A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
August 29, 2023
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that it was being streamed on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom.
Pastor Michael Watkins, with Friendship CME Church in the City of Tavares, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
hurricane idalia update
Ms. Megan Milanese, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, provided an update on Hurricane Idalia. She indicated that Tropical Storm Idalia became a hurricane overnight as it continued to strengthen and move into the southeastern Gulf of Mexico, and that it was currently expected to bring strong tropical storm force winds, up to three to five inches of rain, and possible isolated tornados to Lake County early in the following morning and through the following day. She mentioned that a tropical storm warning was still in effect for Lake County, and that the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was currently at a level one activation; furthermore, they were conducting 24 hour operations in response to the storm. She added that they were actively working with their partners across the County to conduct protective actions for residents, and that sandbag operations were continuing on the current day through 5:00 p.m. at seven locations across the county, noting that the locations were available on the County website, as well as Lake County social media posts. She commented that the Citizens Information Line (CIL) was open to calls from residents through the night, and that residents could call 352-253-9999 if they had questions or needed information throughout the storm response. She relayed that two shelters were going to be open on the current day by 3:00 p.m. at The Villages Elementary School and Lost Lake Elementary School, noting that both shelters accommodated the general population, persons of special needs, and pets. She said that they would continue to closely monitor the track and that they expected impacts from Hurricane Idalia as they moved into the impact phase of the event; additionally, residents should finish preparations on the current day as the impact phase of the event was expected late into the night. She stated that residents should continue to monitor forecasts, as small shifts in the track could have significant impacts, and that residents who wanted to receive up to date information could visit lakecountyfl.gov/storm, or call the CIL.
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, requested to pull Tab 36, noting that it may be brought back at a later time. She added that for Tab 38, a signed letter of commitment from Clermont Ridge was added to the agenda.
employee awards
Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County, as follows:
FIVE YEARS
James
Ellerby, Code Enforcement Officer
Office of
Code Enforcement
Anita Ellis,
Office Manager
Office of
Parks & Water Resources
Blake
Friedman, Firefighter/Paramedic
Office of
Fire Rescue
Michael
Gray, Equipment Operator III
Public Works
Department
Ryan
Lavrusky, Firefighter/Paramedic
Office of
Fire Rescue
Lori Platt,
Office Associate III
Document
Services
Chris
Sievert, Deputy Chief Administration
Office of
Fire Rescue
Rachel
Smoyak, Regional Branch Manager
Office of
Library Services
Hunter
Stagg, Firefighter/Paramedic
Office of
Fire Rescue
George
Taylor, Director
Office of
Library Services
Thomas
Rivera, Senior Building Inspector
Office of
Building Services
TEN YEARS
Cole
Scharlau, Fairgrounds & Events Program Mgr.
Fairgrounds
& Events
Christine
Stewart, Probation Officer
Office of
County Probation
FIFTEEN
YEARS
Sandra Lara,
Senior Paralegal
County
Attorney's Office
TWENTY YEARS
Deborah Marchese, Construction Program Supervisor
Public Works Department
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
Dianna Magrum, Document Services Associate
Document Services
Danny McCullough, Network Technician
Information Technology Department
arpa update
Mr. Sean Beaudet, Grants Coordinator for the Office of Management and Budget, presented an update on the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. He said that there had been some new requests since the July 25, 2023 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, and he relayed that the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, or ARPA funds, had the following overriding eligible uses: public health and negative economic impacts; premium pay; water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure; and to replace lost public sector revenue. He showed the annual revenue loss calculation total, which came to approximately $16.4 million, noting that they had one period remaining which would be calculated in the following July. He explained that this essentially meant that $44.5 million of the $71 million reward was the current capacity, or maximum amount of funding that could be allocated to projects under the revenue loss category. He stated that while many projects were complete or underway, this allowed for additional flexibility with any remaining funds, and would help with some of the new requests. He then said that the bear proof trash cans project did not receive sponsors or funding during the 2023 legislative session; however, the County had funds remaining from the solid waste collection project line and would dedicate these funds to purchase the cans; furthermore, the total amount available was $378,926. He relayed that recently, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO) awarded two large projects in the county to two internet providers, Charter and Comcast, through the Broadband Opportunity Program (BOP). He elaborated that combined, these awards totaled over $3.8 million and would lay over 400 miles of fiber optic cable with symmetrical upload and download speeds of one gigabyte (GB) in locations throughout the county. He displayed the overlay map included in the Lake County broadband study which was completed earlier in the current year and was presented to the Board, and he then indicated that the first new request was from the Office of Public Safety Support to construct a communication tower at Fire Station 110, south of the City of Clermont. He commented that this was necessary public safety infrastructure for the current and future population growth in the greater South Lake area, and that the total cost was $2.5 million; additionally, this was one of two proposed communication towers, with the other being in the Wellness Way area and included in the current year’s legislative priorities. He indicated that the second new request was for the repair of the Lake County Historic Courthouse columns, noting that a structural inspection was completed in the previous summer on all 16 columns. He explained that the architectural and engineering firm found that many columns needed minor maintenance, that some needed more work, and that one on the west side of the structure needed significant repair, commenting that the request for this project was $1.3 million. He then mentioned that the next request was from the City of Fruitland Park for the installation of a new water main line located between Cooke Street and Spring Lake Road. He said that existing customers in the service area currently experienced low water pressure, diminished water quality, and availability issues, and that a positive spillover effect was the anticipated economic growth in the immediate vicinity of the project; furthermore, the request was between $1.25 million and $1.5 million, and the staff recommendation was to award $1 million. He displayed an image of the proposed water main line, noting that the 16 inch line would connect to existing main lines and lie west in parallel to United States (U.S.) Highway 441/U.S. 27. He also relayed that City personnel had indicated that this project had been planned for over 15 years, though lack of funding had prevented it from moving forward. He said that the final request was the building purchase for the Lake County Supervisor of Elections Office, per the Board’s direction, and that the request was for about $1,473,000. He displayed the most up to date project list with the proposed changes, which included reallocating funding from the emergency notification services, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), broadband, and the new facility for the Medical Examiner’s Office. He relayed that the only new request not shown on the list was for the City of Fruitland Park, as this amount was available and included under the city and town utility lines under infrastructure. He reiterated that bear proof trash cans would be purchased from the remaining solid waste collection funds, and he concluded that the requested action was for approval to reallocate funding within the project list as presented.
Commr. Parks apologized for a statement he had made at the July 25, 2023 BCC meeting, recalling that he had said that the County did not do water projects in South Lake such as what the City of Fruitland Park was proposing; however, this was incorrect. He indicated support for this item, and relayed that he had some concern for water quality and how the County could fund conversion from septic to sewer.
Commr. Shields questioned if the County was doing everything it could for water quality, and he said that he wanted to ensure that they kept their lakes where they needed to be. He added that workforce housing was another issue that the County was trying to address.
Ms. Barker said that the County had an opportunity to apply for some Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) grants to help with septic to sewer or distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS) conversions; additionally, Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Executive Director for Parks and Water Resources, was looking at the same funding source for water quality projects associated with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) and the water resources side of this.
Commr. Smith asked about the County reducing the Medical Examiner’s facility by about $1.5 million.
Ms. Barker explained that they currently did not have any final numbers; however, the County had concerns that they would possibly not be able to spend this funding within the time constraints for ARPA. She thought that it was prudent for them to move forward on a project that they knew was ready at the current time.
Commr. Blake commented that there was some uncertainty, and that at the previous Medical Examiner’s Board meeting they had delayed it because another property was being discussed. He relayed that there was a procurement committee with Marion County staff, and that the Medical Examiner’s Board had requested more information about a parcel in the City of Leesburg.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reallocate funding within the project list as presented.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of June 13, 2023 (Regular Meeting) and June 27, 2023 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Bob Albers, a resident of Astor, displayed pictures of potholes on River View Road, and he relayed concerns for safety and for this item not being addressed. He also indicated concerns for this area not being paved with blacktop, for a ditch being obstructed, and for garbage trucks on the road being unable to turn around.
Commr. Smith indicated that Mr. Albers could discuss this with staff.
Ms. Judith Holt, a resident of Lake County, said that she was a single widow of a 100 percent disabled veteran, and that she was allowed relief from local property taxes while living in the City of Naples. She indicated that she had also been granted relief in Washington County, Arkansas, and that she had applied for single relief in Lake County; however, she was denied exemption. She relayed her understanding that under Section 196.081, Florida Statutes, Florida Counties may grant similar tax relief. She requested that Lake County change its property tax ordinances to be more in line with other Counties in the state.
Commr. Smith relayed that the County could look into this.
Mr. Banks Helfrich, a former Lake County Soil and Water Conservation District Chairperson and current candidate for State House of Representatives District 25, spoke about purpose and mentioned that his purpose was to teach sustainability to anyone who wanted to visit his farm. He explained that once per month he opened up his farm to a farm tour, taste, teach and takeaway, noting that he taught the following principles of sustainability: air; water; food; shelter; community; and government. He said that the next tour was on September 9, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. on Sams Lake Road, noting that everyone was invited.
proclamation 2023-68 orlando cat café
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Orlando Cat Cafe Proclamation 2023-68.
Commr. Parks said that the BCC often did these proclamations for organizations or someone who had a positive impact on the community, noting that animal welfare was a core value in Lake County; furthermore, the Orlando Cat Café had helped them achieve and live up to those values. He then read and presented Proclamation 2023-68 to Ms. Jessica Whitehouse, with the Orlando Cat Café. He also pointed out that the Orlando Cat Café had made donations to the Office of Fire Rescue for life saving apparatus for pets.
Ms. Whitehouse thanked the Board, and she said that they were entering their seventh year of operations. She added that they had a great partnership with American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) Florida and Minch Coffee, and that they were almost up to 2,300 adoptions and about 150,000 guests from all over the world.
Commr. Smith noted that he did a Board Short video on the Orlando Cat Café and that it explained what they did.
proclamation 2023-90 hunger action month
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Hunger Action Month Proclamation 2023-90.
Commr. Smith read and presented Proclamation 2023-90 to Ms. Stephanie Palacios, with Second Harvest Food Bank.
Ms. Palacios thanked the Board for recognizing September as Hunger Action Month in Central Florida. She explained that Second Harvest Food Bank distributed 300,000 meals each day, and that they could not do this without the support of their partner agencies throughout their service area, noting that they had 625 partner agencies including 48 in Lake County. She stated that these were smaller nonprofits who were doing the work of feeding their neighbors who were facing food insecurity each day, and she thanked the Board for supporting Second Harvest Food Bank and local pantries. She asked that everyone share the data about what was happening in their community with regards to hunger, and she said that they helped people when they needed a hand up. She elaborated that with inflation and with many things occurring in the community, individuals were having to make the difficult decision between paying rent and buying groceries, noting that this was where Second Harvest Food Bank and local pantries stepped in to ensure that community members had food on the table. She added that Second Harvest Food Bank was working to expand their school partnerships to ensure that more schools throughout Central Florida had pantries onsite. She encouraged everyone to visit their website at feedhopenow.org, explaining that they had a food finder tool if someone was looking for a food pantry.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, 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 7, 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.
Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report
Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report of June 30, 2023 is hereby provided.
Central Lake Community Development District Resolution 2023-01
Notice is hereby provided of having received Resolution 2023-01 from the Central Lake Community Development District.
City of Fruitland Park Ordinance 2023-008
Notice is hereby provided of having received Boundary Amendment Ordinance 2023-008 from the City of Fruitland Park.
City of Eustis Ordinances
Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 23-12, corresponding Future Land Use Ordinance 23-13, and corresponding Design District Designation Ordinance 23-14 from the City of Eustis.
Town of Lady Lake Items
Notice is hereby provided of having received the following from the Town of Lady Lake: Ordinance 2023-03; Resolution 2023-102; Resolution 2023-103; Resolution 2023-104; Resolution 2023-105; and Resolution 2023-106.
Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Resolutions
Notice is hereby provided of having received Resolution 2023-06 from the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District relating to the annual appropriations and adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024, along with the FY24 Meeting Schedule, Resolution 2023-10.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Blake asked to pull Tab 6 for a separate vote.
Commr. Smith indicated that he would like to pull Tab 7 to the regular agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 26, pulling Tabs 6 and 7 to the regular agenda, as follows:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend approval to extend the 2023 tax roll until completion of the Value Adjustment Board hearings. There is no fiscal impact.
COUNTY MANAGER
Recommend approval of a Sub-Lease Agreement with SouthState Bank, N.A., for commercial lease space for the Supervisor of Elections, located at 1892 East Burleigh Boulevard, in Tavares. The fiscal impact is $1,433.67 per month and $17,204.04 annually. The fiscal impact for Fiscal Year 2023 is $1,433.67 and $17,204.04 for Fiscal Year 2024. Commission District 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Management and Budget
Recommend approval of a Sub-Recipient Agreement between Find, Feed & Restore, Inc. and Lake County for Disbursement of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds.
The fiscal impact is $1,200,000 (revenue/expense - 100 percent grant funded). Commission District 1.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Recommend approval of update to Employment Policies Manual Section 4.6 to match updated Procedure ES – 4.06.01 Workplace Violence.
Recommend approval of a Liability Claim Settlement from a motor vehicle accident on May 26, 2020. The fiscal impact is $237,500 (expenditure).
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Elevate Lake
Recommend approval:
1. To authorize the County Manager to execute payments to:
a) The Kroger Company for the Economic Development Grant Incentive Program in the amount of $119,608.06;
b) The Kroger Company for the Agreement for Waiver of Impact Fees in the amount of $49,105;
c) Ocado for the Economic Development Grant Incentive Program in the amount of $425,482.68; and
2. Of a budget transfer in the amount of $88,158 from Elevate Lake Personal Services to Economic Incentives Aids to Private Organizations.
The fiscal impact is $594,195.74 (expenditure).
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Fire Rescue
Recommend approval:
1. To use Contract 20-0918A with Halff Associates, Inc. (Tavares, FL) to provide civil engineering services at the construction site for new fire station 85 (Montverde); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $94,690 plus reimbursables to be billed at cost (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 2.
Public Safety Support
Recommend approval and execution of the Interlocal Agreement between Lake County, Florida, and Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., for County-wide Public Safety Communications System use. The fiscal impact annually is $144.00 (revenue) and is within the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 3.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Facilities Management
Recommend approval:
1. To utilize Contract 23-417 with Randall Mechanical, Inc. (Apopka, FL) for ECOC Very Early Smoke Detection Apparatus (VESDA) System Repair and Updates at ECOC, 425 W. Alfred Street, Tavares, FL 32778; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $79,988.25 (expenditure) and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 3.
Recommend approval:
1. To add Lake County locations to the State of Florida Contract 83101601-19-1 with Gas South, LLC (Atlanta, GA) for natural gas utility supplies; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated annual fiscal impact is $125,000 (expenditure) and will not exceed available funding in future fiscal year budgets.
Housing and Community Services
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-103 that amends Resolution 2021-43 to delegate authority to the Office of Housing and Community Services Director to accept funding in the amount of $653,511 and execute specified grant documents for the Community Development Grant - Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) Program for the administration of CDBG-CV2 program funding.
The fiscal impact is $653,511 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded) and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget.
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval of Contract 23-743 for unpaved trails ground maintenance and related services to Habitat Restoration and Wildlife Protection, LLC (Eustis, FL), and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $155,000 (expenditure) and will be included in the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget.
Public Works
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance establishing a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) for Internal Subdivision Road Maintenance. The fiscal impact is undeterminable at this time.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-104 to advertise a public hearing to vacate right of way, surplus specific County-owned right of way, and cease maintenance on a portion of Schofield Road. The closest municipality is Clermont. There is no fiscal impact (fees waived per Right of Way Dedication Agreement). Commission District 2.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2023-105 providing for certification of the assessment roll for the Special Assessment for the paving, grading, curbing, and drainage of Firethorn Road in Lake County. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.
Recommend approval of a Developers Agreement with Mattamy Orlando, LLC, and Waterbrooke Homeowners Association, Inc., to allow the Developer to relocate a 1,600 linear foot section of Island Boulevard.
The estimated fiscal impact is $11,200 (revenue). Commission District 2.
Recommend approval to execute a County Deed to David K. Martin to clear title on a portion of vacated right of way within the City of Groveland. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval of Resolution 2023-106 declaring specific County right of way as surplus and donating the property to the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills for municipal purposes; and authorization for the Chairman to execute the corresponding County Deed. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.
Recommend approval:
1. To utilize Contract 21-0940B with Stanley Consultants, Inc, aka Traffic Engineering Data Solutions, Inc. (Debary, FL) to provide a traffic signal design at the US 27 and Wellness Way intersection; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is estimated at $86,195.33 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval:
1. Of a Roadway Improvement and Impact Fee Credit Agreement with Shoppes at Hammock Ridge Crossing, LLC (Developer) to fund the construction of a dual left turn lane on Hammock Ridge Road at US 27. This agreement will authorize the distribution of Transportation Impact Fee Credits from the South Benefit District Fund in the amount of $233,500 ($203,018.55 for the Developer's contribution to the County Transportation Fund for construction and $30,481.45 in design fees paid by the Developer directly to the consultant); and
2. To adopt Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2023-107 in the amount of $203,019 in the County Transportation Trust Fund to recognize and appropriate the Developer’s contribution for construction; and
3. To authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order for the roadway work to Estep Construction, Inc. for $198,056.25; and
4. To authorize the issuance of a Purchase Order for the traffic signal work to Traffic Control Devices, Inc. for $4,962.30.
The fiscal impact is $203,019 (revenue/expense) in the County Transportation Fund and $233,500 (Transportation Impact Fee Credits) in the South Benefit District. Commission District 2.
tab 6: stipulated final judgment for cr 466a road project
Commr. Blake commented that this was an eminent domain settlement, and that he typically pulled these items to vote against them for ethical reasons.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Court Case No. 2022-CA-1182, Lake County v. Adam H. Gamble, et al. (Parcel No.: FP96) for the needed temporary construction, grading, drainage and utility easements for the County Road 466A Road Project.
Commr. Blake voted no.
tAB 7: LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THOMPSON HINE LLP
Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that this item regarded a private individual who was wanting to petition the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to abandon the rail line between the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora. He asked if this individual would run a private train and if they wanted the County to utilize County funds to engage an attorney.
Commr. Campione explained that the request was for the County to have their own attorney to review the possibility of a proposal by which a private company was looking to seek abandonment of the railroad right of way from the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora, along with the City of Mount Dora out to Sorrento. She added that they were considering putting a proposal together to try to have the STB select them to run the railroad as opposed to Florida Central Railroad or CSX, and she clarified that they had approached the County to say that if the County partnered with them, then they would lease the railroad right of way for the County to operate a trail and utilize for drainage and utilities. She commented that this was similar to what the County was hoping to do with CSX and Florida Central Railroad; however, they would not take the County’s offer or entertain it. She said that this item was about trying to explore if there was any viability to this, and then potentially using this attorney to help them coordinate with those two entities, should they be willing to entertain the County’s previous offer. She commented that it was about trying to do fact-finding and making sure that they understood what risk might be involved, noting that if there was an opportunity to be able to operate a trail like the County had hoped to, they were just seeking to get an attorney who would represent them in this regard.
Commr. Smith expressed concerns for the fiscal impact being undetermined and there not being a cap.
Commr. Campione indicated that they could include a cap and that she was in favor of this, and she opined that it was reasonable to hire an attorney in light of the magnitude of this type of project and considering how much the County was going to spend on purchasing the right of way. She said that the scope of what the County wanted them to review was relatively limited, and that it would need to be brought back to the Board if this was to expand to find out whether the Board wanted to continue to pursue it. She added that she was thinking of a cap somewhere in the $7,500 to $10,000 range, and she thought that it could possibly be much less than this.
Commr. Smith recalled that CSX had indicated that they would sell the property to the County; however, they had declined this when the County had the funds.
Commr. Blake indicated his understanding that a private individual wanted to operate a private rail service, and that CSX was unwilling to allow this on their easement.
Commr. Campione explained that the citizen’s position was that they could possibly petition the STB and make the argument that they could operate a railroad there, noting that CSX and Florida Central Railroad were not technically operating a railroad anymore; rather, they were only storing railroad cars. She mentioned that it was their property, but the way railroads worked was that it was up to the STB to decide, noting that railroad right of ways were supposed to be used for that purpose and that when they were not, another entity could request the STB to give them the right to operate it.
Commr. Blake asked why the individual did not hire an attorney and go through that process, and why the County needed to be involved in this.
Commr. Campione clarified that they did have an attorney. She added that their ask to the County was that if they had the railroad designated for their purposes, then would the County want to operate a trail and utilize the railroad right of way for utilities and drainage as the County had intended to do with ARPA funding. She elaborated that the current item was in regards to making the determination of whether the County would want to be part of the petition made to the STB if this was the only way that they could have a trail on that railroad of right of way.
Commr. Blake inquired if the County would lease part of the land from the next operator once they had petitioned the government to force the existing operator to give up the property. He said that he was not comfortable being involved in this from the County taxpayer point of view because he opined that it was CSX and Florida Central Railroad’s decision for how they wanted to use it. He opined that the Board could discuss this if the government took this from CSX and gave it to the individual.
Commr. Campione indicated her understanding that this was how the STB regulated the use of railroad right of way, and that this was a process that operators could go through. She added that if it were to happen, it would be something like a 99 year lease, and she questioned why the County would not explore this and see whether the opportunity to have a trail was a possibility. She clarified that the request for the attorney was to give the County advice and to explore this to see whether it was viable or advisable.
Commr. Blake opined that it felt like the County taking sides in what appeared to be a takeover of the use of that line.
Commr. Campione said that she was not comfortable with this part, and she opined that it did not make sense when CSX declined when the County offered to purchase the railroad right of way, noting that the County had been working with CSX and that it looked like it could occur. She indicated that there was concern that if the County explored this other route, it could possibly put them in a worse position regarding CSX wanting to work with them in the future. She commented that if the attorney considered the possibility of doing this, they might also have contacts with the railroad and it could potentially be a good way to explore going back to the County’s original concept, noting that they never had a railroad right of way specialist involved throughout the process of seeking to acquire this right of way. She said that if it were to materialize, then it was possibly the only way that the County could do this. She also opined that using a railroad right of way expert attorney might help them make connections to eventually get the railroad right of way.
Commr. Parks asked if the County would be helping this person essentially set up a business, and if they had any risk in this. He opined that by all rights, the County should likely have some ownership of this if they were contributing funding, relaying his understanding that there was also the purchase.
Commr. Campione questioned how to bifurcate what the individual was doing versus what the County would want to do for public purposes and if it could be structured where the County did not take on liability but had the benefit of the railroad right of way being able to be used as a trail. She opined that there was significant support in the community for being able to use the right of way for this purpose.
Commr. Parks inquired if the County had done a cost analysis on other options.
Ms. Barker said that there was a meeting set up with herself and the Cities of Tavares and Mount Dora to discuss options, which had to be rescheduled due to Hurricane Idalia, and that there could possibly be community meetings in the libraries to receive feedback from the public.
Commr. Campione relayed that this was regarding the idea of possibly using Lakeshore Drive.
Ms. Barker confirmed this and stated that the meeting would be rescheduled as soon as possible.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that CSX had powerful lawyers, and he asked if they would oppose this.
Commr. Campione indicated that the County did not really know what they would be getting into, and that this would be the question for someone to evaluate, along with if they knew any other route by which the County could engage CSX to do business with them.
Commr. Parks opined that if the County was helping with the business, then they should have some ownership if this could be done statutorily.
Commr. Campione clarified that she was looking at this as a lease, noting that people wanted a trail and that she did not want to leave an unexplored option. She commented that her request was if the County could have an expert review the viability of this, and if this route was not possible, then the expert could possibly point them in the right direction so that they did not walk away from an opportunity to use the railroad right of way.
Commr. Shields expressed support for this.
Commr. Smith inquired why the individual would not provide the funding to see if it was viable, and then they could charge the County more when they leased the portion of the trail. He thought that the individual needed to see the viability on their end first because they would ultimately be running the rail line.
Commr. Shields asked if the County’s involvement added more weight.
Commr. Smith opined that it did not because CSX was not amicable with doing business with the County.
Commr. Blake relayed that he was not comfortable trying to force a private company to do business with the County, or to sell other people’s property. He added that he was also not comfortable with the County supporting one side of an effort to force CSX to give up their asset, and he opined that a private business should have the financial risk to answer those questions rather than Lake County taxpayers.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied authorization for the County Attorney to execute a Letter of Engagement with Thompson Hine LLP.
Commr. Shields and Commr. Campione voted no.
presentation from lifestream behavioral center
Ms. Susan Lake, representing LifeStream Behavioral Center, said that that her organization had a comprehensive integrated healthcare program and that they provided behavioral health services and substance misuse services, as well as primary healthcare and social services to the communities they served. She explained that they were in circuit five and that Lake County was their largest county that they provided services in. She commented that they were more than an acute inpatient Baker Act treatment facility, and that they did inpatient detox, had residential programs throughout their counties, and had a number of outpatient services including their forensic community treatment team. She related that they met with individuals who had two or more misdemeanor offenses over a 12 month period and provided rehabilitative services including peer support services and clinical services, along with working with them to find housing and other support services so that they could be productive in the community. She clarified that she was not requesting any funding and that they had a grant for three years through the Florida Department of Children and Families (FDCF); however, the grant ended in March 2023, and the final payment that had to be presented to the BCC was in the amount of $95,418.42. She mentioned that over the course of the three years they had 488 consumers enrolled in the program, and 67 percent or 329 of those members were provided with follow up care and/or self-care; additionally, three percent were discharged to another court system, 2.5 percent were discharged to another type of facility, and 27 percent discontinued care. She said that the program had been successful and that with the end of the funding through FDCF, their managing entity Lutheran Services Florida had provided funding for the next three months of April, May and June 2023. She said that they were continuing the program at the current time and had reached back out to Lutheran Services Florida for additional funding so that the program could continue. She concluded that this information needed to be presented to the BCC so that they could receive the final payment from FDCF.
presentation regarding lake yale improvement project
Dr. John Holz, Senior Limnologist with SOLitude Lake Management, said that he specialized in nutrient management in lakes and improving water quality, and that he was present to provide an overview of the Lake Yale water quality improvement project. He provided information about his company and his background, and explained that Lake Yale was a large shallow lake of just over 4,000 acres with a maximum depth of 25 feet and an average depth of 12 feet; additionally, in 2002 it was listed as impaired by FDEP for phosphorus. He said that phosphorus was a nutrient that algae needed to grow and bloom, and that much of their lake management came down to phosphorus management for less algae and better water quality. He relayed that the phosphorus conditions at Lake Yale were extreme and well above the stated goal of 20 parts per billion, noting that levels reached as high as 1,000 to 2,500 parts per billion, which would be 125 times over the stated goal. He indicated that lake managers started to be concerned when levels reached about 60 or 100 parts per billion, and that these concentrations were some of the highest they ever saw in recreational lakes with the most comparable levels being in sewage lagoons. He displayed the history of the Lake Yale project timeline with the following items: FDEP listed Lake Yale as impaired for high phosphorus in 2002; in 2014 the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) commissioned a Lake Yale water quality study; the contractor, ERD, conducted the study in 2015 through 2016, with the report being published in 2017 which included recommendations on how to remedy the issue; in 2019 the LCWA earmarked funds for a water quality improvement project and issued a request for qualifications (RSQ) to acquire a contractor; the contractor acquisition and project was postponed due to state sovereign land policy concern; and since that time there had been ongoing efforts to reevaluate this policy and allow the project to move forward. He stated that one of the key findings of the ERD study was an annual phosphorus budget, which was an accounting of where the phosphorus was coming from. He said that 80 percent of the phosphorus was coming from the bottom of the lake and was being recycled from the nutrient sediments in the lake that had accumulated there over time. He relayed that the recommendations from the study were focused on addressing this source at the bottom of the lake, and that the recommendation was for an alum application. He explained that alum was a product which binds the phosphorus and the sediments, which was called inactivating the phosphorus, noting that it would not allow it to be released and enter the water column for the algae to use. He mentioned that alum had been used safely and effectively in lake management for over 60 years, and he showed a map and table from the ERD report. He described the study process and said that the amount of phosphorus in the mud in Lake Yale varied by location; therefore, to be most effective at controlling the phosphorus and spending the least amount of funding, the study recommended applying different amounts of alum to different places in the lake. He relayed that there were eight zones recommended for application, and that the contractor would need experience in working in a project like this, as well as having the right equipment. He showed before and after images from an alum project at White Lake, North Carolina, relaying that in general these alum projects controlled the rate of internal loading or the release from the sediments by 85 to 99 percent; additionally, this also reduced the amount of phosphorus in the water column by about 70 to 90 percent, along with a corresponding reduction of around 70 to 90 percent of algae in the water. He relayed that once they shut off the source, reduced the phosphorus in the water, and reduced the algae, they would have better clarity and eliminate any algal toxins that might be in the water. He relayed that as they cleaned up the lake, there were a number of benefits including better fishing, better oxygen concentrations, and a better fish habitat.
Mr. Matt Spritz, Managing Partner with The Spritz Group, said that to the extent that there was any regulatory issue, it had nothing to do with alum as a technology, noting that FDEP routinely permitted alum in the State of Florida in non-sovereign waters. He stated that the issue was an overbroad interpretation that FDEP had taken over the past several years regarding Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 18-21, which was a rule that spoke to dredging and filling activities on State sovereign waters. He elaborated that the rule discussed erosion and sediment control, and that FDEP basically did not want public or private actors depositing fill into sovereign waters; however, he opined that the spirit of the rule was about depositing actual dirt into these waters and not bonded alum molecules, which were microscopic. He commented that FDEP had been hesitant or outright refusing to permit restorative activities in State sovereign waters even though they permitted the same activities in non-sovereign waters. He mentioned that the Lake Yale project, like other projects in the state, was shovel ready and would make a significant impact, noting that there had been a broad effort to lobby FDEP to change the interpretation of FAC 18-21 so that bonded alum was not considered fill, or that it was exempted so that restorative activities could occur. He elaborated that there were bills introduced in the previous legislative session, and that Representative Keith Truenow was the sponsor in the House of Representatives and Senator Jason Brodeur was the sponsor in the Senate to raise the profile of this issue and continue the conversation in the State Legislature regarding if one could change Florida Statutes to change the rule. He added that there were multiple public and private stakeholders involved, in addition to multiple local governments, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and multiple companies in this space. He also said that there were conversations with FDEP and the Florida Governor’s Office which remained ongoing, and that as recently as a few weeks prior, FDEP acknowledged that this was an issue and indicated that they and the General Counsel’s Office were looking at different solutions. He commented that one of the FDEP grant programs was the Innovative Technology Grant Program, which was designed specifically to help local government fund projects like this; however, they had to determine a way around the rule for State sovereign land. He believed that this would be addressed, and said that there were too many projects where FDEP’s reading of this rule was causing obstruction to individuals trying to clean up impaired lakes; additionally, he reiterated that the Lake Yale project had been ready for four years. He also reiterated that there was a broad lobbying effort which had made a significant amount of progress, and he believed that the issue was going to be resolved soon.
Dr. Holz stated that the use of alum in the State of Florida was not new, and that Lake Yale was falling under the State sovereign land policy.
Mr. Spritz clarified that if Lake Yale was on non-State sovereign lands and an environmental resource program (ERP) was required from FDEP, then they would permit the project quickly.
Commr. Blake asked why the legislation failed if FDEP acknowledged this issue.
Mr. Spritz responded that the legislation was looking at possible statutory fixes, and that FDEP was looking at regulatory issues. He said that this was a long rule dealing with State sovereign lands, and that there were many issues in the rule; therefore, he thought that the hesitancy was to open up this rule for rulemaking because it could potentially create a large number of items that they would have to address. He added that the current conversation was looking at ways to address this issue without having to open up the rule for rulemaking.
Commr. Parks commented that much of this was a self-generating source of phosphorus, and opined that there was also a significant amount coming from bad septic tanks along the lake. He thought that the County had to address this in the short term, and also address some of the loading sources with the septic tanks going into the lake. He opined that there was a basin management action plan (BMAP) discussion the Board could have, noting that there were some high numbers in that part of the basin to meet the County’s goal for conversion of septic tanks to advanced treatment; additionally, he relayed his understanding that the goal was around 1,000 per year, with many in this area. He thought that the County needed to consider this for Lake Yale, as well as other lakes around the county.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that Orange County and Seminole County were also trying to do the same types of projects, such as with Lake Apopka. She thought that it would put them on better footing for receiving FDEP funding and approval of this project if the County was working on the septic conversion. She also thought that it would show that the County was not just looking at one item, and that they realized that they needed to consider the overall picture. She then wondered how many years would be involved for doing the alum application and monitoring.
Dr. Holz responded that the recommendation of the 2017 report was for four applications of alum with each being six to twelve months apart. He also estimated that each application would be 30 to 45 days in length.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there was a significant hydrilla issue in Lake Yale, and she inquired to what extent there would need to be coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the application of hydrilla herbicide.
Dr. Holz commented that there was a significant amount of hydrilla on the lake in January 2023, and he opined that it would be best to perform the alum application after the hydrilla control treatment, noting that it would be best to coordinate the two.
Commr. Campione said that she assumed that the contractor would work with FWC to coordinate the timing of this, and she asked that once the lake reached the level that they wanted to see it at, how long would it last before they had to consider doing another application.
Dr. Holz responded that it depended on how much alum was applied, and that one project in the State of Vermont has lasted 30 years. He said that some of their projects were around 12 years, and that it depended on the dose and how fast the phosphorus was replaced by phosphorus from outside the lake. He mentioned septic management and efforts to reduce external loading, and stated that it would last even longer if they could eliminate all supplies of phosphorus.
Commr. Campione commented that she had thought about the possibility of this being something that the County would be able to do in the rest of the chain of lakes if the rule was interpreted or regulated differently.
Mr. Spritz said that considering doing this throughout the chain of lakes and dealing with FDEP was one of the reasons why this project, along with Lake County leading and moving forward, were so important. He added that it created and continued momentum with FDEP to be able to complete it.
Commr. Blake inquired about the breakdown of the 20 percent of nutrients that contributed to external loading in Lake Yale and if it was basically all coming from septic tanks.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there had been agriculture around the lake for years. She also mentioned the hydrilla issue and material settling in the lake.
Mr. Spritz relayed his understanding that there had been broad efforts by FWC to manage the hydrilla on the lake in around the past six months, and that if SOLitude was the applicator, they had relationships with that agency and would be happy to help coordinate those efforts.
Dr. Holz said that 80 percent of the nutrient loading coming from the sediments was the majority of the pie chart, and the remaining 20 percent concentrations were being overwhelmed by the sediment. He opined that it was good management to address the other sources as well, even though they were lower percentages, noting that they were still a large amount of phosphorus. He explained that of that 20 percent, 13 percent was coming from direct precipitation, opining that they could not really do anything about this. He mentioned that five percent of the total was from runoff and that two percent was from groundwater seepage; additionally, these small percentages were large per pounds of phosphorus.
Commr. Parks said that they had certain goals with the BMAP and that if the County could address some areas that needed to be converted to a higher level of treatment, then they could meet their overall goal in the basin.
Commr. Blake asked if external loading was 13 percent of the total percent, and Dr. Holz confirmed this. Commissioner Blake then asked if there was a breakdown for the external loading.
Dr. Holz indicated that he could determine this and email it to Ms. Barker. He then displayed a pie chart from the report, noting that when the sediments went away, the primary sources would be runoff, groundwater and septic systems. He thought that they needed to not only consider current conditions, but also think about future conditions after management.
Commr. Smith said that he and Representative Truenow had spoken with FDEP in the previous legislative session, and would be speaking with them again in the following legislative session. He added that he could possibly meet with Orange and Seminole Counties and that all three Counties could possibly get together.
Dr. Holz hoped that there could be an immediate change to allow projects like this to go forward.
public hearing: fy 2024 infrastructure sales tax project plan
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented the proposed fiscal year (FY) 2023 Infrastructure Sales Tax (IST) plan. She displayed the IST revenue projections over the next five years, noting that the FY 2024 revenue projections included about $3 million in carryforward from FY 2023 from revenues higher than what they initially projected, along with unanticipated interest earned. She mentioned that these projections used an average 3.5 percent increase from year over year, beginning in FY 2025, and she showed an overview of the five year plan by category. She listed the following totals per year: $24.7 million for FY 2024, which included the $3 million in carryforward; $23.9 million for FY 2025; $24.7 million for FY 2026; $25.5 million for FY 2027; and $26.2 million for FY 2028. She added that there was a five year projection of approximately $125 million. She then showed some of the major projects for public safety, noting that in FY 2024 they had about $2.6 million for fire apparatus, vehicles and equipment, $1.8 million for Lake County Sheriff vehicles and equipment, and $1.5 million for station renovations, with total FY 2024 public safety projects of $6.7 million and a five year total of $31.8 million. She showed some of the quality of life projects, noting that major projects for FY 2024 included County library building renovations and replacements for about $2 million, the South Lake Regional Park for $1.5 million, the Golden Triangle Regional Park for $1.5 million, the East Lake Sports and Community Complex for approximately $1 million, and the fairgrounds and event center relocation for $500,000. She also displayed additional quality of life projects over the next five years which included improvements at several parks and trails, and she said that the total for quality of life in FY 2024 was about $7.7 million, with a five year total of around $43.4 million. She displayed the five year plan for public works projects, noting that the major projects for FY 2024 included Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) grant match for road resurfacing and improvements, along with intersection improvements; furthermore, the total for public works in FY 2024 was about $6.6 million with a five year total of $32.7 million. She showed the five year plan for other public infrastructure, commenting that the total for FY 2024 was approximately $1.5 million, with a five year total of $6 million. She then displayed the total for debt service over the next five years, relaying that the FY 2024 total was about $2.3 million with a five year total of $11.4 million.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Renee Lowe, a member of the South Lake Kiwanis Club, said that she was present to request assistance to bring an inclusion playground to South Lake. She mentioned that this project started with their club about six years prior, and she mentioned that Kiwanis Park on 4th Avenue in South Lake was a quiet community park, noting that they wanted to bring an adaptive playground to that park; however, Kiwanis Park was not appropriate for what they needed because they required handicap bathrooms and parking. She commented that they partnered with the City of Clermont, and that the City helped them find a park which fit their needs at Lake Felter Park in the City of Clermont. She explained that they wanted to bring pieces of equipment which would merge those playgrounds together, and she commented that they did not currently have an adaptive playground in South Lake.
Mr. Richard Chapman, a member of the South Lake Kiwanis Club, indicated that he had provided details about the park to the Board. He recalled that Kiwanis had helped with Lake Idamere Park, and that they were also considering doing this in other areas in South Lake or Lake County. He stated that the purpose was to make it easier for children to play, and he asked for consideration for funding to help continue. He mentioned that the City of Clermont had let them have the area at Lake Felter Park to install the equipment, and that the City would maintain the equipment and remove the liability from Kiwanis. He asked for the Board’s help and consideration for building this park in the City of Clermont, reiterating that they were considering doing this in other cities.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Teslia said that the requested action was for approval of the FY 2024 proposed IST project plan.
Commr. Parks explained that this was a hearing that the County did each year and that it was more about what was on the list than the amounts, noting that it could change. He proposed possibly including Ms. Lowe and Mr. Chapman’s request on the list, and he thought that it should potentially come as a request from the City of Clermont. He indicated that it could be left as $0, and he relayed his understanding that the request was for $103,000.
Commr. Smith opined that the Kiwanis was a great organization, but noted that it was a private organization. He thought that it would be different if the City of Clermont came to the County with the request.
Commr. Parks asked how to do this and meet the requirement of the current hearing.
Ms. Barker explained that if the Board wanted to move forward with adding this to the project list, staff could add it to the quality of life projects with a $0 amount, and then if they received the request from the City of Clermont, staff could bring it back to the Board to address funding options for the mid-year adjustment in January 2024 or before they adopted the budget in September 2023. She noted that they had to include it on the list at the current public hearing for it to be an approved project for IST.
Commr. Smith asked if it had to be added at $0 or if it could be brought back at any time.
Ms. Barker clarified that they needed a public hearing to adopt the project list. She mentioned that it could be brought back, but they would need a separate public hearing just for that project; however, if it was added to the list on the current day, they could address the funding during a mid-year adjustment.
Mr. Chapman relayed that they had a letter of intent from the City of Clermont which could be provided to the Board.
Commr. Smith thought that the best option was to not include it on the list at the current time, opining that they needed to vet this more and discuss the legalities. He added that they could possibly do another public hearing.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the land was owned by the City of Clermont and that the City currently maintained the park. She said that she would be in favor of including it on the list with a condition that the County would address it as an interlocal agreement with the City of Clermont since the City would be overseeing and maintaining it. She noted that Lake Idamere Park was in the middle of the county and that this project was in South Lake; furthermore, the County could consider having a user friendly section of the playground at North Lake Community Park for disabilities. She opined that this would help complete what the County was trying to do for parks, and that it had a significant impact on people who wanted to do things with their families.
Commr. Smith agreed with this if there would be a note indicating that the County would be partnering with the City of Clermont and not a private organization. He believed that each citizen in Lake County needed the opportunity to enjoy a park.
Commr. Campione added that the amount would be determined by the interlocal agreement.
Commr. Shields asked if ARPA funding could be applied to this item, and Ms. Barker replied that they could do this with the lost revenue portion. Commissioner Shields then relayed his understanding that they created the list with $0 funded.
Commr. Parks clarified that the funding could change throughout the year.
Commr. Shields said that the SJRWMD was looking to find funding to make Wilson Island in the City of Groveland a conservation area; additionally, the City was also looking at it. He stated that the County did not know what the request would be, but that they could include it on the list.
Commr. Parks asked if it could be land acquisition.
Ms. Barker thought that they could use IST for land acquisition, provided that the County owned it in some capacity.
Commr. Parks inquired about if the funding came from multiple sources and if the County still had to own it entirely.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, did not think that the County had to entirely own it, but that it had to be owned by a public entity.
Commr. Parks asked if they should have a category under quality of life for land acquisition with no specific projects listed.
Ms. Barker said that they could call it land acquisition as a line item.
Commr. Parks expressed support for doing this and not including a dollar amount, noting that there could possibly be other properties with interest in the following year.
Commr. Campione indicated her understanding that the intent of these hearings was to have some specificity. She said that if there was another project, then they could go through the hearing process again and revise the list; however, if they knew that this was a project that would likely materialize, then they could include it on the list with no funding listed.
Commr. Shields said that he had also been trying to have something in Four Corners, noting that it was one of their largest population centers, and he mentioned a park coming to Wellness Way; additionally, he asked if the Wellness Way park needed to be added to the list.
Commr. Parks commented that CEMEX was providing 100 acres after they mined, and that the Wellness Way park did not have to be added in the current year.
Commr. Shields mentioned that he had been working with some of the foundations in Four Corners, and he questioned if they possibly have a splash pad added for a gathering place. He said that the community foundations there had to have a way to ensure that the funding would be spent wisely and be monitored, and that they were comfortable working with the County. He also stated that this could possibly be a placeholder item.
Commr. Campione felt that the splash pad was too nebulous at the current time, and she commented that there would be maintenance, liability and supervision.
Commr. Shields relayed that there was not a plan; however, his understanding was that if they did not include it on the list, then it would not occur.
Commr. Campione said that if something came along and the other Four Corners Counties cooperated, or if they decided to only do something in Lake County, then they could revisit this when there was something to consider.
Commr. Parks said that if there was a plan, then the Board could come back and add it to the list with another hearing.
Commr. Shields noted that he was working with other Four Corners County Commissioners to address issues there, and that he was fine with not including this item on the list.
Commr. Smith asked Ms. Teslia if she had the additional items, and Ms. Teslia confirmed that she had noted Lake Felter Park in partnership with the City of Clermont, along with Wilson Island.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2024 Infrastructure Sales Tax Project Plan.
public hearing: resolution 2023-108 distributed wastewater msbu
Ms. Marsh indicated that this was a public hearing to adopt a resolution to use the uniform method of collection for the DWTS program, recalling that the Board had already passed the ordinance to put this program into effect; furthermore, this would only be for property owners who voluntarily participated. She added that it would be on their tax bill if they had the DWTS installed, and that staff needed approval of the resolution to put it on the tax bill, as well as approval of the interlocal agreements with the Lake County Tax Collector and Property Appraiser.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2023-108 expressing the intent of Lake County to use the Uniform Method of Collection in Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for the levy, collection, and enforcement of non-ad valorem assessments associated with the Distributed Wastewater Municipal Services Benefit Unit, and execution of interlocal agreements with the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser for the Distributed Wastewater Municipal Services Benefit Unit.
Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 11:12 a.m. until 11:20 a.m.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-51 library impact fees
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 22-4, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SECTION 22-60, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ADJUST THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE STUDY DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Marsh indicated that if the Board chose to approve this item, staff would need clarification in the motion if they were going to do a 95 percent schedule, which required at least a four-fifths vote, or a 50 percent schedule, which would be a normal vote.
Ms. Barker said that staff had included the charts regarding the increase per year for both the 95 percent of the full calculation, as well as 50 percent; additionally, this had been done for each of the impact fees.
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. Shields asked how the Board felt about 95 percent.
Commr. Smith did not think that the library impact fee constituted extraordinary circumstances; therefore, he would not be in favor of 95 percent.
Ms. Marsh clarified that these impact fee ordinances would not go into effect until January 2, 2024.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-51 establishing new rates for the Library Impact Fees and adopting the most recent impact fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates (n/k/a Benesch), with impact fee rates with an increase of up to 50 percent of the current rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-52 park impact fees
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE: SECTION 22-4, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; SECTION 22-54, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ADJUST THE PARK IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Shields asked how the Board felt about 95 percent.
Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that there was no difference.
Ms. Barker said that this was because the fees did not increase above 50 percent of the maximum calculation.
Commr. Parks commented that with everything the Board was trying to do to fund trails and parks, he would support the 95 percent.
Ms. Marsh stated that the only difference was in year two, which was $1 more, and year three, which was $1 more; furthermore, the other rates were the same for single family.
Commr. Smith opined that there were not extraordinary circumstances for the parks and recreation impact fee.
Commr. Campione opined one could make this argument and that if they visited a park on a Friday night or during soccer or baseball season, the active parks were heavily utilized.
Commr. Smith relayed that he visited the parks frequently.
Commr. Campione said that if the Board could do this and get to the same rate, then she would support 50 percent.
Commr. Parks asked about the total difference.
Ms. Barker stated that the full calculation was $222, which was the current rate, and that the County had taken 95 percent of that; however, when they did 50 percent of the maximum rate, it was actually the full calculation, noting that they did not do 95 percent of the 50 percent. She elaborated that they never assessed more than 100 percent of the maximum calculation, and that they were better off doing the 95 percent to have room in case someone challenged the methodology.
Commr. Shields asked about the difference between 50 percent and 95 percent.
Ms. Barker replied that there was no other difference because the full calculation was almost effectively the current rates, which were not above a 50 percent increase.
Commr. Parks opined that everyone wanted the County to continue to build these facilities and trails, especially on a regional basis. He thought that they should go to 95 percent, but that he would support 50 percent.
Commr. Campione indicated her understanding that they would generate more funding with the 50 percent.
Commr. Parks asked how this was done, relaying his understanding they would lose $40 by not going with 95 percent.
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 commented that there was a $46 benefit to the 95 percent over four years.
Ms. Barker clarified that the 50 percent would be collecting more funding based on what was presented, noting that active adult was $222 at 50 percent versus $211 at 95 percent. She explained that this was a scrivener’s error and that staff should have taken 95 percent of the 50 percent calculated rate, noting that it should not be $222. She added that 95 percent was what staff should have done with the 50 percent.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-52 establishing new rates for the Park Impact Fee Districts and adopting the most recent impact fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates (n/k/a as Benesch), with impact fee rates with an increase of up to 50 percent of the current rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-53 fire impact fees
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE: SECTION 22-4, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; SECTION 22-47, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ADJUST THE FIRE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FIRE IMPACT FEE STUDY DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Blake inquired if the fees for general office and light industrial were per 1,000 square feet, and Ms. Barker confirmed this.
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. Shields asked how Commissioner Smith felt about this item.
Commr. Smith replied that he did not feel good about it and that he did not want to do 50 percent on the fire impact fee.
Commr. Blake commented that when considering the fees per 1,000 square feet for the nonresidential portion, and as he opined they were in uncertain economic times, he would be careful to not make things worse for the business community.
Ms. Barker pointed out that two of the rates were decreasing and that if the Board did not implement it, then they had a study indicating that the County should be charging less for a few of the land uses.
Commr. Campione opined that they should at least do the 50 percent.
Commr. Blake asked if the only fee that increased was general light industrial.
Ms. Barker responded that general office and retail decreased in both scenarios, and that if the Board did not implement it, then they had a study that they had accepted which said that they should be reducing the fees for those land use categories.
Commr. Blake commented that the large change was for multifamily.
Ms. Barker remarked that with single family and multifamily, staff had included the smaller categories for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), etc. for 800 or less square feet, noting that they would be paying significantly less. She explained that in the previous study from 2011, they charged the same rate for office and retail, commenting that when the study was updated, they realized that it needed to be based on call volume for each land use rather than a general rate.
Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that if the Board adopted this, then they were reducing the impact fee.
Ms. Barker confirmed this for active adult, general office and retail.
Commr. Shields asked if impact fees were considered when the County was doing economic development and recruiting.
Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that it was because it was a cost of construction.
Commr. Parks mentioned that if they did not have a good public safety system and road network, then this could possibly affect business.
Ms. Barker stated that retail and general office was the maximum rate that they calculated, and that the Board automatically had to impose the maximum, which was a reduction.
Ms. Marsh relayed that the current fee schedules for fire impact fees had not been updated since 2008.
Commr. Campione said that they could come out helping in several categories.
Commr. Smith expressed concerns for the 72 percent increase for general light industrial for the 95 percent, and he said that it was only a 50 percent increase for 50 percent of the maximum calculated rate, which he opined was almost de minimis at a $13 increase per year. He asked if this was per 1,000 square feet, and Ms. Barker confirmed this.
Commr. Campione opined that it sounded like they needed to do the 95 percent.
Commr. Campione made a motion to approve this item with impact fee rates with an increase of up to 95 percent of the current rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Parks seconded the motion.
Commr. Blake thought it was great that some of the commercial use fees were decreasing; however, he would be voting against it because of the residential side.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks which failed by a vote of 3-2, the Board did not approve an ordinance establishing new rates for the Fire Impact Fees and adopting the most recent impact fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates (n/k/a as Benesch, with impact fee rates with an increase of up to 95 percent of the current rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-53 establishing new rates for the Fire Impact Fees and adopting the most recent impact fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates (n/k/a as Benesch, with impact fee rates with an increase of up to 50 percent of the current rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-54 transportation impact fees
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 22-36, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED SHORT TITLE, AUTHORITY; ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY DATED OCTOBER 26, 2022; AMENDING SECTION 22-37, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED IMPOSITION, TO ADJUST THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Barker commented that the Board had directed staff to only bring back the rates for 95 percent.
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.
Ms. Barker mentioned that there were two categories, and that this was for the south and northeast Wekiva districts, along with the central and the north/central districts, noting that the central and north/central districts had a larger increase because they currently had such a large discount.
Commr. Parks indicated that he was supportive of this schedule.
Commr. Smith opined that everyone who drove on the roads knew that there had been a significant increase in traffic, and he also opined that there were extraordinary circumstances throughout the entire county. He opined that they had such rapid growth in Lake County that their road systems and infrastructure were being affected.
Commr. Campione opined that much of it was people coming through Lake County, and that they were being affected by new growth and new activity throughout the state. She thought that their constituents were looking to the Board to do what they could to improve things.
Commr. Parks thought that it protected using more General Fund funding in the future, and that this was an investment into economic growth because they were building roads which would keep supporting economic growth.
Commr. Smith added that people coming to Lake County would be participating in building the roads.
Commr. Blake opined that for most individuals, this fee was included in a 30 year mortgage, and with unprecedented mortgage rates over the last 40 years this would cause a long term economic burden on individuals who the County would like to build a first home in Lake County.
Commr. Campione opined that large builders were finding a way to make the financing palatable because new projects were being built rapidly.
Commr. Parks stated that many of them were two or three percent interest.
Commr. Campione commented that some builders were building homes and renting them, and she opined that it was not stopping the construction side.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-54 establishing new rates for the Transportation Impact Fees and adopting the most recent impact fee study prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates (n/k/a as Benesch), with impact fee rates of 95 percent of the calculated rate, phased over four years.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-55 lake county code
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; REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLES II THROUGH VII, CHAPTER 2, LAKE COUNTY CODE; REORGANIZING AND UPDATING ARTICLES II THROUGH VII; REPEALING SECTION 2-22, ENTITLED EXPENDITURES FOR HOSPITALITY; REPEALING SECTION 2-23, ENTITLED LAKE COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND; AMENDING SECTION 2-24 ENTITLED LAKE COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY, INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS, AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS, TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 218.415, FLORIDA STATUTES; REPEALING SECTION 2-25, ENTITLED ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT; REPEALING SECTIONS 2-61 THROUGH 2-67, ENTITLED LOBBYIST REGISTRATION; REPEALING SECTIONS REGARDING THE WATER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE; REPEALING SECTIONS REGARDING THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; REPEALING SECTION 2-222, ENTITLED LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE; REPEALING DESIGN BUILD REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Marsh said that the purpose of this ordinance was to clean up Chapter 2 which was more of a general administration section, noting that there were some outdated provisions and committees that the County no longer operated. She added that the Water Safety Advisory Committee was run by FDOH, and that they had asked the County to repeal this; additionally, the investment policy was a legislative change that the County needed to make. She summarized that this item was cleaning up a code section which had not been reviewed or adjusted for many years.
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. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-55 repealing and replacing Articles II through VII, Chapter 2, Lake County Code, to update and reorganize the Chapter and remove provisions no longer in effect or applicable to the operations of the County. Chapter 2, Section 2-23, entitled Investment Policy, is being amended to comply with Chapter 2023-28, Laws of Florida.
regular agenda
discussion and direction for regulation reduction
Commr. Blake said that this item came out of a conversation he had with Mr. Matt Silbernagel, an attorney, and that it reminded him of a time when Speaker Dean Cannon was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. He recalled that the House had a policy where for every repeal bill that a member filed, they received an additional bill slot for a general bill. He thought that it would be great if the Board could protect individuals from increasing regulatory burden, opining that there were many items in the Lake County code which needed to be cleaned up. He opined that it seemed like a nice common sense item that if they were going to add additional regulatory burdens in Lake County, then they would have to find an old one and eliminate it. He thought that staff had included that if there was a situation where they had to address an issue quickly, there was an exception that the BCC may waive this requirement by a supermajority vote; additionally, he thought that it would be important for this item to be part of the code.
Commr. Shields recalled that the Board had discussed the burden on staff and that if they had some old laws, then they should just eliminate them rather than waiting.
Commr. Campione opined that it almost dissuaded one from eliminating items because then they would not have items to pull when they were ready to adopt something.
Commr. Shields wondered if this was the best way to do this, noting that they could possibly do a working group to try to address the code.
Commr. Blake thought that it would only slow them down if they had a large list of regulations that they wanted to impose, clarifying that the idea was that it made it more difficult to add additional requirements on citizens. He also did not think that it was a large burden to find old items, and he opined that it was a good way to clean up items that may no longer be relevant.
Commr. Smith thought that it was a good idea because there were many regulations added and the Board never considered removing one; furthermore, this item would force them to replace one.
Commr. Parks did not think that they needed an ordinance, and that a policy could be that they would eliminate certain regulations moving forward. He expressed support for eliminating those items at one time, and he opined that the County could also change some of its Land Development Regulations (LDR)
Commr. Blake thought that this sent a message that the Board was trying to look out for individuals and that they were trying to stay status quo on the amount of regulations.
Commr. Campione opined that it should be a policy that starting on the current day, if a Board had a new ordinance, then they would come prepared to address something that they found which could be eliminated. She questioned what would happen if they made a concerted effort to clean out the code and then they had something new which needed to be addressed, noting that it had to be a four-fifths vote.
Commr. Blake said that at that point they could repeal this requirement.
Commr. Smith asked if the motion could be to have a policy to clean out the code and add this item at the same time.
Commr. Parks inquired if they could have a policy that each time they had a code change, it would be their policy to see if there was something that could be eliminated.
Commr. Blake expressed concerns for this being a policy rather than an ordinance, noting that it could be repealed once the code was barebones.
Ms. Marsh explained that whether the Board did this as a policy or a code provision, she could rewrite it to say that to the extent feasible, concurrent with the adoption of any new code requirement or Land Development Regulation, the Board may repeal an existing code. She added that the Board could leave it as “shall” and leave their exception, or they could direct staff to do this as an internal policy versus having something written. She added that if the Board wanted to add this to the code, then staff would need approval to advertise and then they could bring it back and have a public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a policy that to the extent feasible, concurrent with the adoption of any new code requirement or Land Development Regulation, the Board may repeal an existing code.
local government contribution - provident housing solutions
Ms. Yvonne Powers, Associate Director for the Office of Housing and Community Services, stated that her office was recommending approval to provide $460,000 of United States (U.S.) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME to Provident Housing Solutions for the development of 81 affordable housing units for seniors in the City of Clermont. She elaborated that this funding was contingent upon Provident Housing Solutions receiving tax credits from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, and that the request was also to authorize the Chairman to execute the Local Government Verification of Contribution Loan Form, which was submitted with the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Program application. She added that the County had provided support related to this item for the past two years.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items: a local government contribution in the amount of $460,000 to Provident Housing Solutions for the proposed development of 81 affordable housing units for seniors, located at 13550 Hunt Trace Boulevard in the City of Clermont, contingent on the developer receiving funding through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program offered through the Florida Housing Finance Corporation; of reserve funding through the HUD HOME Program, provided the project meets eligibility standards for this purpose; and to authorize the Chairman to execute the Local Government Verification of Contribution Loan Form to be submitted with the LIHTC Program application.
other business
adjustments and appointment to children’s services council
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to ratify and realign the current members of the Children's Services Council into the correct districts based on where they reside as follows: District 1 – Ms. Evelisse Bookhout and Mr. Connor Hartman; District 2 - Ms. Diana "Gillian" Violette and Ms. Juana Delacruz; District 3 – Ms. Christie Mysinger and Mr. Chris Boogar; District 4 – Ms. Trella Mott and Mr. Byron E. Thompson; District 5 – Ms. Barbara Crewell; Members At-Large – Mr. Morris Rushing and Ms. Tanya Moore; and School Board – Ms. Monica Hite, Administrative Coordinator. The Board also approved to adjust the terms of members as follows: term ending May 14, 2024 – Mr. Hartman, Ms. Delacruz, Mr. Boogar, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Crewell, Mr. Rushing, Ms. Hite, and the Florida Department of Children and Families (FDCF) vacancy; Term ending May 14, 2025 – Ms. Bookhout, Ms. Violette, Ms. Mysinger, Ms. Mott, Ms. Moore, the District 5 vacancy, and the At-Large vacancy. Additionally, the Board approved to reappoint Ms. CJ Blancett, who resides in District 4, as an At-Large Member to serve a two-year term ending May 14, 2025.
appointment to the parks, recreation and trails advisory board
Commr. Smith recommended Mr. Randy Van Alstine to be appointed.
Commr. Blake said that Mr. Van Alstine would be representing District 5, and that he had spoken to him about it; furthermore, he thought that Mr. Van Alstine would be great.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Mr. Randy Van Alstine as a District 5 member to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board to serve a term ending on May 20, 2025, along with an applicable waiver.
reports
county manager
hurricane idalia closure
Ms. Barker commented that County Offices would be closed on the following day due to Hurricane Idalia, and that they hoped to reopen on the following Thursday.
Labor day
Ms. Barker remarked that County Offices would also be closed on the following Monday in observance of Labor Day.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1
lead meeting
Commr. Shields mentioned that he had a Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) Board meeting. He said that for entrepreneurship, they were still trying to get everything going in the City of Eustis, and were working with the schools. He also relayed that a company had been kept from being recruited by the State of Michigan, and that by visiting all of their companies, they were keeping companies from moving to other states. He added that they also made a shortlist for a large company moving in, and that they would be discussing how to help LEAD get to the point where locations were shovel ready.
email from lake 100 regarding tourist development tax
Commr. Shields thought that the BCC had received an email from the Lake 100 indicating that they wanted to place the Tourist Development Tax on the ballot, and he wondered if there was consensus to have staff work on this.
Commr. Smith said that he was fine with putting it on the ballot and letting the citizens decide.
Commr. Parks agreed, but added that he wanted to discuss how this might conflict with another ballot initiative, pointing out that the public lands referendum would end as well.
Ms. Barker commented that the County was planning a workshop in fall 2024 to discuss that ballot initiative, and that they had to provide all ballot language to the Lake County Supervisor of Elections by March 2024. She added that they could discuss both items at the same meeting.
Commr. Campione asked how much more funding this would generate if the voters approved the TDT change from four to five percent.
Commr. Shields replied that it would be $2 million. He relayed that he was not too worried about the TDT change if it was not approved because the County could place it on the following ballot. He said that the County should have a plan for how to spend it, and that staff was working on a strategic plan and should have it to the Board in fall 2024.
Commr. Smith opined that the County had to communicate that this was for people who visited Lake County and stayed in hotels and Airbnbs, noting that it would help the burden of the general public.
Commr. Parks relayed that if the public lands referendum expired, and then if they placed it on the ballot in 2026 or 2028, it would be considered a tax increase because it expired. He added that this was just a renewal if the voters decided to do this.
Ms. Barker indicated that it could also be the creation of a new one depending on the language, and that it would not be a renewal. She clarified that it would be a new approval if it was used for a different project than the original, noting that the original was for public land acquisition.
Commr. Parks indicated an understanding that funding had also been spent on the South Lake Trail.
Commr. Campione said that the land acquisition was done with a bond, and she asked how much funding this generated on an annual basis.
Ms. Barker commented that the County had lowered it over the years to provide relief, and she thought that it was currently at 0.09 mills and was currently about $2.2 million to $2.5 million per year in revenue.
tourism ideas for south lake park
Commr. Shields said that he had some discussions with the City of Groveland regarding some tourism ideas for South Lake Park to help get it going and keep it running; furthermore, they could come back to the BCC and discuss it.
commissioner parks – district 2
distributed wastewater treatment system meeting
Commr. Parks relayed that he had a recent Onsyte DWTS meeting with FDEP officials, noting that Lake County had to fulfill its BMAP goal. He commented that this could be done through a specific number of retrofits or conversions from septic to sewer, or septic to this DWTS system. He mentioned that Mr. Jeff Littlejohn, with Onsyte, could provide a presentation to the Board regarding how they could meet these goals, and he said that it was basically 1,000 units per year over the next 10 years to meet their BMAP goal throughout three different basins in Lake County. He said that the County had applied for a grant to fund this, and he relayed his understanding that the County was currently spending ARPA funding to meet the matching portion of the grant; however, it would not be enough. He opined that the Board possibly needed make a policy decision that the homeowner would have to start paying for a percentage of the match, which the County could do through the municipal services benefit unit (MSBU) that they enacted. He opined that to meet the goal, they would otherwise have to utilize funding from other sources.
Commr. Campione said that the residents would still have to want to do this and that the County would be asking them to contribute significantly more.
Commr. Parks stated that there could possibly be some residents that would say it was worth it to them because the statute had changed. He explained that with one acre or below, one could not have a standard septic tank; rather, they would need either a DWTS or other high performance treatment system which was equal cost or more. He commented that residents would be faced with this choice when their standard septic tank expired, and he opined that this was why the numbers may work.
Commr. Campione relayed that they would have a choice, and if there was no sewer, then they were going to spend significantly more on a high performance septic tank versus going this route.
Commr. Parks added that they could also utilize DWTS, and that the County would still be matching this through FDEP’s grants, but residents would possibly have to start contributing funding. He clarified that this was not to discourage what was occurring currently.
Commr. Campione mentioned that it voluntary, and she opined that the more that the County asked the homeowner to contribute, the more challenging it would be to do these things.
Commr. Parks agreed, and he opined that the County needed to advise residents of the new statute which was becoming more stringent; additionally, he commented that they may contribute some funding, but that FDEP was still funding most of it. He thought that the Board could potentially start with a presentation from Onsyte, and he opined that the Board would have to direct staff beyond the first year of the grant.
Commr. Campione asked if there was any indication that FDEP was not going to do this again.
Commr. Parks relayed that he had been told that it would be statewide and that they would continue to do the grant funding; however, there was always a match. He questioned what strategy the County could employ to meet the match to continue to receive the grant each year while keeping it as minimal as possible and encourage people to make this change.
Commr. Shields recalled that the County was having the same issue with matches for roads, and he opined that they had just addressed this. He added that this could possibly free up some funding.
Commr. Campione thought that the County should have something at the Lake County Agricultural Center for residents to learn more about this opportunity.
Commr. Smith added that they could possibly have public workshops in south, middle and north Lake County.
Ms. Barker relayed her understanding that the Board wanted Onsyte to do a presentation at a community meeting, with possible meetings at the Lake County Agricultural Center and the City of Clermont.
Commr. Parks asked about the timeframe for the grant application.
Ms. Barker replied that Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, was preparing a grant which could be used for either DWTS or septic to sewer conversion if the County could have a City partner.
Commr. Campione inquired if the grant could be used for new users.
Ms. Barker denied this, clarifying that it could only be used for conversions.
Commr. Campione asked if this was strictly for retrofitting something already in existence, and Ms. Barker thought that this was how they wrote the grant the first time. Commissioner Campione then opined that the County wanted new projects to be using the new technology.
Mr. Earhart stated that the County could write the grant so that it could be used for new projects, though he was unsure if FDEP would approve that portion of the grant; therefore, he could ask them about this before the County applied. He commented that the new projects would have to be advanced septic systems or DWTS, and that the Board could almost legislate that the new ones had to utilize this. He clarified that the goal was to address the existing septic tanks, and that there were some infill lots that the County wanted advanced treatment on. He indicated that advanced septic systems had to be inspected every six months, and that it was around a $200 inspection fee, whereas the County’s was only about $600 per year for the fees. He commented that they could also do some matches where the residents paid 12.5 percent, the County matched 12.5 percent, and FDEP did 75 percent, noting that the match did not have to be 50/50; however, the higher the match, the more likely they were to receive the grant. He said that it would be two separate grants and that they would submit one for the DWTS and one for the septic to sewer conversion; furthermore, the County would have to have a City partner to show that they had capacity at the wastewater treatment plant.
Commr. Campione asked if staff had any conversations with Cities.
Mr. Earhart replied that he has spoken to the City of Tavares about the Lakeshore Drive extension, and to the City of Clermont for the sewer that Commissioner Parks had mentioned about a year prior.
Commr. Parks opined that it would help them get traction if there was an awareness of the BMAP requirement.
Mr. Earhart commented that the BMAPs had allocated a certain reduction which was supposed to come from septic tanks, and that there was a goal in the different basins.
Commr. Parks inquired about how many homes were identified in that presentation.
Mr. Earhart said that there were about 50,000 septic tanks within unincorporated Lake County, and that there were around 80,000 in incorporated and unincorporated Lake County. He relayed that approximately 9,000 were identified within this small area.
tourist development tax revenue
Commr. Parks related that one thing the Board could do for the TDT revenue was to allocate up to $1 million per year for trails, noting that this was of interest to him.
Commr. Smith thought that they were unable to do design.
Commr. Parks mentioned that they could do construction.
Ms. Barker added that this was unless they reached $10 million in TDT revenue.
Commr. Parks commented that this was Volusia County’s dedicated funding source for trails.
Commr. Smith asked if this could be agendized.
Ms. Barker relayed that staff would bring it to the Tourist Development Council first, and that this could be done. She added that staff was also working on a strategic plan, and that the Board may want to discuss it as part of the plan.
hurricane idalia and labor day
Commr. Parks wished the best for everyone during Hurricane
Idalia, and he also wished everyone a safe and enjoyable Labor Day weekend.
commissioner campione – district 4
meetings regarding wolf branch innovation district
Commr. Campione stated that she had some meetings with LEAD and staff about the Wolf Branch Innovation District, including working on a strategic plan for attracting for their targeted businesses. She added that as they received development approvals, they wanted to know exactly how they could make this happen.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5
library advisory board meeting
Commr. Blake remarked that he had a Library Advisory Board meeting in the previous week at the Leesburg Public Library and opined that it went great. He believed that he would have a new District 5 member recommendation at the following BCC meeting.
reentry simulation
Commr. Blake mentioned that he participated in the reentry simulation at the Lake County Agricultural Center, and that it went well. He commented that it was illustrative of the issues that individuals had to address when trying to reenter society after serving their time.
information regarding medical examiner
Commr. Blake said that at the following BCC meeting he would have more information on the situation with the Medical Examiner.
commissioner smith – chairman and district 3
storm preparations
Commr. Smith asked everyone to ensure that they were prepared for the storm.
national lemon juice day
Commr. Smith said that it was National Lemon Juice Day.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26 p.m.
_________________________________
kirby smith, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK