A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

October 10, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 10, 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; Mary Burns, Accounting Director; 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 David Stauffer, from Morrison United Methodist Church in the City of Leesburg, 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 Tab 16 be moved to immediately follow the agenda update, and pointed out that there was additional language added to the requested action and background summary of Tab 18 and additional language added to the requested action of Tab 19; furthermore, Tabs 21 and 22 were added as addendums to the consent agenda since the agenda was first published. She relayed that Tab 21 was regarding a minimum tax bill being mailed out to residents, and that there was a typo in the resolution, which should state that the minimum tax bill would $16.01; therefore, anything less than $16.01 would not be mailed out. She mentioned that if the Board were to approve that as part of the consent agenda, that change would be reflected in the resolution.

Commr. Smith commented that he would like to move Tab 18 to immediately follow the consent agenda.

Girls State Experience

Ms. Kylie Bryan, a graduate of Leesburg High School, mentioned that she had been at a previous BCC meeting because she had been selected to go to Girls State, and that she had come back to report on her experience. She related that she had the opportunity to meet many people from different parts of the State of Florida, and that she became friends with many of them. She mentioned that she won the positions of a City Commissioner and a County Commissioner, and that she was able to debate pros and cons of different bills in the House of Representatives, noting that her bill for electrocardiogram testing being mandatory for student athletes was passed there. She hoped that she would be going to college with some of the friends she had made, and noted that she was happy to see many strong independent female leaders coming up in society.

Commr. Parks commented that he was impressed, and opined that Ms. Bryan had a bright future ahead of her. He opined that whatever she did in the future, she would be successful, and that she represented the future of Lake County. He expressed appreciation to the parents of Ms. Bryan, and inquired if she was going to go to Florida State University (FSU). He opined that whatever choice she made would be the best, and that she did a good job with her presentation.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation to Ms. Bryan for being a good representative of Lake County.

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

Kerri Andrews, Financial Coordinator

Public Works Department

Chrystal Best, Financial Coordinator

Circuit Judges

Marcia Bush, Associate Director

Office of Parks & Water Resources

Mary Ezzell, Financial Analyst

Office of Transit Services

Susan Hopewell, Database 911 Specialist

Office of Public Safety Support

Lynn McGee, Financial Analyst

Office of Planning & Zoning

TEN YEARS

Timothy Gilbert, Road Maintenance Operator

Public Works Department

Benjamin Green, Fire Lieutenant/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

Dustin Dart, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

Bradley Hermesmen, Firefighter/ Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue

FIFTEEN YEARS

Shane Strew, Recreation Coordinator

Office of Parks & Trails

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 9:13 a.m. for 10 minutes.

QUARTERLY AWARDS

EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER

Karen Snodgrass, Procurement Technician

Office of Procurement Services

Ms. Nelson stated that Ms. Snodgrasss was nominated due to the following: her professional approach to every assignment; follow-up to tasks and projects; willingness to help wherever needed; and always seeking to learn more about the procurement process. She mentioned that she had additional duties assisting one of the Assistant County Managers, and that they wanted to recognize her work ethic and positive demeanor.

SUPERVISOR OF THE QUARTER

Mike Olka, Senior Engineer

Public Works Department

Ms. Nelson remarked that Mr. Olka was being recognized for the following: showing patience and professionalism when assisting customers; showing attention to detail when preparing and reviewing construction plans; working with a homeowner to correct the base flood elevation with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); explaining to a contractor the requirements related to seawall construction; and preparing and submitting hazard mitigation grants related to hurricane damages. She relayed that Mr. Olka was an integral part of the County’s engineering team, and she expressed appreciation to his dedication to Lake County and its citizens.

T.E.A.M. OF THE QUARTER

ROAD OPERATIONS – CDL TEAM

Team Members:

Adam Sherk

Donnie Gardner

Chris Hicks

Melanie Brown

Steven Bowers

Ms. Nelson commented that this team’s collective efforts had resulted in a successful creation and implementation of a new commercial driver’s license (CDL) program that complied with all State and federal guidelines. She relayed that this team’s dedication had allowed all County employees the ability to obtain a CDL at minimal cost to the employee, which not only benefited individuals financially with an estimated cost savings of about $5,000 per employee, but it also presented an opportunity for career advancement within Lake County; additionally, the program could also help with recruiting and employee retention. She mentioned that by developing and implementing this CDL program, this team had demonstrated diligence, innovation, and commitment in enhancing the County workforce, and she expressed congratulations to the team.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of August 8, 2023 (Regular Meeting) and August 29, 2023 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Marty Proctor, a concerned citizen, opined that Lake County supported conservation and the preservation of open spaces, quality of life, wildlife, and water; however, he opined that there were issues with the current environment. He also opined that there was a difference in the business models for maintaining active parks and recreation and the preservation of wildlife and open spaces; therefore, he opined that a strategic plan should be considered and implemented to help preserve these open spaces and to determine what land was going to be suitable for preservation going forward. He related that the County had recently added 3,600 acres at Lake Norris and planned to purchase the remainder of Pine Meadows, which was a freshwater preserve that fed into Lake Eustis. He relayed that the County had 7,700 acres of Lake County Water Authority property (LCWA), and opined that it was a tremendous amount of responsibility and a much different situation than parks and recreation. He opined that the conservation land business model did not drive tourism, but it enhanced the quality of life for current and future residents. He also opined that all this added land was too much for the existing organizational structure to manage, and mentioned that the County was considering reducing the number of members on the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board. He asked that the County create a strategic plan and appoint a team to manage conservation open lands.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of East Dewey Robbins Road, opined that the County had undertaken the following: the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area (RPA) development; the joint planning agreement (JPA) process; the Whispering Hills and Hodges Reserve concessions; letters to the municipalities requesting JPAs; and additional meetings. She mentioned that the JPA with the City of Groveland said that the County and City sought to have compatible land uses adjacent to their common boundaries, and that the purpose of the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 was to influence the needs and development of local communities, opining that this included the RPAs and rural communities. She expressed concern about the latest version of the JPA, which did not mention RPAs, and said that it included interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) boundaries in the JPA, which included open water and wetlands. She relayed her understanding that Lake County’s definition of open space excluded water bodies and wetlands, and that a project claiming to have 42 percent open space in the Yalaha-Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area had included open water in its calculation; additionally, there was no compatible land use adjacent to the existing rural communities. She opined that combining the ISBA boundaries into the JPA was not helpful because there were no improvements and no protections, and she asked that the County would modify the ISBA territory boundaries so that RPAs were not subject to annexation for high urban densities.

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 community. He mentioned that as an independent farmer, he had opened his farm to the community to learn about sustainability, and that it was open four times a month for the following activities: an energy panel; a farm tour, which was the second Saturday of every month; and other events from October 2023 to April 2024. He added that the next farm tour was on the following Saturday at 9:00 a.m.

Ms. Brittany Lerch, a resident of Lake County, commented that Number 2 Road was a dirt road created by farmers over 50 years ago and added to the county road system in the 1960s, and that the dimensions of the lanes were currently only seven and a half to nine feet wide; additionally, the County did not own the right of way for over two miles of this six mile road. She related that the road was paved in the 1980s with gravel and tar without being brought up to Florida’s Green Book standards, and that it was not compliant with State or County standards for surface width, drainage systems, intersection and curve design, grades, or culverts. She mentioned that roads were designed to accommodate 15 types of vehicles; however, she opined that only one of those vehicles could fit within the travel lanes of Number 2 Road, and that towed trailers, tractor trailers, and school buses had to drive off the roadway or over the center line to travel this road. She opined that oncoming vehicles could not safely pass without one or both having to drive off the road. She remarked that the functional classification of Number 2 Road was a rural local road until 2003 when it was changed to a minor collector road without any improvements being made, and that the width of this road was up to 53 percent less than the minimum standard for a minor collector road, which changed the assumed capacity from 400 vehicles per day to 9,936 vehicles per day. She relayed that when she inquired about reclassifying it back to a rural local road, she was referred to the calculation by VHB, a Civil engineering company, based on the generalized service volume tables and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality/Level of Service (Q/LOS) Handbook; however, the handbook said that the road must meet Florida Green Book minimum standards in order to apply those tables. She noted that the VHB consultant had told her that a detailed analysis was necessary to validate the actual operating conditions which may vary from this worksheet, and that a detailed analysis on Number 2 Road had not been done. She stated that those tables could not be used to calculate the capacity or level of service for Number 2 Road because it had been assumed that this road was built to minimum standards, and opined that this road would become more dangerous if proposed developments were allowed to connect to it and bring 4,000 more cars to this road. She asked that the County instruct staff to pursue the following actions: reverting the functional classification back to a rural local road; placing a moratorium on driveway and road access permits until a detailed analysis could be completed; distributing the analysis to the City of Leesburg and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; and denying driveway permits onto Number 2 Road on the basis that the road did not meet State and County standards.

Ms. Sandy Russ, a resident of Lake County, opined that Number 2 Road did not meet the criteria of a minor collector road, and that the proposed development plans included access points from Number 2 Road, noting that a second access point was required due to the large number of homes included in these developments. She related that the development plans noted that Number 2 Road access points would also include turn lanes, and opined that this indicated high travel volumes. She remarked that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) identified future issues with State Road (SR) 19 due to new growth, and that the plan to address these issues was to require the two new developments to include new roads to connect Number 2 Road with SR 19, opining that it would significantly increase the traffic on Number 2 Road. She opined that since the classification of Number 2 Road was incorrect, any traffic analysis involving this road would be inaccurate, and that it would be prudent for any proposed development which utilized Number 2 Road to be placed on hold. She opined that Number 2 Road needed to be reanalyzed, and that once this road was reclassified, any Comp Plans, concurrency management system plans, ISBAs, and RPAs which included transportation data for Number 2 Road would need to reviewed and revised accordingly. She commented that the area served by Number 2 Road was rural, and that a large portion of land surrounding this road was included in the Yalaha-Lake Apopka RPA, which was important for sustaining the long term rural character of Lake County and preventing urban sprawl. She opined that the rural areas needed to be preserved and protected, and that allowing large developments to encroach into their rural lands would erode the natural beauty and peacefulness of these areas.

CANINE PNEUMOVIRUS UPDATE

Ms. Whitney Boylston, Director for the Office of Animal Services, stated that the Lake County Animal Shelter was experiencing an outbreak of Canine Pneumovirus, which had been identified by uncharacteristic respiratory symptoms in some of the dogs and confirmed via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing results on September 29, 2023. She related that Dr. Cynda Crawford, an infectious disease expert with the University of Florida (UF) Shelter Medicine Program, had consulted with their team on the disease response, mitigation, and recovery plan, and that they had limited their shelter operations in conjunction with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) to establish a clean break, which would allow them to house emergency intakes of dogs and keep them safe and away from the virus. She commented that they had not experienced any loss of life, which could not be caused by the virus but by a secondary bacterial infection that led to pneumonia, and noted that they were monitoring their dogs very closely for progression of the disease and ensuring that they were staying as healthy and happy as possible through this illness.

Florida Native Plant Society Proclamation 2023-117

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Florida Native Plant Society Proclamation 2023-117, and the White Cane Safety Day Proclamation 2023-118.

Commr. Parks presented Proclamation 2023-117 to Ms. Neta Villalobos-Bell, President of the Lake Beautyberry Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society, and Ms. Villalobos-Bell asked that Ms. Tina Mertz receive the proclamation. Commissioner Parks stated that this was one of his favorite organizations, and that he highly recommended those interested in the native plants of the State of Florida to become members of the Florida Native Plant Society in one of their local chapters. He then read the proclamation and expressed appreciation for their organization and all that they did, opining that the education they offered was very valuable.

Ms. Mertz expressed appreciation on behalf of Lake County’s two Florida Native Plant Society Chapters, Lake Beautyberry and Passionflower, for supporting the value and celebration of their native plants, and related that they participated in many community projects that served their mission of restoring, conserving, and protecting native plants and their habitats.

White Cane Safety Day Proclamation 2023-118

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for Ms. Chantel Buck, with New Vision for Independence, and related that his grandfather had been blind. He indicated appreciation to the Board for approving this unanimously, and he read and presented Proclamation 2023-118 to Ms. Buck.

Ms. Buck explained that they used White Cane Safety Day to help sighted members of the community have a better understanding of both the challenges of blindness and how those challenges could be overcome, opining that it was not the worst condition that could happen; additionally, surveys indicated that more people were afraid of going blind than they were of Alzheimer’s Disease, cancer, and clowns. She remarked that blindness could happen to anybody, and opined that making the community blind friendly could possibly benefit oneself. She expressed appreciation for commemorating White Cane Safety Day, and mentioned that there would be an event on October 16, 2023.

Commr. Smith indicated appreciation for Ms. Buck and for all she did for the community.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 10, 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.

Annexation and Supporting Ordinances from the City of Umatilla

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2023-12, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2023-13, and Rezoning Ordinance 2023-14 from the City of Umatilla.

Adopted Budget for the Arlington Ridge Community Development District

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 final adopted budget for the Arlington Ridge Community Development District for purposes of disclosure information pursuant to Section 189.016 (4), Florida Statutes.

Budget Resolution for the Avalon Groves Community Development District

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Fiscal Year 2024 budget Resolution 2023-14 for the Avalon Groves Community Development District.

Land Use Designation Amendment and Zoning Reclassification from the City of Umatilla

Notice is hereby provided of having received Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance 2023-16, and Zoning Reclassification Ordinance 2023-17 from the City of Umatilla.

Adopted Budget for the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District

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

Annual Meeting Schedule for the Lake Emma Community Development District

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Lake Emma Community Development District annual meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Annual Meeting Schedule for the Lake Harris Community Development District

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Lake Harris Community Development District annual meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Annual Meeting Schedule for the Hicks Ditch Community Development District

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Hicks Ditch Community Development District annual meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2024 in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Adopted Budget for the City of Eustis

Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Eustis FY 2023-24 adopted budget.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 12 with the addition of Tabs 21 and 22, as follows:

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval:

1. Of Purchase Agreement and Release of All Claims between Blackwater Creek Enterprise, LLC and Lake County; and

2. Of a budget transfer reallocating $420,000 from General Fund reserves for the settlement payment.

The fiscal impact is $420,000 (expenditure).

COUNTY MANAGER

Recommend approval of Assignment and Assumption of Maintenance Obligations by The Villages Land Company, LLC, and The Villages Development Company, LLC, and Village Community Development District NO. 14 for roadway improvements related to stormwater retention improvements as set forth in Section 4.b, and landscaping as set forth in Section 9.a of the Agreement.

The fiscal impact is $5,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 5.

Recommend approval of Resolution 2023-136 instructing the Lake County Tax Collector to not mail tax notices to a taxpayer if the amount of taxes shown on the tax notice is less than Sixteen Dollars ($16.00), and instructing the Lake County Property Appraiser not to make an extension on the tax roll for any parcel for which the tax amount would be less than Sixteen Dollars ($16.00).

The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Recommend approval of reimbursement for the Lake County Sheriff's Office $2.50 Education Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 2023. The fiscal impact is $85,490.67 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Planning and Zoning

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Article IV, Division 2, Chapter 2, Lake County Code, entitled Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Advisory Committee. There is no fiscal impact.

Emergency Medical Services

Recommend approval:

1. To participate in Year 4 of the Intergovernmental Transfer Program with the State of Florida for Medicaid Managed Care Transports; and

2. To authorize continued participation in future program years unless the County Manager determines future participation is not in the best interests of the County; and

3. To authorize the County Manager to execute all required agreements or documents for each year of participation.

The fiscal impact for Year 4 of the Program is $1,739,291.31 ($2,849,907.88 (revenue) and $1,110,616.57 (expenditure)). The anticipated fiscal impact for Year 5 of the Program is $2,337,428.89 ($4,032,831.07 (revenue) and $1,695,402.18 (expenditure)).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Public Works

Recommend approval:

1. Of a Local Agency Program Supplemental agreement; and

2. To adopt supporting Resolution 2023-134 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding funding the construction and inspection services for County Road 42 from the Marion County line to State Road 44 in the Altoona area.

The estimated fiscal impact is $243,742 (revenue/expenditure – 100 percent grant funded) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal year 2024 Budget. Commission District 4.

Recommend approval:

1. To utilize Contract 22-931E with Tierra, Inc. (Winter Garden, FL) to provide Construction Engineering Inspection Services for the CR 441-19A Eudora Roundabout project; and

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $386,100 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 3 and 4.

Recommend approval:

1. Of a Federally Funded agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and

2. To adopt supporting Resolution 2023-135 with HUD regarding funding final design and Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI) for Citrus Grove Road Phase II, in the Minneola area; and

3. To authorize the County Manager to sign future documents related to this grant.

The estimated fiscal impact is $1,000,000 (revenue/expenditure – 100 percent grant funded) and is included in the Fiscal year 2024 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend approval:

1. To delegate authority to the County Manager to execute a Task Order for Contract 21-0901B with Kleinfelder Southeast, Inc. (Mount Dora); and

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

The fiscal impact is $89,479.27 and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2024 Budget. Commission District 2.

Supervisor of Elections Facility

Ms. Barker stated that there were several considerations for which staff was requesting direction from the Board, and that one of these items was the termination of the Sears lease. She recalled that the Board had directed staff at a prior BCC meeting to negotiate a termination of the Sears lease because they did not anticipate being able to use it for the Supervisor of Elections facility, and that the County had offered one full year of lease payments, which was more than $500,000. She explained that they had already started demolition as well as asbestos mediation, and that in order to bring it back to leasable condition, such as adding ceiling tiles, flooring, and walls, they offered $750,000. She related that the property owner rejected that proposal and offered the opportunity to exit the lease agreement early by paying the full year of lease payments of $500,000 and $1.3 million to bring the space back to leasable condition for a total of about $1.8 million. She mentioned that if the County kept the Sears lease for the full five year term, they would pay about $2.6 million in lease payments, and that the difference between terminating early and keeping the lease for the full five years was about $800,000, noting that if the Board chose to keep the lease, they would be able to find a use within the County operations.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the total to keep the lease for five years was $2.6 million, and that it would cost $1.8 million to terminate the lease, noting that the facility could be used for a myriad of other departments, and Ms. Barker indicated that this was correct.

Commr. Blake opined that it would be worth the cost to procure some use out of that investment for the next five years.

Commr. Campione said that she agreed with that.

Commr. Parks agreed, and opined that there were many uses, including 10,000 or 12,000 feet of meeting space for other organizations; additionally, he opined that it could bring more people to the mall.

Ms. Barker indicated that she had consensus and remarked that the second item was the termination of the construction manager and architect agreements, noting that currently the County was under agreement with the construction manager and the architect for the design and construction management services to renovate the Sears building. She mentioned that when the Board had voted to terminate the lease property, part of that decision was to terminate those contracts; however, the Supervisor of Elections had indicated that he would like to keep these contracts in place for services related to the construction of a new facility on the Lane Park Road property. She stated that she was requesting confirmation or change of the vote regarding termination of the construction manager and architect agreements.

Commr. Campione questioned if the County could even use these existing agreements for a different location.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, remarked that the County had originally utilized the request for proposal (RFP) to obtain the construction manager and the architect to build a new facility from the ground up on the Lane Park Road property, and that their contracts were then revised to do the renovation at the Sears building. She relayed that her recommendation had been to go back out to bid at that point because it was a different project and may have generated different interest. She commented that the contracts had already been amended once, and that her recommendation would be to go back out to bid as there had been a significant length of time since it was originally bid as a ground up project. She stated that the current request was for steel buildings versus a brick and mortar construction, and that even though the Board could redo the contracts, much time had passed and the scope had already been changed once.

Commr. Smith indicated that he was in favor of going back out for an RFP, noting that the scope had changed in a dramatic way.

Ms. Barker commented that this would be contingent on the next item.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the funds spent on the architect and the construction manager up to date had already been earned.

Ms. Barker remarked that the County had already negotiated a termination with Charles Perry Partners, Inc. (CPPI), the construction manager, and Song and Associates, the architect, and that there was an outstanding amount for work to date with the architect; however, CPPI had been paid in full to date.

Commr. Campione indicated that she was in favor of rebidding, and noted that it had been revised once already for a different kind of construction, making it difficult to manage. She opined that if there were any issues, it would become even more complicated.

Ms. Barker stated that the next item was the construction of a new facility on the Lane Park Road property, and that the Supervisor of Elections had requested two steel buildings as opposed to the ground up construction of a new facility. She related that the total estimate provided by CPPI was about $11.8 million for the two buildings as well as some site work, and noted that after reviewing the estimate and conferring with CPPI, the County determined that this figure did not include the following: architectural and design costs; impact fees; additional site work; water; power; data; utilities; sidewalks; turn lanes; right of way; and security systems, which were crucial in the Supervisor of Elections’ facility. She said that the County estimated that it could cost an additional $7.5 million, which would bring the total to about $19 million, noting that they could have more than just estimates once the design had been figured in.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Tim Dickson, with CPPI, commented that he was representing his company in support of Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, and that they were continuing to support the project as needed with a goal of constructing a building that would serve the population of Lake County. He opined that it was important to ensure that the election process was fair, and that the results were accurate and timely. He said that he was available to answer any questions as needed based on the current estimates that were submitted for the building concepts that were presented to Senator Hays and the County.

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

Senator Hays opined that many funds had been spent without any benefit to the citizens of Lake County, and that none of the proposals offered by the County had been viable. He opined that the proposal of purchasing the current building and converting it into an administrative center would not work and would waste more funds, and that his office had a need for more administrative and warehouse space. He opined that the 13 acres on Lane Park Road had been purchased with funds saved by his office and returned to the BCC over two fiscal years, and he requested that the County build a new Supervisor of Elections office there. He opined that there was a difference between the price, which was paid up front, and the cost, which was paid over the life of the project, and that spending $11 million on the purchase and remodeling of the current facility while building a warehouse on the Lake Park Road property was unacceptable and wasteful. He opined that a better plan was to build a warehouse and administration spaces at the same time on the Lane Park Road property; however, he opined that if the County needed to split up his office functions, the current facility could become a warehouse at no cost. He relayed that the purchase price set by the owner of the current facility was $4 million, and that County staff had estimated $6.7 million to convert the facility to be their administrative center. He opined that this was not a legitimate estimate because he had not been consulted about what was needed to renovate this facility except for the square footage; additionally, the construction of the warehouse on the Lane Park Road property would cost between $5 and $6 million, opining that this proposal would be more expensive than his request. He requested that the Board authorize him to enter into negotiations with Song and Associates and CPPI to build two pre-engineered, manufactured buildings on the Lane Park Road property, noting that he had emailed the schematic layout to the Board on September 21, 2023 for the utilization of those buildings along with the estimated cost of construction. He related that he and his team had invested many weeks of their time collaborating with these two firms about their needs and the best ways to meet those needs, and he asked that the Board would not vote to terminate their contracts, opining that introducing new firms into the project at this time would impose an inconvenience on his team when they needed to be devoted to the upcoming elections in 2024. He opined that if the Board agreed to give him complete control of the preconstruction efforts, he would return with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) that would include the entire project and not exceed $14 million, noting that this figure did not include highway modifications, environmental mitigation, or impact fees to the City of Tavares. He opined that for about $12 million he could obtain two new 20,000 square foot buildings and have them built on the Lane Park Road property, and that this was just an estimate from CPPI, which was a company familiar with their needs and already under contract. He opined that building this facility would keep his operational efficiency intact by keeping the entire operation together, and that it would be more secure. He commented that when he presented the GMP for approval, he would ask for permission to proceed with construction, and noted that once that GMP was agreed upon, any charges over that price would be borne by the construction management firm. He asked that the Board would have staff secure the financing to supplement whatever funds the County planned to utilize while he worked with these firms to derive the GMP. He also mentioned that purchasing the current facility would cost the City of Tavares and Lake County lost tax revenue from a privately owned company, which was currently over $60,000.

Commr. Shields inquired if the Board could cap the amount of funding and then allow Senator Hays to take care of the whole matter.

Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that the Supervisor of Elections did not have the statutory authority to sign contracts; therefore, they would have to be in the BCC’s name. She commented that the Board could delegate whatever individual was deemed appropriate for negotiation purposes; however, because she also represented the Supervisor of Elections, she would recommend that he obtain his own attorney to help him with the negotiations and remove that conflict of interest. She remarked that even though the agreements would have to be with the BCC, the Supervisor of Elections could negotiate the contracts, and that the Board could either approve them or not at that point.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the Supervisor of Elections would come back with a guaranteed maximum price of $14 million for both buildings, a parking lot, water retention, furniture, and cameras.

Senator Hays remarked that he had this figure before some other items had been discussed; however, he would come back with a guaranteed maximum price before committing to construction. He stated that this price would be locked in, and that anything more than that would be borne by the construction management firm. He requested that the County would be responsible for making any highway modifications, noting that there was already a left turn lane there for the southbound traffic and a left turn lane for the northbound traffic. He opined that Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, could possibly comment on whether or not the State would require it; otherwise, he did not want it, opining that this would be a waste of funds because SR 19 was planned to become four lanes in the future. He related that their plans were to set the buildings back far enough to accommodate for the widening of the road, opining that the County could construct turn lanes at that time.

Commr. Smith commented that the County would have do what the State required.

Commr. Parks wondered if staff could analyze what would have to be in the guaranteed maximum price, and if the $14 million would have to include a right turn lane or a major intersection improvement.

Mr. Schneider relayed his understanding that some road improvement needs would be required if there was access directly onto SR 19, which was one of the proposals, and that if the access was limited to Lane Park Road, this requirement could possibly be eliminated. He remarked that it was a matter of how the site was going to be developed and where the access points were going to be, and noted that Lane Park Road was a narrow road and should be widened to handle additional traffic. He opined that there could be issues bringing the water and sewer systems under SR 19 and onto the site if they were not already on both sides of the road; however, without further investigation, these requirements were unknown.

Commr. Parks questioned what the length of Lane Park Road was, which could determine how much funding would be required.

Mr. Schneider recommended that the driveway be a minimum of 200 to 250 feet west of SR 19, and that if there were turn lanes constructed, it could cost about $500,000; however, constructing turn lanes on SR 19 would cost more than that. He mentioned that the issues brought up by Ms. Barker were not limited to turn lanes, and that there were other items that were not on the list that should be added.

Commr. Shields commented that these were items that would have to be addressed regardless if it were a new building or a steel building, and that the County was already contemplating those costs.

Ms. Barker recalled that the actual construction of just the new building itself was $13 million, and that it was a savings of about $1.2 million to construct the steel buildings.

Senator Hays opined that the proposal to purchase and renovate the current facility would cost the County $16 million.

Commr. Campione inquired how Senator Hays came to this figure, and wondered what could be added or changed at the current building that would cost this much.

Senator Hays answered that he figured in the following costs: a $4 million purchase price; $5 or $6 million to build a warehouse on the Lane Park Road property; and $6.7 million or $7 million in remodeling costs. He opined that that this would cost about $16 million to $17 million to build the warehouse and renovate that space, and that the County could build two steel buildings on the Lane Park Road property for $16 million and save $1 million. He recommended that the entrance should not be on SR 19, and opined that the County should not waste the money on a turn lane if the road was going to be widened to four lanes. He noted that there was already a signal at that intersection, and opined that it would be safe to turn right onto Lane Park Road and turn in to the facility.

Commr. Campione questioned what the environmental issues were that had been mentioned.

Commr. Smith relayed that those had been taken care of.

Ms. Barker stated that there had previously been sand skinks on the property, and that it was clear according to the report done in 2019.

Commr. Campione commented that there would be impact fees and any offsite water and sewer improvements.

Ms. Barker related that this figure did not include the following costs: turn lanes; contingency costs, noting that there was typically always a contingency; architectural and design costs; impact fees; additional site work, such as power, utilities, and data; sidewalks; turn lanes; right of way; security systems; an enhanced generator; furniture; and moving costs.

Senator Hays mentioned that they had a contract with Song and Associates, and that they had a generator and transfer switch at their current facility, opining that it could be moved. He opined that this would not be sufficient to handle the whole load, and that an enhanced generator was essential; furthermore, he opined that more time was needed to develop a separate standby electrical system that could be connected to a generator with the capacity to handle the entire facility.

Commr. Smith stated that this would all have to be included in the guaranteed maximum price. He indicated that he was in favor of this idea; however, Senator Hays would have to come back with the numbers for the Board to approve.

Commr. Campione commented that Senator Hays had not included the impact fees, the offsite work, and the other items that were listed, and opined that he could say that it was outside of his cap.

Senator Hays remarked that the $14 million was based on an estimate, and that it did not include water and sewer. He relayed his understanding that water and sewer were already on both sides of SR 19, and that it would just be a matter of connecting. He said that he did not know how much impact fees would be, and that he did not include the generator. He opined that when he came back with a guaranteed maximum price, it would be based on actual figures received from the contractors to do the work, and that it would include all the security systems, opining that some of the security items at the current facility could be transported and installed at the new facility. He opined that over the last seven years of his tenure as Supervisor of Elections, he had returned over $3 million in unused budgetary funds, noting that there was $300,000 coming back to the BCC from the current year. He opined that he had a proven track record of fiscal responsibility and good stewardship of taxpayer funds.

Commr. Blake inquired when the lease expired on the current facility.

Ms. Marsh stated that the lease would expire in 2028, and that there would be another five year renewal available.

Commr. Blake opined that the County could pay for the new facility out of the Infrastructure Sales Tax, and that if he built his office space first, he could use the current facility as the warehouse space. He asked what the County’s third of the Infrastructure Sales Tax was.

Ms. Barker answered that it was about $23 million to $25 million per year.

Commr. Blake recommended that there be a onetime payment out of the Infrastructure Sales Tax to fund the office part of the new facility, opining that some items may have to be delayed. He suggested that the County could prepare over the following five years to pay for the warehouse at the Lane Park Road property, and that this way the County would not have to finance it, noting that it would be programmed in and paid with cash funds; furthermore, after the five years, the lease would expire for the current facility.

Senator Hays asked if the Board could look at that possibility with real numbers, and opined that the lease could be terminated early. He opined that the split operation was not ideal; however, it was something they could do if they had to. He also opined that if there was going to be a split operation, the County should build the administrative space at the Lane Park Road property first, and that it would not be costly to use the current facility as a warehouse.

Ms. Marsh commented that under the current lease for the current facility, a termination required 120 days’ notice, and that the current renewal was good through 2028.

Senator Hays remarked that if the Board gave him the authorization, he would start working on the current afternoon, and that he had already received word from the architect and the construction management firm that they were ready to work on it.

Commr. Shields stated that he was in favor of moving forward.

Commr. Parks opined that Senator Hays should obtain more information from the staff and engineers on the exact cost of the road improvements; additionally, he opined that there could be a large difference between widening Lane Park Road versus building a turn lane.

Ms. Barker remarked that if the Board wished to move forward and have Senator Hays bring back a total package, the financing options could be discussed at that point, such as using Infrastructure Sales Tax, postponing other projects, or a loan.

Commr. Shields commented that he would rather build the new facility all at once; however, he opined that if it had to be phased in, the County should build the office space first while using the current facility as a warehouse, and then move the warehouse to the new facility when the lease was done.

Senator Hays opined that part of the calculations would depend on whether the building was built all at once or postponed until later and possibly having a different total.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he would need to include remobilization costs. He pointed out that the Board had approved to terminate the contract for Song and Associates, and he asked if this contract needed to be continued.

Ms. Marsh replied that staff could prepare releases for CPPI and Song and Associates to sign indicating that they had been paid in full for their existing scopes, and then Senator Hays would have to renegotiate those contracts and those scopes. She said that they would bring the amendments back if the Board chose to continue with those firms.

Commr. Smith opined that Senator Hays had a good working relationship with them, and relayed his understanding that he would be coming back with a guaranteed maximum price, noting that if the cost went over, it would be the construction manager’s responsibility.

Senator Hays commented that he had months of time invested in those two companies, and expressed concern for not using them. He mentioned that the original contract was to build a new building on Lane Park Road, which was amended, and opined that it could be amended again.

Commr. Campione indicated that she was not in favor of this.

Ms. Marsh related that it was possible for the Board to receive challenges if the County did not go back out to bid, and that this would have to be addressed at that time.

Commr. Smith recalled that the original building would have cost $26 million.

Senator Hays pointed out that the building would have cost $13.3 million, and that the additional costs were for the site work for the entire 13 acres, which he did not plan on using, noting that he wanted to do only that which was necessary for his building.

Commr. Smith commented that he had to have those numbers to make a solid decision.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that legal counsel was suggesting that to cover the County legally, the contracts should go out to be rebid, and Ms. Marsh indicated that this was correct.

Senator Hays inquired what the quickest way to do that was.

Ms. Marsh replied that because the architect was a Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA) firm, it would be three months.

Senator Hays asked that the Board would allow him to amend the contracts with these two firms, opining that it would waste three months going through the process.

Commr. Blake remarked that the legal exposure would be on the BCC.

Commr. Parks questioned why it would be three months.

Ms. Marsh explained that the County had to have the scope and documents out to bid for about 30 days, and that they would then have to negotiate with the top three firms under CCNA, noting that the firms could not be chosen based on price but on qualifications, which entailed a selection committee process being open to the Sunshine Law.

Commr. Parks inquired if the 30 days was the County’s policy or a Florida Statute.

Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that it was not statutory.

Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, stated that typically, they put bids out 30 days so that everybody had a fair chance to present a reasonable package of their qualifications, which avoided protests.

Senator Hays asked how any firms would be better qualified than the two he already had, and opined that much time had been invested working with these two companies. He remarked that pulling them off this project to possibly include other companies was a risk that he was not willing to take.

Commr. Blake opined that it was not Senator Hays’ risk, and that the Board had to follow the law. He commented that if it could be expedited within the bounds of the law, he would be in favor of expediting it; however, he was not willing to accept the risk of a lawsuit.

Commr. Campione related that there could be a delay if the County was challenged, which would be outside of the County’s control. She commented that the issue was not whether or not these companies had strong qualifications, and that the issue was a matter of following the rules and not being subject to a challenge.

Commr. Smith stated that he would not go against the County Attorney’s recommendation; however, he would ask staff to fast-track the process as quickly as possible.

Commr. Parks agreed and said that he would seek expedition, opining that if the process had always been 30 days, it could be difficult.

Senator Hays opined that under the circumstances and for the sake of time, it should be expedited as quickly as possible, such as two weeks. He pointed out that the County had original contracts with these two firms that were chosen by this process and amended, opining that the contracts should be amended again to go back to the original contract to build on that property.

Commr. Parks commented that he did not want the County to stray too much from the standard process because of the possibility of lawsuits; however, he opined that the County could try to expedite it.

Ms. Barker clarified that the Board was authorizing the Supervisor of Elections to gather the total cost package for new construction on the Lane Park Road property, and that the County would not be involved in that process. She relayed her understanding that the Board would like to see an option with just one facility being constructed, either administrative or warehouse, depending on the Supervisor of Elections’ choice, and that he needed to submit two proposals, including the total for two facilities and the total for one facility while remaining in the current location; additionally, the County would be rebidding for the construction manager and architect quickly.

Ms. Marsh stated that if the County was going to rebid the contracts, then the Board would need a motion and vote to terminate the existing contracts.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that this was her recommendation, and Ms. Marsh said that this was correct.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to terminate the Construction Manager and Architect agreements on the advice of legal counsel and to authorize the County Manager to execute the required documents.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to rebid for a Construction Manager and Architect as expeditiously as possible.

Ms. Barker commented that the next request was the purchase of the existing facility in the City of Tavares, noting that she had prior direction to negotiate a purchase. She related that she had signed a proposed purchase agreement, and that it was contingent upon this Board’s approval and the due diligence, which had been halted until there was more direction from the Board. She stated that she would like confirmation of the original decision or direction to wait, depending on information from the Supervisor of Elections. She remarked that she did not know how long they would hold the sale because they had indicated that they were going to be selling the property, and noted that the County had the first right of refusal to purchase.

Ms. Marsh stated that the County had 120 days from the date the purchase agreement was signed to complete due diligence, and that if the Board did not want to terminate this agreement currently, then the County would have to negotiate an extension of their due diligence since it had not started yet.

Commr. Blake commented that he did not want to do this.

Ms. Barker pointed out that some of the Board had requested to look at an option of building one new facility on the Lane Park Road property, and that in this case, the County could just continue with the lease even though the property was up for sale.

Ms. Marsh clarified that as long as the lease was in place, the new owner would need to honor at least the minimum five years that the County had currently. She commented that the County had 120 days to terminate the lease if the Supervisor of Elections did not want to stay there for the remainder of the term.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that unlike the situation with the Sears building, there was a termination clause.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to terminate the purchase of the existing facility in the City of Tavares.

Ms. Barker said that the final request was to approve a lease agreement with Boukalis Development of St. Petersburg, L.L.C. for the temporary warehouse space identified in a shopping plaza with the Tractor Supply Company in the City of Eustis, and that this space would be for a five year minimum term with an option to renew for two one-year terms, noting that the termination was contingent on the following conditions: a 120 day written notice; a County building becoming available; funds not budgeted or appropriated; or any successor Supervisor of Elections that may be elected or appointed. She relayed that the yearly costs were $15 per square foot, $5,952 per month, or $71,430 per year, and that there were improvements to be made by the landlord not to exceed the amount of $21,700, which the County would reimburse upon receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) from the City of Eustis.

Commr. Smith questioned if the Supervisor of Elections needed that space currently, and the Supervisor of Elections indicated that he did. Commissioner Smith relayed his understanding that the termination clause included a 120 day written notice.

Ms. Marsh explained that this was a limited termination, and that the five year lease could only be terminated if a County-owned building became available for occupancy, if the funds were not budgeted and appropriated, or if a new Supervisor of Elections terminated it; otherwise, it would be for five years.

Senator Hays opined that they would need that space until a new warehouse became available or if the existing facility was used for warehouse space.

Ms. Barker noted that the existing facility was not a County-owned property.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Sears building could be used for storage.

Senator Hays replied that they would only use the Sears building for unsecure storage, and noted that they were currently storing carts there that did not need to be under secure storage; however, the property in the Tractor Supply plaza would be secured.

Commr. Campione asked if the $27,000 was to secure it.

Senator Hays answered that this was for internal improvements for electrical outlets needed for the equipment.

Commr. Campione questioned why it was more secure than the Sears building.

Commr. Shields opined that it was because it was a standalone building.

Senator Hays replied that they would have cameras and a 24 hour per day monitored security system and a much smaller footprint. He opined that there could be others coming and going in the Sears building; however, he and his staff would be the only ones with keys to the property in the Tractor Supply plaza, which was why he needed it.

Ms. Barker clarified that it was not a standalone building.

Commr. Smith inquired that if the County built the offices on the Lane Park Road property and used the current facility for warehouse space, could that be considered as the County-owned building.

Ms. Barker answered that the County would have to purchase the current facility.

Commr. Campione asked if the Lane Park Road property with a building constructed on it could be the basis to terminate the Tractor Supply lease.

Ms. Marsh replied that this would be correct if the building constructed on it was used for storage.

Ms. Barker relayed her understanding that the administrative space would be the first building constructed on the Lane Park Road property.

Commr. Blake opined that the County would be paying for two warehouse facilities at that point.

Senator Hays questioned if it specifically said it had to be a warehouse.

Ms. Barker replied that this would have to be the intended use.

Ms. Marsh related that it would have to be consistent, and that the storage space could only be terminated to move the inventory into a County-owned building for storage space.

Commr. Shields opined that once the Supervisor of Elections moved his office to the new facility, everything in the current facility could be moved over to the Tractor Supply plaza, and that the current lease could be terminated with 120 days’ notice.

Senator Hays pointed out that the Tractor Supply plaza facility was only 5,000 square feet, and opined that this would not work. He wondered if the contract could be modified to include a County-leased building, and if the Tractor Supply plaza lease could be terminated when his offices moved into the new building.

Ms. Marsh relayed that they would have to go back to the landlord and change it to County-owned or other available building and see if he would accept that change. She inquired if the Board still wanted the lease to be signed if he would not accept that change, or if it should be brought back.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she was reluctant to be held to a five year lease if the County did not need it because the County had space available, opining that it should be a basis to terminate whether it was leased or owned,. She opined that the County should try to negotiate that change, and that if it was rejected, it should be brought back. She also opined that the goal was to reach a desired outcome, and that this was a decent path.

Commr. Smith also opined that this was the right path.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:56 a.m. for 5 minutes.

regular agenda

Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy

Ms. Barker relayed that at a prior BCC meeting, the possibility of placing an option to renew or extend the current public lands municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) on the ballot had been discussed, including having a public workshop in November 2023 to hear input from the public. She remarked that she and Commissioner Parks attended a meeting with the Trust for Public Land, who indicated that they would be willing to assist the County gather data related to the ballot measure free of charge, such as polling and other services. She commented that Mr. Will Abberger, from Trust for Public Land, would give a presentation and discuss the process, and that they would request the consideration of the Board moving forward.

Mr. Abberger related that it was National Walk to a Park Day, and stated that the Trust for Public Land’s mission was that all Americans deserved access to the outdoors, including parks, community gardens, trails, and natural areas, and that they had been delivering on that mission nationally for about 50 years and in Florida for about four years. He mentioned that he worked in the conservation finance program, and that they worked with County Commissions and City and State governments to help create new sources of public funding for parks and conservation, which mostly came through ballot measures asking voters to designate funding for parks or conservation to connect people with the outdoors. He relayed that since 1996, they had worked on about 650 successful ballot measures generating about $93 billion in public funding for parks and conservation, and noted that nearly 50 of those had been in the State of Florida, including in Indian River, Polk, Brevard, and Nassau Counties. He commented that they had helped them in the same way they could help Lake County by trying to figure out if this would be the right time to go forth with a measure to renew Lake County’s funding for conservation, and if so, how to do that. He mentioned that they had worked with Lake County in 2004 for the $36 million bond referendum, which was approved by 71 percent, and opined that the County had done a good job spending that funding on protecting many important parks and natural areas throughout Lake County. He said that they could provide their assistance to the County again, and that they were in a position through some funding through different foundations and individuals to do that at no cost to the County, noting that they were a public charity. He remarked that the key steps they recommended for any jurisdiction considering dedicating funding for conservation included the following: feasibility research, such as available finance options, how much revenue they would generate, and what the impact would be on taxpayers; public opinion survey of voters in the jurisdiction, which tested what was learned in the feasibility research and narrowed it down to a couple of finance mechanisms; program recommendations about what the finance mechanism and the amount should be, what purposes and uses for the funds were most compelling to voters in Lake County, when the measure should be on the ballot, such as the 2024 presidential election, and what kind of accountability provisions the measure should include; ballot language that was understandable to Lake County voters, explaining the benefits as well as complying with the standards for ballot language; and the campaign, in which they would be working with the citizens and the community. He concluded that they would be pleased to work again with Lake County.

Commr. Shields questioned if the measure would be for 20 years again.

Mr. Abberger replied that this was a typical term for a general obligation bond; however, the Alachua County measure from the previous year had an eight year sunset, and this would be determined in the ballot measure design recommendations.

Commr. Shields inquired if they would come back with different recommendations.

Mr. Abberger answered that a general obligation bond would be determined by the County’s financial advisor.

Commr. Shields asked how the actual millage rate would be determined, and wondered if the current one could just be continued.

Mr. Abberger replied that they could look at different millage rates and how much debt service would be necessary, and opined that it could possibly be done with the existing millage rate serving the existing bonds, noting that they would explore that and come back with that information.

Commr. Parks commented that he had done much research on this, and that he was impressed with the objective process that was in place, noting that it would not cost the County anything if the Board authorized Ms. Barker to enter into this agreement with them to gather data. He opined that there was nobody else who could do this, and that it would ease the burden from staff having to do this before the date the Board decided to place the measure on the ballot or not. He opined that there would be no bias, and that if they determined that it would not work, they would advise the County to regroup and try something else. He opined that the Board could discuss the language and how the funding would be spent at a future workshop, and that there was much interest in the community, including questions about accountability and if trails would be covered. He mentioned that those questions would be addressed by the County, and that Trust for Public Land would assist the County with gathering data first.

Commr. Smith said that each Commissioner had met individually with them, and opined that Trust for Public Land should understand what the goals were for this project; additionally, this could be discussed at a future BCC meeting.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Shelley stated that she supported the recommendation to request assistance from Trust for Public Land, and that she supported acquisition of conservation lands and natural areas; additionally, she would support a referendum. She opined that it was very important to have criteria to analyze the value of potential conservation lands and to have a ranking system based on the criteria, and that it would be important to have a citizens’ committee to assist in evaluating potential properties with complete transparency throughout the entire process.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, opined that this was a good deal for Trust for Public Land to be gathering data, polling, and finding out where people with many differing opinions stood on the issues. She stated that she supported this item, and she expressed appreciation for the presentation as it answered several of her questions.

Mr. Ray Powers, a resident on Old Chisolm Trail, opined that this was a good deal, and that there were many residents concerned about the overdevelopment of Lake County. He opined that the residents needed an avenue to work with conservation, especially longtime landowners, noting that First Baptist Church recently purchased 11 acres at a discounted price because the owner did not want it developed. He commented that he was in favor of this, and opined that many residents were in favor of it; additionally, the beginning of it had no cost. He opined that Pine Meadows Park was great, and noted that he was there often and saw families using it for activities, such as fishing. He hoped that the Board would pursue this as he was responsible for about 140 acres in the City of Eustis, and said that it would be good to have an alternative for disposing of his property.

Ms. Lauren Denison, a resident on Carmillion Court, commented that she supported and highly encouraged this item, and noted that it cost nothing. She opined that it could help their climate, health, community, and equity in Lake County, and that it would be good to acquire, conserve, and protect these lands so that it could be developed in a more sustainable way. She said that she was against demolishing all of the land and then planting small trees that weren’t producing as much oxygen as the older oak trees did, and opined that this would show that Lake County knew it was important to protect the land and knew it was possible to make positive changes. She opined that making this change would help slow down climate change and help life to keep flourishing through a healthy ecosystem; furthermore, she agreed with what Ms. Shelley said about this item and the JPA.

Ms. Dee Gretzler, a resident of Commission District 4, remarked that she supported what was said, opining that they explained themselves in clear and concise ways while bringing up different points. She mentioned that it was World Mental Health Day, and opined that open green spaces helped maintain mental health and were needed. She urged the BCC to approve this item, and opined that it would be helpful to have the data, which could help in working with developers. She related that she liked walking in Hidden Waters almost every day and saw others there as well.

Mr. Helfrich expressed appreciation for the presentation of the Trust for Public Land and Nature Conservancy, and said that he supported this.

Mr. Mike Barnett, a resident of the City of Eustis, supported this recommendation, opining that it was valuable, perceptive, and relevant. He opined that natural areas were needed for the following reasons: protection of the wildlife and biodiversity of Lake County; recreational opportunities; natural settings; trails; hiking and exploring; physical and psychological health benefits to people acquired from time spent in nature; and tourism resulting from people visiting Lake County to experience the real Florida. He also opined that the most important reasons were to protect and conserve the vital natural resources of clean air, clean water, and the natural food web, having at its base the native plants which supported native insects, including pollinators. He opined that people relied on native pollinators, such as honey bees, because they pollinated the vast majority of the food crops, and that farmers needed productive fields so that people could eat. He opined that by protecting the natural areas, the base of the food web was protected as well as everything above them, including native wildlife, biodiversity, recreational opportunities, tourism funds, and food crops.

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

Commr. Blake commented that he was in favor of ballot referendums, opining that it was a good way to find out what the voters think. He remarked that even though this service was currently free, once it reached a successful conclusion, it would not be free. He opined that it would be good to discontinue the tax and not continue to spend funds, and that just because the tax was already there did not mean that it should continue. He related that according to data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, which was a joint project with FSU, 34 percent of Lake County was currently in permanent conservation, and that this did not include the lakes and rivers. He wondered if there was a plan, including certain parcels that were being considered or a corridor that could be connected to, and said that he did not want to just check the box for conservation without a clear strategy or goal. He relayed that even though he was in favor of the voter referendum, he was uncomfortable with it at this time.

Commr. Campione indicated that she was in favor of this item, and that the issues regarding exactly how the funds would be used could be discussed as there was more input available from the public, if the public was in favor of moving forward. She opined that many people were interested in the trail system in Lake County, and said that she was interested in the connectivity of wildlife corridors and the possibility of using some of the mapping that had already been done as a tool to help identify the areas that would be most impactful if public acquisition became available through voter support. She opined that the millage in place currently was highly successful, and that much was learned from that round of funding, including how to best identify lands that were under development pressure, making it possible to focus more on areas that the County wanted to protect from big development projects in locations that did not make sense from an environmental standpoint. She also opined that green spaces that were near urbanized areas, such as the Hidden Waters property, were appreciated by people who enjoyed walking and being outside, and that people would want to ensure that the County kept on that path and obtained more for future generations. She opined that this was a good start, and that the feasibility study could determine how this would impact everyone on a financial basis.

Commr. Parks commented that the mapping could help determine what the priorities would be, what was pressured by development, and what would connect the trails to natural lands. He remarked that even though 34 percent of Lake County was being preserved already, there was a wildlife corridor, opining that it was critical for many ecological services, such as hunting, food production, and pollination. He opined that the science on that had changed over the years, and that ecological services provided the basis of our economy and was very outdoors based. He mentioned that the new subdivision criteria included a 50 percent open space requirement in the rural areas, and opined that 34 percent did not mean that Lake County did not need any more; additionally, there were many good economic and social reasons, such as connectivity for the trails.

Commr. Campione opined that some of the conservation areas were isolated, and that there could be a way to create connectivity between them, making those lands more valuable ecologically. She also opined that subdivision regulations had become better with open space requirements; however, she opined that only looking at subdivisions was not looking at the big picture, which included using open spaces to create connectivity. She opined that this discussion was timely because of the sensitivity and anxiety about the growth pressure in Central Florida and especially in Lake County.

Commr. Blake agreed that 34 percent should not be the end number; however, he opined that the actions that would eventually result from this were already possible. He opined that taxpayers who wanted to conserve certain areas could raise funds and purchase those lands, and that landowners could currently donate land to conservation, noting that there were many large areas that were donated. He also opined that the government did not need to forcibly take funds from residents to pay for this, and that there was a private process that could take place.

Commr. Parks opined that there would be processes in place that were incentive based, such as transfer of development rights (TDR).

Commr. Smith indicated that he was in favor of this, and said that he would like to obtain input from the citizens of Lake County by doing the polling. He relayed that he was fine with it as long as the lands were used for both passive or active parks and trails, and opined that if this land was going to be purchased with citizens’ funds, then the citizens should enjoy those properties.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to provide a Technical Assistance Request Letter to the Trust for Public Land and The Nature Conservancy.

Commr. Blake voted no.

Update on the 2024 Legislative Priorities

Ms. Barker recalled that at the September 12, 2023 BCC meeting, the Board approved one legislative priority for the LCWA to be submitted through the appropriations process, which was $500,000 for an aquatic management and water lab building at Hickory Point Park, and that the Board approved one additional priority supporting home rule that was discussed at the July 11, 2023 BCC meeting. She stated that the additional proposed 2024 legislative priorities included the following: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) expanding the wildlife corridor based on the new maps; legislative funding to assist Lake County in procuring environmentally sensitive lands; and legislative assistance for funding an alternative water supply, such as the Conserv II property.

Commr. Parks clarified that the first two items could be combined, and said that they were meant to be very broad statements. He relayed his understanding that the County’s legislative lobbyist could take what the County gave them in writing and start looking for these things as a priority, opining that these general statements could allow the lobbyists to help Lake County staff pursue some of the grants available. He opined that Lake County did not receive funding from the Florida Wildlife Corridor Foundation, which was sponsored by Representative Keith Truenow, because the County did not have some of the mapping at the time or there was not an understanding that this was a priority; however, by making this a legislative priority, the lobbyists could pursue any possibilities of that kind of funding. He commented that the assistance in funding needed for an alternative water supply was related to the following issues: obtaining an alternative water supply; the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) linking land use to water supply; and some of the conditional use permits (CUPs) not being extended or renewed until alternative water supply projects were in place. He relayed that this would be a general statement to ask the County’s lobbyists to look for those opportunities for Lake County, such as in the Conserv II and Wellness Way areas where this was an issue.

Commr. Smith asked if this was for Conserv II.

Commr. Parks replied that it was just an example, and that he would not mention Conserv II in any legislative statement.

Commr. Smith remarked that he would be in favor of this priority if Conserve II was taken out and it was made for all of Lake County.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the Cities were confronting issues with consumptive use permits, and opined that this would be a good priority to work on with them. She inquired if the first two proposed legislative priorities should be combined.

Commr. Parks answered that he would if it made it simpler.

Commr. Campione questioned if Lake County had what was needed from a technical standpoint to qualify for State funds that might be available.

Commr. Parks opined that the work done by Dr. Jason Evans, with Stetson University, and the mapping that had been done could be available for that.

Commr. Smith wondered if a conservation organization would be able to help with this issue, and remarked that he did not want to have too many legislative priorities; however, he was in favor of the legislative assistance for alternative water for all of Lake County.

Commr. Campione inquired if the FDEP wildlife corridors had areas that were not mapped in Lake County that should be.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was legislation passed about two years prior, and that the mapping was being done for some target areas and priorities that the funding was being used for that was not in Lake County. He commented that there were some wildlife corridors in Lake County, and that the mapping that had been done recently would support that. He remarked that there was a corridor on the east side of the county going from Lake Apopka to the City of Mount Dora and the Harris Chain of Lakes, and that the intent was to preserve some of that or do something with the landowners, such as easements. He noted that part of the process was to buy easements so that property owners could continue to use their properties, and that the easement was for the corridor.

Commr. Campione commented that she did not want to be excluded from something that had been launched in the State that could be useful if the County was involved in it. She asked if the lobbyists needed to be pursuing this and finding out what needed to be done to be included, opining that it would be a good thing to have on the list. She opined that the County’s lobbyists could have other clients that had been able to make this happen in their counties, and that there was a good chance that they knew what to do and who to talk to.

Commr. Parks suggested that the County could ask Trust for Public Land to look for options that could cover funding to assist Lake County in procuring environmentally sensitive lands.

Mr. Abberger related that they worked very closely with the Florida Legislature on state funding for conservation, and that there was a large opportunity for Lake County to leverage state funding with local funding as was done in 2004 with the existing bond referendum. He suggested that the County support the legislative appropriations for the Florida Forever program and the Florida Wildlife Corridor, noting that every year the legislature appropriated funding for those two projects. He mentioned that much of that funding came from one third of the documentary stamp tax that was set aside by the voters under the 2014 constitutional amendment for the water and land conservation amendment, and noted that those were projects that Lake County could partner with the State of Florida on. He relayed that for the second item of funding to assist in procuring environmentally sensitive lands, the Florida Communities Trust (FCT), which was a program under Florida Forever, provided grants to local governments for local parks and recreation projects, and opined that ensuring that the legislature appropriated specific funding for the FCT would be very important.

Commr. Parks opined that the County could just mention those programs to the lobbyists and show support for it.

Commr. Campione commented that the County could support the Florida Forever and FCT programs and seek to have FDEP incorporate the Florida Wildlife Corridor map into Lake County.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the County could ask for general legislative assistance for funding of an alternative water supply for the entire county.

Commr. Campione opined that since these were issues that were being discussed in the legislature, it would be important for the County to have a presence in these environmental protection areas.

Commr. Blake remarked that he was in favor of the third item for an alternative water supply as long as it was generic; however, he opined that the first two items were too vague for him to support. He opined that the large national debt would have a domino effect that the County would have to deal with, and that there were more important items for the County to focus on.

Commr. Parks opined that the language could be kept simple by general statements supporting both of those parts of the legislative appropriation process, including the Florida Forever program and the Florida Wildlife Corridor.

Commr. Blake commented that he did not know what impacts on property rights the wildlife corridor would have, and that he did not want to blindly support something not understanding what the ramifications would be; additionally, he wanted to be selective in what was sent to the legislature as a Lake County priority.

Commr. Smith said that he was in favor of the legislative assistance in funding for an alternative water supply; however, he opined that the other items were too vague, and that he did not know how to present it other than sending a letter of support without making it a legislative priority.

Commr. Parks remarked that he wanted to ensure that the lobbyists knew that when an opportunity became available for Florida Wildlife Corridor funding, they would pursue it.

Commr. Campione commented that it would be letting the lobbyists know that this was a priority to Lake County and to keep that in mind when they saw opportunities.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved the additional priorities with revised language, including legislative assistance in funding for an alternative water supply, and combining the first two for support of the Florida Forever and the FCT legislative priority as well as participation in the Florida Wildlife Corridor.

Commr. Blake and Commr. Smith voted no.

Commr. Blake mentioned that when the Board was discussing the MSTU for the LCSO and how that would work, he wondered if the County could ask the State to consider allowing the LCSO to levy their own millage and to change State law to allow that. He opined that as it was, there was not much oversight, and that it would help the BCC if the LCSO had a separate millage that they were responsible to the voters for. He added that the LCSO could ask for more funding without having to explain where that funding was going to go, and that the BCC would be responsible for that tax increase; additionally, he opined that if the LCSO was not funded properly, then the BCC would be responsible for that as well. He opined that this would help with a sense of fairness and also for protection of law enforcement budgets, and that rather than splitting the funds from the MSTU, the LCSO would have their own budget, millage, and responsibility to the voters. He remarked that he did not know what would be involved; however, it was a State issue, and he opined that many sheriffs would like this. He stated that before exploring the concept, he wanted to discuss this during the legislative priorities discussion because it would have to come from the legislature.

Commr. Shields opined that this was a good idea, and noted that this subject was discussed during a Four Corners meeting. He related that 80 percent of Polk County’s budget went to the sheriff, and that 50 percent of Lake County’s budget went to the LCSO. He opined that it would be good for people to know where their tax funds were going, and that he would support the sheriffs having their own millage.

Commr. Blake opined that it may not work; however, he opined that there should be accountability for the BCC and the LCSO, and that this would align those decisions where the political responsibility would naturally be.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the LCSO would levy that tax if it were to pass, noting that they currently did the executive administration and the County was the legislative body that approved the budget. He opined that the funding should at least be broken down to show how much they received.

Commr. Blake opined that there may be good reasons not to do this; however, it would be something to explore with the lobbyists to see if there would be a desire for it. He mentioned that there was a check and balance system on paper; however, there was a constitutional officer who had received $10 million in additional funding over the previous year’s funding without having to come to the podium to explain it, and he opined that there was not much check and balance happening. He opined that if the BCC denied a budget request, it could go to the cabinet, which happened frequently in Alachua County, and that if it was approved, the tax increase could influence the upcoming BCC elections. He also opined that this could protect a sheriff’s millage rate from a commission that wanted to make drastic cuts.

Commr. Shields wondered if the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) had discussed this issue, and opined that it should be discussed with them.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it had been discussed, and that it had been questioned what the Counties would do if the State legislature changed the laws to favor the repeal process of the County budget.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there was a check and balance system, and that each member of the Board had the ability to speak with the LCSO leadership to understand where the funding was going; furthermore, she opined that there was a value to the oversight involved which allowed the BCC to collaborate with the LCSO. She opined that even if the BCC could not achieve all that they were looking for, there was still interaction, and that if it was completely separated out, it may not be in everyone’s best interest. She commented that she was in favor of exploring new ideas, and if the Board wanted the millage to show the portion that went to the LCSO, the legislature could be asked to allow the County to break it out on the tax bill. She noted that the County was not currently allowed to do this according to the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR), and that this would allow people to see how much of the tax funds went to the LCSO.

Commr. Shields suggested placing a flyer in the TRIM notice.

Commr. Campione remarked that it could not be done in the final tax bill, and opined that the Lake County Property Appraiser did not like to add to the TRIM notice. She stated that the County could not relay that information, opining that it could be helpful information to voters.

Commr. Parks opined that showing the breakdown would be a good step forward.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the County would have to legally be able to show it separately in the tax bill.

Commr. Smith commented that he was in favor of that.

Commr. Blake opined that it could be phrased as allowing millage transparency at the local level, and that the legislative delegation could pursue that.

Commr. Campione indicated her approval of that.

Commr. Parks mentioned that he was in favor of that.

Commr. Smith stated that there was a consensus.

Ms. Barker relayed that they had that direction, and that they would use transparency rather than the LCSO levying their own tax.

Commr. Smith suggested using either one, and noted that one may be more viable.

Commr. Blake opined that it could be discussed with FAC and that more information could be received on it.

public hearing: ordinance 2023-61 Floodplain Management

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, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: SECTION 9.07.00, ENTITLED FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT; SECTION 14.15.03, ENTITLED VARIANCES TO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND THE FLOOD RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE; CHAPTER II, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; 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 explained that these changes were required by the State and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for floodplain management.

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. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-61 amending Section 9.07.00, and Section 14.15.03, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, regarding Floodplain Management.

public hearing: Ordinance 2023-62 Parks, Recreation and Trails

Advisory Board

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 ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 16, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD; MODIFYING MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Shelley opined that it was important to have a variety of individuals represented on the Parks and Trails Advisory Board, including those who had experience and expertise in the management and use of recreational lands and trails who could provide more meaningful input, rather than having a limited number of people. She also opined that if there were not some people with experience and expertise in park management, trails, and maintenance, their capacity to advise was limited; additionally, adequate funding was also needed for management of natural areas.

Ms. Newton mentioned that she would like the meetings for this board to be held in the Board Chambers and recorded. She relayed her understanding that there were no links for the meeting files, other than the BCC meetings, on the County website’s calendar, noting that one had to go to that organization’s page to find them. She opined that if these meetings were listed with the agenda files, it would help with communication, and that other people should be involved as opposed to only having people appointed to these boards. She also opined that the Planning and Zoning information was hidden in the agenda packet and was not shown on the agenda, and that some people did not have the ability to download the entire packet, noting that she had recently made an information sheet to send out. She commented that she often received requests for the link to the Planning and Zoning agenda, and opined that more people would be aware of what was happening if there was more communication.

Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a resident of Lake County, stated that she had attended some of the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board meetings when they were meeting in an office on Woodlea Road, and she relayed her understanding that they had moved to the LCWA building, which was larger. She opined that it would be better if they could meet in Board Chambers because it could be recorded and viewed online. She mentioned that she was not concerned about the number of members on the board, and inquired if they were supposed to advise the BCC or the staff.

Commr. Smith replied that the Executive Director of Parks and Water Resources attended the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board meetings, and that during that meeting, he obtained the report and advice from the Advisory Committee, noting that he reported that back to staff and to the BCC.

Ms. Silvernell opined that it would be nice if this information was online.

Commr. Smith remarked that the County was looking into the possibility of bringing those meetings to the County Administration Building so that it could be streamed live.

Ms. Silvernell suggested that there could be categories of individuals to be on the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, such as user groups and demographics who had an interest in what was happening and not just those who were chosen from their applications. She stated that regarding the public lands referendum, public lands was originally its own entity and was absorbed into the Office of Parks and Trails for efficiency; however, she opined that it needed to be its own entity because building parks and trails would take up much of the budget. She opined that parks, trails, and land management were important if the County was going to preserve the eco system and environmental services.

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

Commr. Campione commented that the master parks and trails plan and land management documents were the governing documents, and the advisory board had the opportunity to discuss proposed changes to those plans; additionally, members of the public could participate with ideas that could possibly be beneficial to change. She explained that the process was for the director to relate what was happening, and noted that many improvements made on these properties and management of conservation and passive lands were done in increments because they were costly and time consuming. She relayed that much of the meeting was to update the advisory members about what was happening and progressing as well as obtaining input, and that she supported the ordinance proposing five members being appointed because there was an opportunity to vet applicants for their specific expertise and interest; furthermore, if the board seemed too weighted with people who were only used to active parks, then that could be considered when choosing another appointee. She opined that it was difficult to manage many people on a board because of quorum requirements and noticing changing meetings, and that a smaller board was easier to manage. She mentioned that the meetings were open to the public who could come and participate, and that there was an opportunity for people who were not on the board to come and give input.

Commr. Shields commented that he liked the concept of separating out the active parks and trails from passive holdings because they were different in maintenance and future plans, and said that he would like to see two different groups providing oversight.

Commr. Campione opined that even though they were managed in a different manner, there should be interaction between the two groups. She opined that the County staff had immense expertise in the management of conservation and preservation lands, and noted that they outsourced much of the maintenance for the active parks. She opined that based on her observations, it worked better logistically having them in one group.

Commr. Parks opined that they should be one group at this time.

Commr. Campione recalled that it used to be separated, and opined that it was not good. She opined that staff did a good job managing the logistics of the active side versus the passive side.

Commr. Parks opined that if there was a referendum passed regarding natural lands and trails, there could be a separate oversight committee for that for transparency.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that this would be for acquisition or selection of properties.

Commr. Parks stated that he was opposed to this even though this was a move to make it more efficient, and opined that there should be seven members, which would not require many more emails to be sent out. He opined that more people could be involved outside the Commission Districts, and that seven would be a good compromise.

Commr. Blake mentioned that it was a public meeting with the availability of public comment, and that if there was anything that came to the BCC meeting as a result, there would also be public comment there, making it possible for anybody from any background to give input on anything that was going to happen.

Commr. Smith commented that he liked having appointed positions, and that he could appoint someone, such as a civil engineer with knowledge of topology, noting that if the district appointee did not want to be on the board, he could find somebody else to fill that position.

Commr. Parks opined that there should be two additional positions.

Commr. Smith noted that there were five people on the BCC, and that he was fine with those public meetings with public comments.

Commr. Shields pointed out that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) was required to be involved in tourism, such as hoteliers and hospitality, and that the BCC did not have to vet for skill sets when choosing an appointee for the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board.

Commr. Campione remarked that on the application form, applicants could include their interests, reasons for wanting to serve in that position, backgrounds, experience, and education.

Commr. Shields relayed that it was not coordinated between the BCC members, and opined that there could be five civil engineers appointed.

Commr. Parks opined that there could be five people that did not know anything about parks and recreation appointed.

Commr. Campione asked why the BCC would appoint them.

Commr. Shields opined that this Board would not; however, he opined that this Board may change in the future.

Commr. Campione questioned why having two more members would be better.

Commr. Parks opined that those positions could require expertise.

Commr. Campione opined that the Board should pass the ordinance, and that if the Board wanted to add one or two more positions later, it could be done then. She also opined that since they had tried this with the larger board, the BCC should see how it worked this way first.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-62 amending Article II, Chapter 16, Lake County Code, entitled Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, regarding membership.

Commr. Parks and Commr. Shields voted no.

affordable housing project

Ms. Maria Abdoulkarim, Director for the Office of Housing and Community Services, recalled that the 2022 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress indicated that lack of affordable housing and rising home prices were key considerations in the increase of households experiencing homelessness, and that in the State of Florida, over 25,000 households were currently experiencing homelessness in 2023 with over 2,200 of them being veterans. She stated that for the average two bedroom household, a family would need to make about $56,000 per year to afford a fair market rent, which was currently about $1,600, and that Lake County was ranked 10^th out 67 counties for the most expensive in terms of fair market rents. She explained that some of the contributing factors included the following: rental increases which outpaced wages, causing rent-burdened households; a reduction in income due to employment, illness, or loss of spouse; and housing shortages where households were priced out of housing due to the market. She related that their objective included the following: to utilize American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to incentivize the creation of new affordable units for households with income between 65 percent and 80 percent area median income (AMI); to allocate funding to expedite the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing or homeownership for veterans and senior populations; and to leverage other resources for supportive services and rental assistance. She relayed that their proposal was to use Lake County owned vacant land located at 28123 County Road (CR) 561, in the City of Tavares, and to utilize approximately $1.95 million of ARPA funds to construct ten single family homes dedicated for veterans and seniors, noting that additional uses would include transitional housing, which was temporary housing with supportive services for the unhoused or underserved. She displayed some concept plans for the 10 homes showing where they would be located on the parcel and what they would look like, and said that the project would create short and long-term housing solutions. She mentioned that staff would ensure continued funding by applying for federal and state funds, and that Lake County would collaborate with non-profit agencies to provide services for veterans and seniors. She concluded that the requested action was to authorize the approval and use of $1.95 million in ARPA funding to construct an affordable housing project dedicated to veterans and seniors.

Commr. Campione indicated that she was in favor of this opportunity, and relayed her understanding that there would be ongoing opportunities for possible revenue for managing and operating the facility, such as access to vouchers for those who qualified for assistance from United States (U.S.) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) but could not pay the market rate. She opined that it would also give the County some flexibility depending on how this worked out, and that it could be taken in a different direction, including utilizing these 10 units for other purposes to meet housing needs in the community. She pointed out that this pilot project used property that was already owned by the County, and opined that it could provide options in the future while addressing housing needs for veterans and seniors.

Commr. Parks opined that it was a wonderful opportunity to start this pilot project and see how it worked, and that there may be more in the future that the County could do. He questioned if one of the 10 homes could be dedicated to a new law enforcement employee because of the high cost of living.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that because it was the County’s project, it could be tailored to the way that worked the best.

Commr. Shields commented that another issue with affordable housing was that the County was thousands of units short, and that when they found a homeless person who wanted this type of assistance, there was no in-between place for them to go. He opined that it would be good if this project could provide an in-between spot; however, he did not know if they could stay there permanently.

Commr. Campione opined that once the project was close to completion, staff would know what the specific needs were, and that hopefully those people would not need to be there for many years, as it was just a transition point.

Commr. Blake expressed appreciation for the goal; however, he opined that the County should not be in the housing business. He mentioned that he would be in favor of donating the land to a third party to run that pilot, opining that the County should not do it.

Commr. Campione opined that it could ultimately go in that direction, and that the County could decide that it was better for an organization, such as the Salvation Army, to run it; however, because the County was the recipient of the funds, the project had to be completed first.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to authorize the approval and use of $1,950,000 in American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) funds to construct an affordable housing project dedicated to veterans and seniors at the property located at 28123 County Road 561, in Tavares (previous Animal Shelter).

Commr. Blake voted no.

appointments to the Homeless Mitigation Advisory Council

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Stephen Shylkofski as a designee with experience in assisting victims of domestic violence to serve a one-year term ending September 30, 2024, and to table the appointment of a designee representing a law enforcement agency in Lake County.

reports

county attorney

POTENTIAL BILL FOR EXPEDITED PLAT APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS

Ms. Marsh stated that there was a potential bill that had not yet been filed for the 2024 session that would require local governments to create an expedited plat approval and building permit process, noting that it was not tied to affordable housing projects. She explained that the bill would require each local government to present to the State a program to expedite every residential subdivision that was submitted and then issue building permits for up to 50 percent of the lots in that subdivision before the final plats had been approved, noting that there would still have to be staff review time for preliminary plats. She related that it would require builders to provide a performance and payment bond of up to 120 percent of the estimated improvements for infrastructure and utilities, and that it would allow builders to sell those home sites under contract. She relayed that this would cause issues for staff because the County was already inundated with development applications, and that if the County had issued 50 percent of a subdivision’s building permits to build these structures and something happened to that developer, there may be issues with homebuyers not being able to obtain a CO, infrastructure not being in place, and working with a bonding company, which was very time consuming. She noted that the FAC was seeking comments from local governments, and that she had circulated this information to the following: the Public Works Department; the Office of Planning and Zoning; the Lake County Health Department; the Lake County Property Appraiser; and the Lake County Tax Collector. She relayed that she had already received some comments, and that she would submit them to FAC on the current day. She mentioned that if the Board wanted to reach out to FAC or had comments, then this could also be done, noting that if this was filed and the Governor approved it, it could cause a strain on the staff to expedite every residential subdivision that came to Lake County.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

Tourist Development Council meeting

Commr. Shields mentioned that he attended a TDC meeting on the previous day.

Four Corners meeting

Commr. Shields relayed that he attended a Four Corners meeting with Commissioners from the other three Counties, and that they were working on a governance model for the Four Corners area.

affordable housing summit

Commr. Shields stated that he attended an affordable housing summit in the City of Clermont in the prior week.

business incubator event

Commr. Shields commented that he attended the business incubator event in the City of Eustis, opining that it was a great event.

Schofield Road

Commr. Shields related that Schofield Road was currently connected to Orange County, and that in this area there was the Orlando College of Osteopathic Medicine (OCOM) being finished, where one could become a doctor locally.

commissioner parks – district 2

Leasing the Sears building

Commr. Parks questioned if the County could utilize part of the Sears building to lease out as a meeting space.

Ms. Barker mentioned that it was 68,000 square feet.

Commr. Parks opined that others could lease out 10,000 square feet for an event, such as a small indoor show, and he inquired if the County could explore that option.

Commr. Campione opined that they would have to pay for it, and that the County should not undercut businesses who did that. She also opined that if it did not compete with other businesses, it could create some revenue to offset the County’s rent.

Commr. Parks opined that it should be for the purpose of offsetting the rent.

Ms. Barker pointed out that there was currently only one set of restrooms, and that this could possibly require the County to add more restrooms and confirm to building code and other renovations.

Commr. Parks asked if they could see what they could do without adding expensive requirements, opining that there could be public restrooms outside.

Ms. Barker commented that since the County was going to keep the lease for the facility and there were other expenses related to the Supervisor of Elections, she wanted to ensure that the renovations were minimal; however, they would look into it.

rally for Israel and their families

Commr. Parks remarked that his thoughts and prayers were with those who were attacked in Israel and their families, noting that there was going to be a rally on the current day in the City of Groveland.

commissioner campione – district 4

support for the people of Israel

Commr. Campione stated that she supported the people of Israel, and she hoped that national leadership would do what was necessary to protect civilization.

business incubator event

Commr. Campione commented that she had also attended the business incubator event in the City of Eustis, noting that it was a partnership between Lake County, the University of Central Florida (UCF), the City of Eustis, and MEGA Properties LLC. She relayed that it was for entrepreneurs and those looking for help with a new business or idea they wanted to pursue, and that there were people there with technical expertise to help them with launching new businesses, opining that this was good for the entire county.

Camp Boggy Creek motorcycle ride

Commr. Campione relayed that there was a motorcycle ride at Camp Boggy Creek to raise money for campers and to support their program, noting that young people with illnesses and various conditions could go there for a week or two of camp and enjoy the fishing ponds, a swimming pool, and camp crafts.

Sears building

Commr. Campione wondered if the County could explore how expensive it would be to make 5,000 square feet secure in the Sears building, opining that the County could use that for storage for the Supervisor of Elections.

Ms. Barker inquired if this would be instead of the lease near the Tractor Supply.

Commr. Campione indicated that this was correct, and opined that the County could compare the cost of that lease with the cost of creating 5,000 square feet of secure storage space in the Sears building.

Ms. Barker remarked that they would look at that option.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

UF/IFAS board meeting

Commr. Blake mentioned that there was a University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) board meeting on the previous week, and opined that they were doing a good job for the county and had great staff and programming.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

Dolly Parton Imagination Library

Commr. Smith related that he spoke to a representative of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, which was a library that gave free books to children to help start a reading program.

Early Learning Coalition of Lake County meeting

Commr. Smith said that he attended the Early Learning Coalition of Lake County (ELCLC) meeting, and noted that there was a scarecrow competition going on to help raise money for this organization.

business incubator program

Commr. Smith commented he was glad to be part of the business incubator, and opined that it was one of the best in the country because of the participation of UCF.

America in Bloom project

Commr. Smith remarked that the City of Tavares and Lake County were part of the America in Bloom project, and that one of the awards received by the City of Tavares was for the coolest downtown per population size. He invited Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator, to explain about this and the other awards that were won by the city of Tavares.

Mr. Drury commented that the City of Tavares had been in the program for about five years, and that it encouraged making the downtown areas sustainable, beautiful, and attractive for a remote workforce, opining that they looked at what communities had, such as trails, parks, and open lands, to decide where they would want to work because they could work anywhere in the country. He related that they had won the coolest downtown in the U.S., and that they had also earned two other awards for their community; additionally, the City of Groveland also received an award. He noted that there were two cities in Lake County competing nationwide for being the coolest downtowns, and opined that they were making progress.

Commr. Smith opined that this was good for the City of Tavares, the City of Groveland, and for Lake County, and noted that Lake County was the first county to become part of the America in Bloom program.

National Walk to a Park Day

Commr. Smith related that it was National Walk to a Park Day, and he said that one could walk to Wooten Park or the Tavares Ecological Park.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK