making a total of $14.5 million spent on property not even owned by the County, and opined that this amount could contribute more than half of the total cost to develop the Lake Park Road property. He remarked that the prices submitted by building professionals, which were estimates, were not the same as the guaranteed maximum price (GMP), which a construction management firm promised not to exceed; otherwise, they would bear the entire cost of the overrun. He elaborated that any savings were split between the BCC and the construction management firm, and that currently they had not reached that point in the design, opining that it would have been helpful to let the bids come in and then get the GMP. He opined that the numbers given in the presentation for the proposed purchase of the current facility had not been realistic, and that the $10.7 million to purchase and renovate the entire building was not correct. He explained that there were several areas that needed to be reconfigured and remodeled, and that the HVAC system would have to be balanced; additionally, the cost of the Sears lease and renovation would need to be added for a multi-agency warehouse for a total of $21.1 million. He expressed concerns about the security of the elections equipment and the lack of restrooms in the Sears building, and opined that there would be increased costs associated with having their operations split between two places because of the time spent driving between the two locations, imposing unwanted inefficiencies. He relayed that the Florida Association of Counties website offered the Florida Local Government Finance Program, which was a financing program through JPMorgan Chase Bank, and that the six month average rate was 3.05 percent as well as specific charges resulting in a six month average all-in rate at 4.2 percent. He also mentioned that on the previous day, he, Ms. Barker, and Ms. Marsh had met with a company that specialized in public/private partnerships called P3, and that this company would lease the property for $1, build the entire project, and finance the entire project. He said that they would then lease the building to the County for 30 years, and that after 30 years they would sell the building back to the County for $1. He opined that the best deal financially was to build the whole building on the Lane Park Road property, and that the most efficient way for their office to conduct business was to have their entire operation located in one place. He also opined that the taxpayers of Lake County deserved to have complete confidence in the security and efficiency of the elections process, and requested that the Board would approve to build a new facility on the Lake Park Road property. He pointed out that there were two financing options available, and opined that the County should explore the details of each option and start building quickly. He relayed that Song & Associates had dealt with P3 before and could complete the architectural work, and that the engineering could proceed, opining that there could be a ribbon cutting event in 2025. He commented that there was a representative from Charles Perry Partners, Inc. (CPPI) in attendance for more information, noting that they had already missed the 2024 election deadline. He related that to meet their needs in the current year, they needed an additional 5,000 square feet of climate controlled, secure warehouse space and to sublease the unused office space currently leased by SouthState Bank.

Commr. Smith commented that this was the first time he had heard about this public/private partnership, and opined that the program was worth exploring.

Commr. Blake questioned what the cost would be over 30 years and what the annual amount would be.

Senator Hays replied that it would depend on the construction costs.

Commr. Blake asked if the lease payments would be payable out of the Infrastructure Sales Tax because it was a lease to own.

Ms. Marsh answered that this was a question raised with P3 on the previous day, and she relayed her understanding that the County could not use Infrastructure Sales Tax for a lease; however, she was working with them and would see what they could offer.

Ms. Barker remarked that the Infrastructure Sales Tax would sunset in less than 10 years, and even if it was renewed by the voters, the County could not use new sales tax authorization to fund old liabilities, noting that this would be considered a liability.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Jochim expressed concerns about the constant surprises and about election integrity, opining that the Supervisor of Elections did not give answers to many of the questions asked by local residents. He indicated concern about the credibility of the Supervisor of Elections’ information, and said that he would prefer that the County staff would review that information. He mentioned that there had been no bid process, and opined that there should be a competitive bid.

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

Commr. Smith commented that there was another option now available, and that he wanted a better understanding before making a decision.

Commr. Blake said that he agreed, and opined that this option should be reviewed. He explained that he and possibly others on the BCC had been endorsed in a primary election, which disqualified one from serving on the Canvassing Board.

Commr. Smith opined that one of the reasons why this process had taken so long was because at each BCC meeting, they were given a different option, and that in order to do due diligence for the citizens of Lake County, it would have to be explored.

Commr. Blake inquired how long it would take to obtain that information.

Ms. Barker replied that they had the meeting the previous day, and did not have a timeframe at this point.

Commr. Smith requested that these options not be rushed, ensuring all the information was correct.

Senator Hays asked if the Board would include in their motion the Florida Association of Counties’ program as well as the public/private partnership option, comparing the two to determine which one was best for the voters of Lake County.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to obtain more information on a public/private partnership option and the option of the Florida Local Government Finance Program from the Florida Association of Counties.

public hearing: resolution 2023-75 vacate platted easements

Commr. Campione thought that the vacation petitions could be moved to earlier in the BCC meeting, as they did not tend to be controversial. She noted that some people may have to take time off of work to attend, and that there were people in attendance who had been waiting a long time.

Mr. Barker indicated that they could do that.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, relayed that the applicants for the vacation petition were Mr. Steven Gregoire and Ms. Erica Gregoire, and that the area for the proposed vacation of public easements was on Royal Trails Road in the City of Eustis area in District 4. He displayed a map showing the property, and explained that the proposed vacation was a platted utility and drainage easement, noting that the property owners would like to unify the properties into one parcel and build a structure over that area. He related that they had received a release from SECO for the utility area, and that they had no other issues or concerns; therefore, staff recommended approval of the 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.

Commr. Smith thought that vacation petitions could be placed on the planning and zoning meeting agenda and heard at the first BCC meetings of the month.

Ms. Barker commented that they had previously been on the agenda for those BCC meetings; however, the Board had requested to move them to the regular agenda. She said that they could move them back.

Ms. Marsh explained that they were pulled from the planning and zoning meeting agenda because there was a planning and zoning agenda and a regular agenda, and that it had been confusing which tab was on which agenda; furthermore, they were not zoning related. She stated that they could be moved to the planning and zoning meetings; however, they would have to be distinguished between the two separate agendas.

Commr. Smith questioned if they could be done earlier in the BCC meeting.

Ms. Barker remarked that they would ensure that it was moved up to the beginning of the regular agenda, so that people would not be waiting a long time.

Commr. Campione opined that there were some cases that would be better to move up on the agenda rather than only hearing them once a month at a planning and zoning meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-75 to vacate platted drainage and utility easements in the plat of Royal Trails, Unit No. 1, located North of SR 44 and East of Royal Trails Road.

public hearing: ordinance 2023-40 homeless mitigation advisory council

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 11-38, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED HOMELESS MITIGATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, AMENDING THE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS OF OFFICE; CORRECTING A SCRIVENOR’S ERROR; 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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-40 amending Section 11-38, Lake County Code, entitled Homeless Mitigation Advisory Council.

regular agenda

second amendment to the City of mount dora-lake county jpa

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County had 12 months to work towards a revised joint planning agreement (JPA) with City of Mount Dora, and that this amendment would be an interim JPA until then.

Ms. Marsh explained that the Board terminated the JPA with the required six months’ notice in October 2022, becoming effective in April 2023, and that the amendment would be retroactive back to April 2023, noting that it would then be status quo. She related that within 12 months, the County could do a new JPA as part of the countywide planning initiative.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had been in contact with the Mount Dora City Council, and suggested that the County seek to have a joint session with the City facilitated by Dr. Levey, opining that he would be the best person to facilitate in light of his knowledge of the Wolf Branch Innovation District (WBID) as well as his understanding of the JPA issues in Lake County. She opined that the County needed to meet with the City and discuss the facts and the land uses, and that until the misinformation was addressed, it would be difficult to reach an agreement. She also opined that it would be good to have the same regulations in both the City and the County, and noted that there was already zoning in place in the unincorporated areas that the City was annexing and assigning new land uses and zonings, making it difficult to adopt the same rules. She suggested that the WBID standards be reviewed and updated based on market trends and what the market could actually absorb, and opined that as an example, the ratio for office space would be different currently than it was 20 years ago. She opined that there were some great opportunities in the WBID for attracting high wage jobs in Lake County, and that it should include recognition of the rights that were already out there and a blending of what the City, the County, and the landowners wanted. She mentioned that that there was currently one landowner who had acquired much of the property, and opined that there was a tremendous opportunity there to bring their ideas to the table of what they thought would work to ensure that this could be done in a successful way.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the JPA had been terminated because of some legal language within the document.

Commr. Campione commented that it had started with issues regarding utilities, and that the County was being asked to not process applications, which could not be done. She opined that the utility issue could be used to take rights away and to compel the County to defer to the City’s standards so that the landowners could obtain utilities. She relayed that the County did not give up the right to amend the Comp Plan and zoning regulations, which was clearly stated in the JPA.

Commr. Smith inquired if the old language was still in there.

Ms. Marsh related that the old language was out per the amendment, and that everything about utilities and the County denying applications was removed from the JPA.

Commr. Campione remarked that it would now say that the County would share applications with the City and receive comments and input, and that the County would work with the developer to try to implement what the City was requesting, blending their regulations with the County regulations. She added that there had been two minor revisions to the boundaries because the JPA boundary would split two of the landowners’ properties in half; therefore, they included those parcels in the JPA boundaries. She opined that with a facilitator who was an objective party to help work through some of these issues, some progress could be made, and that even though the County was doing joint planning already, it was time to hone in on some details on this JPA.

Commr. Parks opined that having dialogue and working with the City of Mount Dora was key, and that the goal of the JPA was to encourage the City, County, and developer to work together.

Commr. Campione agreed, and opined that as the terminus for the Wekiva Parkway, the WBID was in a location that was perfect for job creation, employment center uses, and a mixed use community. She also opined that this should be done in a way that was high quality to attract quality jobs by working together.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Second Amendment to the City of Mount Dora-Lake County Joint Planning Agreement.

Update on Elder Affairs Committee

Commr. Smith stated that Ms. Dara Treadwell was the Chairperson for the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, and expressed appreciation for her hard work and volunteer service to the senior community.

Ms. Treadwell relayed that she would present the current status of the senior services in Lake County, and that she would review the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacts through the current day as well as present possibilities for the future with the help of the County. She explained that in 2020 when COVID-19 occurred, she took online classes specializing in gerontology and focusing on senior citizens in Lake County and discovered that the isolation of seniors during COVID-19 resulted in loneliness, which led to an increase in suicides. She elaborated that it was very difficult for seniors to become active after being inactive because their bodies were already breaking down, making it difficult to get up and go somewhere, and that there was an increase in death, not just from COVID-19, but from loneliness and suicide. She stated that currently seniors were outpacing youth in population growth, and that by 2030, the last baby-boomers would be 65 nationally; additionally, by 2034, seniors would outnumber those under the age of 18 by 18 percent. She related that in the 2021 census for Lake County, one third of the total population consisted of senior citizens, and opined that more retirees coming to Lake County from the north were more affluent, noting that the people in this age bracket were poll voters and taxpayers. She quoted the World Health Organization (WHO) saying, “A society is measured for how it cares for its elderly,” and remarked that the attempt had been made to establish senior centers in various cities. She relayed that she had often been involved in senior centers for exercise classes while living in the City of Longwood, and that after moving to Lake County in 2008, she discovered that there was no senior center in the City of Tavares. She explained that according to the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, a senior center was defined as “a community facility focused on providing a broad spectrum of services suited to the diverse needs and interests of independent older persons.” She elaborated that in the 67 counties of the State of Florida, there were about 250 dedicated senior centers with over 380,000 attendees annually attending, and noted that according to the National Council on Aging, “participants have been proven to have higher levels of health, social interaction, and life satisfaction compared to their peers.” She said that 75 percent of those attendees visited at least one to three times per week, and that to be called a senior center, it must focus on five main categories, including the following: the physical and mental health of the human being; social interaction; nutritional stability; education; and recreation. She relayed that she had asked the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council to update a book they published in 2020 listing all the services available for seniors in Lake County to see if they were still active and viable, and that out of the nine listed in 2020, there were six that were still somewhat viable, but only four were really active. She commented that Mid Florida Community Services would oversee these senior centers because they provided food, and that formerly they provided hot meals. She recalled that in 2011, there was no place in Tavares for a meal site; therefore, she organized meals through her church with the help of the manager from the Lake Mary Senior Center, and that in 2014, they were serving a hot meal twice a week to 60 people who were being bussed in by their assisted living facilities and the Lake County Connection. She commented that it was currently operational; however, they had reduced attendance because the bus was no longer running, and the meals were not as good as they used to be. She related that in the City of Mount Dora, Ms. Gina Conway ran a senior center which was open twice a month for the past seven years and obtained food from Lake Cares Food Pantry, and that this past year, the City gave her $5,000 for food, which had been her only assistance. She stated that the Lake County Connection bus service had stopped, and that there was a desperate need for volunteers, opining that this may be because they did not advertise for volunteers. She displayed a list of senior centers and said that the Cities of Mount Dora and Tavares had senior services as a line item for their recreation departments; however, she opined that those managers were not in tune with what was going on with seniors. She related that she had a walking program one day a week that was supported by the City to help people go for a walk, which was very successful and was growing, and that the City provided coffee and puzzles for their break. She opined that despite this effort, they did not understand what the needs of seniors were, and that seniors were the last people considered instead of the first, which were usually youth groups and sports programs. She opined that there needed to be some interest towards seniors, and that there needed to be a line item for seniors as well as a senior advisor in Cities that have senior centers. She stated that the Lake County Connection bus could be reestablished and volunteerism could be promoted, and that she could find out about grants and call the director of Mid Florida Community Services to find out what was happening in the county. She relayed that there were two churches in the Cities of Clermont and Tavares that were operating; however, they could only operate two days a week. She opined that there could eventually be a five-day per week program if they could get the programs going first and then expand them, and that they should be under the operation of the City. She stated that she was bringing this before the Board because as the County planned for the YMCA project, there could be a dedicated senior center there focused on seniors that could qualify for grant funding, noting that she could then start a meal program there. She mentioned that they would have their second annual Lake County Senior Expo in October 2023, and that their first one in October 2022 had been highly successful with over 40 vendors, opining that many were surprised that there was something focused just on seniors. She remarked that she had hoped to have Ms. Casey DeSantis, wife of Governor Ron DeSantis, come to speak there because she recognized the need for volunteerism and the disconnect between what was happening in public and what was happening in real life, and that she had started the Hope Florida initiative to encourage senior citizens to volunteer to help other seniors. She relayed that even though Ms. DeSantis would not be able to come speak for security reasons, Hope Florida would have a booth at the expo where they could talk to seniors coming in about becoming volunteers, opining that this was a way to find out where the needs were in the community. She wondered how in touch people were with seniors in the community who were in need, and noted that she received calls daily because she was in touch with people; furthermore, she opined that this promotion would help seniors and others become more in touch with what was happening in their communities. She related that the senior center in the City of Umatilla had closed due to COVID-19 and had not reopened, and expressed her concerns about how to start these programs again.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the presentation and for Ms. Treadwell’s involvement, and thought that they could reach out to churches and the Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER) group, who had contacts with local churches, to help create a network.

Ms. Treadwell commented that she had started a food pantry at a congregational church, and that in the previous week 95 bags of food went out to the community, leaving nothing. She relayed her understanding that Lake Cares was also affected, and opined that it was because more people were hungry and were going to the food pantries and thrift stores. She thought that she could possibly obtain volunteers from LASER.

Commr. Campione relayed that LASER could also send out information on their behalf and connect them to others who would want to be involved.

other business

appointment to the library advisory board

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Helen Cutshaw as the primary member to the Library Advisory Board, representing the City of Mount Dora.

appointment to the public safety coordinating council

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Gabriel Lozano, Division Supervisor, State Attorney's Office, Fifth Judicial Circuit, to the Public Safety Coordinating Council as the alternate member for State Attorney Mr. William M. Gladson, and request approval of the conflict waiver for Mr. Lozano.

appointments to the parks, recreation and trails advisory board

Commr. Blake asked for the District 5 appointment be tabled until he had gone through the applications and made a recommendation.

Commr. Campione requested for the County to review this board’s composition and the ordinance in place because of the relationship the County now had with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), which was represented on this board.

Ms. Marsh stated that she had been asked to adjust the membership to be just five District representatives without the other categories, and that it could come before the BCC in July or August 2023; however, the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board needed the appointments so it could continue meeting until it was restructured.

Commr. Parks inquired how many board members there were currently.

Commr. Campione relayed that there were five from the Commission Districts, one at large member, a LCWA staff member, a Lake County School Board member, and one more, totaling nine members.

Commr. Parks opined that it would be fine with seven members.

Commr. Campione thought that it would make to sense to have a trails advocate on the board; however, one of the District representatives could be selected because of that qualification.

Ms. Marsh related that the current draft would have five members; however, it would be coming before the Board for approval to advertise, which would give the Board time to think about it; furthermore, if the Board wanted to add members at that time, then she could do that.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board: Mr. Juan Carlos Mahfouz for District 1; Mr. Eric Jacob White (seeking reappointment) for District 2; Mr. David Clutts (seeking reappointment) for District 3; Mr. Michael Matulia and waiver (seeking reappointment) for District 4; and Mr. Tyler Brandeburg for the Lake County School Board Liaison. Also, included are waivers for Mr. Brandeburg's seat on the School Board as well as a waiver for his employer. The District 5 appointment was tabled.

reports

county attorney

Attorney General opinion

Ms. Marsh stated that she had received a response from the Attorney General regarding an opinion on the impact fee language of extraordinary circumstances and if it could be phased over a four year timeframe. She remarked that the Attorney General had respectfully declined to issue an opinion on that question, indicating that it was a mixed question of law and fact. She commented that if the Board were to adopt the ordinance and make a finding that there was an extraordinary situation, they could then request an opinion on whether or not it could be phased over four years, and she relayed her understanding that the Attorney General could not render an opinion until the Board made a finding that there were extraordinary circumstances.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that that there were different impact fees for parks and trails, library, transportation, and fire rescue, and questioned if they could be voted on individually. He opined that the only impact fee that met extraordinary circumstances was for transportation, and he asked if the Board could vote on the transportation impact fee under extraordinary circumstances and the others for a 50 percent increase.

Ms. Marsh explained that they were separated into the following three ordinances: transportation impact fee; parks and trails; and fire rescue and library impact fees in the same ordinance. She said that she could separate fire rescue and library impact fees into separate ordinances or leave them together; additionally, the Board could determine that the transportation impact fee was an extraordinary circumstance and have it implemented at a different rate or time.

Commr. Shields relayed his understanding that the five different districts could be voted on separately.

Ms. Marsh added that for the transportation impact fee, the Board could approve different percentages for each district.

Mr. Barker remarked that the parks and trails impact fee had three districts, the libraries had a countywide millage, including unincorporated areas, and fire rescue was for unincorporated areas only; however, it was only one district.

Commr. Smith commented that he would like fire rescue separated from the library impact fees, and noted that he did not like one of the items that was included on the fire rescue impact fees.

Ms. Marsh stated that she would separate the fire rescue and library impact fees, making a total of four ordinances, and she asked when the Board would like those brought back. She mentioned that it would be brought back for a public hearing, and that it would not make an October 1, 2023 implementation day. She thought that the best option would be a January 1, 2024 date; however, any date after November 1, 2023 would be fine.

Commr. Smith indicated that this was fine, noting that they had been waiting on the opinion from the Attorney General, which they had; therefore, he opined that the Board should move forward.

Ms. Marsh related that it could be brought back at the July 25, 2023 BCC meeting.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the first BCC meeting in August 2023 would allow the County to meet the January 1, 2024 date.

Commr. Blake opined that regarding the response, the County would have to potentially break the law to find out what the law meant.

Commr. Parks mentioned that it would have to be justified, and opined that the County had done that.

Ms. Barker explained that it would have to be declared an extraordinary expense first, and then ask whether or not it could be increased incrementally.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that as a legislative body, the Board would be making a determination of fact, and that once that determination of fact was made then they could strictly look at the question of law, which was whether or not this law would allow the County to apply it in increments over a four year period a opposed to applying it all at once.

county manager

Independence Day

Ms. Barker commented that the County offices would be closed on the following Tuesday in observance of Independence Day, and she wished everyone a safe holiday.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting

Commr. Shields mentioned that he had attended a Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting.

Lake Technical College groundbreaking ceremony

Commr. Shields relayed that he had attended the Lake Technical College (Lake Tech) groundbreaking ceremony.

Gem of the Hills Community Service Award

Commr. Shields remarked that Ms. Evelisse Bookhout, with Hands of Hope America, received the Gem of the Hills Community Service Award at the South Lake Chamber of Commerce for her service to the residents of the Four Corners area.

new Lake-Sumter State College location

Commr. Shields related that also in the Four Corners area, Lake-Sumter State College (LSSC) had received space at the Town Center at Cagan Crossings for a new location until the second floor of the Cagan Crossings Community Library was completed, and said that he had attended a kickoff event for that.

commissioner parks – district 2

pride in america month

Commr. Parks wished everyone a happy Independence Day, and mentioned that July 2023 would be Pride in America Month, noting that he appreciated the support for that proclamation which had been approved in the current BCC meeting. He also relayed that the Lake County Historical Society was planning many events throughout the month of July 2023, such as historical lectures, and that one could celebrate this great country through the entire month of July while learning more in the process.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

National Sunglasses Day

Commr. Smith said that it was National Sunglasses Day.

fourth of july

Commr. Smith wished everyone a safe and happy Fourth of July.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:51p.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK