A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

September 5, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

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

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

virtual meeting instructions

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

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, requested that the Planning and Zoning agenda be moved ahead of the two presentations, noting that those items were all on the consent agenda.

citizen question and comment period

No one wished to address the Board at this time.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose any ex parte communications, but there were none.

Mr. Mike Fitzgerald, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes, and related that there were three items on the consent agenda, noting that they had received approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 3, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2023-56

Rezoning Case # FLU-23-35-4

Eld, Roach, and Azad Properties

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on Alternate Key (AK) Numbers 1400856, 1400881, and 1673828 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to correct previous zoning errors to bring the existing residential uses on AK 1400856 (Eld Property) and AK 1673828 (Roach Property), and the commercial use on AK 1400881 (Azad Property) into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR).

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2023-57

Rezoning Case # RZ-23-32-4

Eld, Roach, and Azad Properties

Rezone parcels identified as Alternate Key (AK) Numbers 1400856 (Eld Property), 1400881 (Azad Property) and 1673828 (Roach Property) from Planned Commercial (CP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to correct previous zoning errors.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2023-58

Rezoning Case # RZ-22-33-4

Rapture Air Storage Building

Rezone approximately 0.98 +/- acres from Community Commercial District (C-2) and Urban Residential District (R-6) to Community Commercial District (C-2) to facilitate the approval of an accessory structure (storage building) for the existing air conditioning business.

Lake to Lagoon Presentation

Ms. Mary Ellen Stern, Executive Director for Economic Growth, stated that she would provide an overview of the Lake to Lagoon Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and seek direction regarding a letter of support from Lake County. She noted that the published agenda item referred to discussion and direction on a financial contribution request of $10,000; however, there was not currently a financial contribution request. She explained that Lake to Lagoon was a Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) RCPP grant proposal, and that this information was provided by the Alachua Conservation Trust (ACT). She related that funding of $25 million was from the NRCS RCPP and a projected $26 million was from partner organizations, including the following: a $20 million commitment from Volusia County; $1.3 million from the ACT; $10,000 from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC); $34,000 from Stetson University; $3.5 million from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP); $43,000 from United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife; $3.5 million from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and $100,000 from the water management district. She remarked that the project was aimed to accelerate conservation of working farms, forestlands, and natural areas in the Lake to Lagoon region of Central Florida by accelerating land protection of critical areas and providing new financial assistance programs to private landowners for land management that protected natural resources; furthermore, the proposed RCPP complimented existing conservation programs to implement regional conservation goals, with emphasis on protecting and restoring resilient and connected landscapes. She mentioned that the project timeline was from 2024 to 2029, and that the contributions would be over a five year period. She stated that the project included all or parts of Volusia, Lake, and Flagler Counties, and that the ECFRPC had identified land conservation as part of the East Central Florida Regional Resiliency Action Plan (ECFRRAP), which centered on the following: building green infrastructure; promoting connectivity of natural lands; improving quality of surface waters; enhancing natural systems to mitigate flooding and storm damage; and protecting groundwater resources. She relayed that in coordination with several local and state partners, ACT proposed to accelerate conservation in the region with the Lake to Lagoon RCPP, which was a farm bill program implemented by the NRCS. She commented that through a competitive application process, the NRCS selected proposals from qualified partner organizations, noting that the purpose of RCPP was to expand the collective ability to address regional natural resource concerns. She displayed a map showing the Lake to Lagoon project area, and stated that their primary goals included the following: expanding conservation delivery by leveraging state and county program funding and resources; creating new opportunities for financial and technical assistance to private landowners to facilitate specific land management practices on private lands; and implementing the outreach and education components of the ECFRRAP as they related to public awareness of future climate changes and sustainable practices. She remarked that the requested action was for discussion and direction regarding a letter of support from Lake County.

Commr. Parks commented that he was supportive of the letter, and opined that the ACT was a great organization, noting that he would consider consulting them if Lake County was considering land acquisition as a way to help manage some of the county’s lands as well as transfer of development rights (TDR), easements, and less-than-fee acquisitions.

Commr. Smith questioned if they would come back at a future date to ask for assistance.

Ms. Stern replied that this was a possibility, and said that they had applied for a grant, which would take time; therefore, they could possibly ask for some type of financial contribution in the following year.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that a significant portion of Lake County was in this area.

Commr. Blake inquired if there was a $10,000 commitment along with the letter of support.

Ms. Stern clarified that this was the initial request; however, there was no financial request at the current time.

Commr. Blake remarked that he needed more information before he would be supportive of writing a letter of support, noting that 34 percent of Lake County was already in permanent conservation.

Commr. Campione related that she was supportive of the first two primary goals; however, she wanted to know more about the third primary goal’s education components as they related to public awareness of future climate changes and sustainable practices. She wondered if Lake County’s brand would be displayed on public awareness ads, opining that they may not align with Lake County philosophically and politically. She stated that she supported sustainable practices and conservation, and opined that even though there were areas in the county designated as conservation lands, there were many gaps and wildlife corridors that were being encroached on. She relayed that she wanted to see those areas protected; however, she did not want to see Lake County’s logo on a public information campaign that might not align with her political views on climate change.

Commr. Smith suggested that staff could gather more information on this item, enabling the Board to have a more informed discussion, and Ms. Stern indicated her assent.

Commr. Parks opined that many were divided on the issue of climate change; however, he opined that the ACT would not be going in that direction.

Commr. Campione remarked that she was in favor of addressing land conservation and coexisting with wildlife as well as focusing on protecting wildlife and the aquifer; however, she was not in favor of telling people what to drive and what kind of appliances to use. She opined that fear-mongering was being used to compel people, and she stated that she did not want Lake County’s brand involved in that type of rhetoric.

Commr. Parks opined that the education components would be more of the former, and that some of the elected leaders in Volusia County were politically likeminded; however, he opined that it would be good to learn more.

Commr. Smith commented that there was consensus from the Board to obtain more information and discuss it at a future BCC meeting.

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council presentation

Mr. Fitzgerald recalled that on August 23, 2022, the BCC approved the contract with the ECFRPC to develop a joint planning agreement (JPA) initiative between the County and the municipalities. He related that Ms. Tara McCue, Executive Director of the ECFRPC, would provide the following: an update regarding the accomplishments of Phase I; the conservation strategy; an introduction to the Phase II framework; the funding requirements; and information regarding the TDR program for discussion by the Board. He mentioned that there was a fiscal impact with this agenda item, and that it was included in the fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget.

Ms. McCue expressed appreciation to the Board for the opportunity to speak on the JPA, and said that Mr. Josh Sheldon, a project manager, was also in attendance. She relayed that they had been working on this project for about one year, and opined that they had made good progress. She recalled that they had applied for FDEP funding to pay for the conservation strategy, and that they had received $75,000; additionally, a technical report had been approved by FDEP earlier in the current year. She related that as part of the conservation strategy, they had held stakeholder workshops in 2022 and 2023 to discuss conservation priorities with stakeholders and experts around the county, which resulted in discussion on connectivity of the wildlife corridor and water resources. She commented that using the Marxan model, Stetson College reevaluated the conservation efforts using current conservation open space, including agricultural and working lands, and that they had completed the initial draft model and technical report, which was submitted to FDEP. She stated that their next steps included public workshops to review their results and strategies to move forward, which were planned for November 1 and November 8, 2023, and that based on those findings, they would discuss adjustments to the model and create a strategy document for acceptance by the BCC, noting that they hoped to have this completed by the end of December 2023. She relayed that they had been working with the City of Groveland and the Town of Montverde on developing their JPAs, which were in their final stages, and that they had held municipal partner meetings and had identified some next steps with many of them. She commented that some key points that came from those partner meetings included the following priorities: rural lifestyle and agriculture were important; cities should be able to keep their identities; direction should be enforceable by the County and the municipality; and coordination should be continued through this effort for land use activities. She mentioned that some jurisdictions had different viewpoints on interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBAs), and that this would be taken into consideration. She stated that they continued to gather the data needed for the JPA, such as future land use (FLU) allocations, population, entitlements, and other factors, and that adoption strategies would be used for each of the jurisdictions. She related that they had identified some jurisdictions that they would be starting conversations with, which included the Cities of Minneola, Clermont and Tavares, along with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. She added that for Phase II, they wanted to continue to work with the other jurisdictions and continue their conversations with Lake County and other stakeholders. She commented that some of the steps they had undertaken during the prior year included the following: establishing and finalizing delineation for JPAs or ISBAs currently in existence; identifying adoption strategies to move forward; building consensus around items within JPA documents; identifying transportation parameters, conservation lands, and utilities; and finalizing the conservation models for the JPAs. She mentioned that the TDR program, which was the transferring of dwelling units, density, or stories from one piece of property to another, took place in the private market once the local government had established the policy and framework, including a way to track it, and that this was a strategy the County had wished to be explored further for conservation. She noted that there were mixed reviews about it, and that they wanted to explore what had been successful and what Lake County and the jurisdictions would need to consider to be successful. She relayed that the ECFRPC, Lake County, and Stetson University had sent a proposal to the Florida Department of Commerce; however, it had not been funded. She stated that for Phase I, they wanted to work with Stetson University Institute for Water and Stetson Law to explore the legal considerations of a TDR program in Lake County, including the following: success; shortcomings; existing programs; and how it all related to the Florida property law. She said that if this was the direction that the County wanted to move in, they would proceed with Phase II and create a framework and policies with Stetson Law for consideration; additionally, they would establish a database for the County to track the TDRs.

Commr. Shields asked what the Cities thought about ISBAs versus JPAs.

Ms. McCue answered that from the discussions, it was determined that an ISBA would be more enforceable that a JPA, and that some of the Cities liked the concept of still being able to have noncontiguous annexation, which was allowed in an ISBA.

Commr. Shields wondered if TDRs could lead into that, opining that if one wanted to move development rights, they would have to be moved into a city or to a place where the County was encouraging the City to expand.

Commr. Parks opined that a TDR would work for land that was in the county.

Commr. Shields opined that there would not be any receiving areas in the county because the County could not provide water and sewer.

Commr. Campione explained that as cities grew, they would eventually come to those areas, and opined that there could be a county to county transfer if a person was willing to transfer rights to forego being able to develop in the future.

Commr. Shields opined that this tied into the ISBA versus JPA issue, and that the County could determine where the Cities could expand and which areas should be kept rural.

Commr. Parks opined that the Cities would possibly participate in TDRs more with a JPA than with an ISBA, and that allowing a City to annex noncontiguous property was an issue with ISBAs.

Commr. Campione opined that the Cities would not want to give that up unless there could be an agreement on a more conscientious way to develop.

Commr. Shields mentioned that on County Road (CR) 561, some developers had recently been denied building high density developments in the county and had petitioned the City of Clermont.

Commr. Parks opined that this was why the County wanted to have JPAs with the Cities, and that there should be a process of communication between the Cities and the County.

Commr. Shields opined that there could be different rules for the landowners or the builders if they went through the City, and said that it would be nice if the City and the County were in agreement about what should be developed in which areas.

Commr. Parks opined that there had been issues with the ISBAs because of the Cities annexing noncontiguous property, and that the hope of the JPA was that a process would be in place.

Commr. Shields opined that some of the Cities would also like to have these issues solved.

Ms. McCue commented that being in agreement was a priority of these conversations, and opined that as the County identified issues with the ISBA or the JPA, they could fit the JPA into the ISBA while removing any conflicting issues and working through all those conversations.

Commr. Smith questioned if there were issues on the legality of the TDR program.

Ms. McCue replied that there were some TDR programs in Florida, including one in the City of Titusville; however, they wanted to explore how other states and cities throughout the U.S. were doing them and then set one up with the Florida land use laws.

Commr. Smith wondered if this should be done before granting any more funding.

Ms. McCue explained that the first part of the proposal was to explore what worked and what did not and to consider what would make a successful program in Lake County before moving into the program itself.

Commr. Parks clarified that TDRs were legal, and noted that they would be ensuring that it was created to be more feasible for Lake County. He opined that they worked in some places and not in others, and that the TDR program in Hillsborough County was mediocre. He commented that he did not want a mediocre program, and that if it was not the best program then he did not want to do it. He opined that it could be a good incentive to use, but it would take further study.

Ms. McCue stated that they wanted to study it further before creating it.

Commr. Blake remarked that he was hesitant to move forward with a program that had mixed reviews across the U.S., and he inquired if only the Cities of Groveland and Mascotte were moving forward with the JPA.

Ms. McCue answered that they were finishing with those Cities and having conversations with four other jurisdictions.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the City of Clermont was close to approving their JPA.

Ms. McCue relayed that the other three jurisdictions were the Cities of Minneola and Tavares and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, noting that they had the funding to move those forward.

Commr. Blake asked if the additional funding request was to move forward on the TDR program, and said that he did not realize that the funding approved for the JPA initiative was only for Phase I.

Ms. Barker replied that when this item originally came to the Board, it was not approved by the Board, and that one of the concerns was that it was an all or nothing payment schedule. She related that Commissioner Campione brought it back for consideration with a phased-in schedule, and noted that it could be stopped at any point if it was not meeting the Board’s expectations. She explained that Phase I was to work with the Cities, and that this was fully funded.

Ms. McCue commented that they had funding to continue with those additional four municipalities, and that Phase II would be to continue the conversation with the other municipalities and move those forward. She noted that the TDR program was not included in that request.

Ms. Barker remarked that the TDR program had not been approved by the Board, and that part of the current request was to approve the Phase II funding and to move forward with the TDR program, which would require some additional funding for the exploration phase.

Commr. Blake questioned what the original expenditure was.

Ms. Barker relayed her understanding that it was $350,000.

Ms. McCue stated that this was for the total, and that the first approval was for $120,000.

Commr. Blake asked if $120,000 was what had been spent so far, and Ms. Barker indicated that this was correct.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the initial Phase I would include the other four municipalities.

Commr. Shields recalled that when he was first elected, the City of Groveland had told him that the County had allowed a neighborhood where they had wanted commerce to be, which was near the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park, opining that this initiative could also help with economic development.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it was for workforce housing.

Commr. Shields opined that the County needed to know where the commercial areas, homes, and conservation areas should be, and that this was a great process to do that.

Commr. Parks inquired what it would cost for Phase II, and asked if they would apply for another grant since they did not receive the Florida Department of Commerce grant.

Ms. McCue replied that they were requesting $113,000 for Phase II of the JPA, which would cover the rest of the jurisdictions and finalize the conservation strategy. She explained that the TDR request was not included in that amount, and said that it would be $40,000 for Phase I and $60,000 for Phase II, which would be the development of the actual program. She commented that if the Board wanted to fund the exploratory phase for $40,000, then they would apply the following year for a technical assistance grant for Phase II, noting that this would show that the County had invested in the program and wanted to move forward.

Commr. Campione opined that the County may find that a TDR program would not work after the exploratory phase; however, if there were possibilities in certain locations and there were participating Cities, then there could be an attempt made to obtain funding from an assistance grant. She opined that it was worth exploring because it could possibly be essential in some locations where the County would rather see some properties stay rural, and that by transferring rights off of those lands and moving them to other areas that made more sense for development, the owners could be compensated for not developing.

Commr. Parks pointed out that TDRs could include natural lands and agricultural lands.

Commr. Campione opined that this could allow landowners to continue agricultural uses for generations, and that they could receive compensation for that instead of selling to developers.

Commr. Blake questioned how many total phases were anticipated.

Ms. McCue answered that Phase II would the last phase for the JPA initiative, and that there would be two phases for the TDR program, which included the exploratory phase and the implementation.

Commr. Blake asked if these four phases had a total cost of the original $350,000 or if they would exceed that amount because the TDR program was not included in that initial proposal.

Ms. McCue said that it would be a total of about $350,000.

Commr. Smith commented that the two phases for the JPA initiative was $233,000.

Commr. Campione remarked that $40,000 could be added for TDR exploration, opining that the County could decide not to move forward after that, or they could obtain assistance with the $60,000 for Phase II.

Commr. Smith stated that this would bring the total to about $273,000.

Commr. Blake inquired if the County needed to spend $40,000 on TDR exploration or if the County could decide in-house if TDRs would work in Lake County, opining that there was plenty of information about TDR programs, such as the one in Hillsborough County.

Commr. Parks opined that there were some very good TDR programs that worked, and noted that Phase I was for a feasibility study. He also opined that he could point out three programs that did not work and explain why they did not work; however, he opined that it needed to be studied specifically for Lake County.

Commr. Blake questioned if there would be workshops with the landowners who would be the most interested in that program, and asked if they would be exploring whether there was interest in Lake County.

Ms. McCue replied that they were having workshops in November 2023 for the conservation strategy, and that they could ask about TDRs or possibly educate the public on it. She related that in prior workshops with the municipalities, they had discussed whether or not TDRs were something they would consider, and that the municipalities had wanted more information. She stated that the $40,000 would be going to Stetson Law to legally look at how it would work in Lake County.

Commr. Campione wondered if they would consider the following details: the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan); when the County was due to have a Comp Plan revision; and when the Cities were due to have Comp Plan revisions. She opined that they would have to start with what the land uses were currently and incorporate future changes because it would include reviewing current development rights, and that if more density was going to be created in one area, such as 16 units per acre, and the County only went up to 12 units per acre in those areas, then there would need to be a way to transfer rights and create compensation for losing rights. She opined that they would have to know when the future land use (FLU) map was going to be required to be revised and when the Comp Plan would have to be updated, and that they would also have to know what the municipalities’ schedules were; additionally, there were individual applications that were continuing to be submitted while all this was happening. She opined that there was much to be taken into consideration to create this program, and that the landowners could then be asked if they wanted to participate after there was more information, including what they would lose and how much funding they would gain.

Commr. Parks opined that a legal analysis would take time and would have to be done by people who understood how it could work.

Commr. Campione opined that they could possibly look at this and say that there was no way that this could work in Lake County.

Commr. Smith commented that he would like to see what the four municipalities did before moving forward.

Commr. Blake said that he would agree with that.

Commr. Parks remarked that he was comfortable with the way Phase I was going, even though it had been slow, and that he would be supportive of Phase II and the feasibility study for TDRs.

Commr. Campione wondered if Phase I could be completed to see how it all worked out before adding more Cities, opining that the County should approve the TDR exploration for $40,000.

Commr. Shields commented that Phase II could be approved contingent on the completion of Phase I.

Commr. Parks opined that Ms. McCue could come back in two months, and Ms. McCue indicated that she could.

Commr. Campione remarked that she wanted to see what happened before moving forward, and that they could approve the next phase at that time.

Commr. Shields asked about the TDRs.

Commr. Campione opined that the County should do the exploration; otherwise, the County would not know if it was even feasible.

Commr. Smith commented that this would decide if the County should move forward with Phase II, noting that there would be six municipalities completed out of the 14 municipalities. He stated that if the County could obtain an answer about TDRs, he would be willing to move forward; however, he was not comfortable with moving forward with Phase II until those questions could be answered.

Commr. Parks inquired if there could be a report on the completed Phase I at a future BCC meeting, which would give the Board the information needed to move forward with Phase II, and Ms. McCue agreed.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to finish Phase I and to commit $40,000 for the exploration of the TDR program.

Commr. Blake voted no.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

Football teams

Commr. Parks related that the Florida State University (FSU) Seminoles football team and the University of Central Florida (UCF) Knights football team both had good weekends.

commissioner campione – district 4

Lake County Fire and Rescue

Commr. Campione commented that the Lake County Fire and Rescue paramedics provided an extraordinary service recently. She opined that they were very professional, and she expressed appreciation for them.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

labor day

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had a good Labor Day weekend, and hoped that everybody had a safe and wonderful long weekend.

Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting

Commr. Smith relayed that he had attended an Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting.

Children's Services Council meeting

Commr. Smith stated that he had attended a Children's Services Council meeting.

National Be Late for Something Day

Commr. Smith said that it was National Be Late for Something Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK