A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
May 8, 2018
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Timothy I. Sullivan, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Wendy Breeden; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jeff Cole, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk, Board Support.
INVOCATION and pledge
Rev. Isaac Deas of Cornerstone Hospice gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, remarked that Tab 9 would be pulled from the agenda and that Tab 33 had been added the previous week.
Comm. Sullivan announced that he would be changing the order of agenda items throughout the meeting due to guest speakers arriving at certain times.
sales surtax oversight committee presentation
Mr. Michael Rankin, Chairman of the Sales Surtax Oversight Committee, commented that in 2001, there was an ordinance established for the creation of the Sales Surtax Oversight Committee, which reviews the expenditures from the taxing jurisdictions. He stated that the committee assures that the expenditures meet the guidelines of the sales surtax requirements and that they had recently met on April 9, 2018 and reviewed the final expenditures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016/2017. He noted that a copy of their report was given to each Commissioner and that their next meeting would be on September 10, 2018.
Commr. Sullivan asked if the municipalities were responding to the committee’s requests in accordance with the established guidelines.
Mr. Rankin responded that he has been on the committee for three years and opined that the communication between the cities and the members of the committee has been very routine, that the cities and districts know what the committee needs, and that the process was running smoothly.
employee awards
Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County as follows:
EMPLOYEE AWARDS
FIVE YEARS
Barbara Perry, Risk and Benefits Manager
Office of Human Resources & Risk Management
Terri Pietroburgo, Park Ranger
Office of Parks and Trails
TEN YEARS
Douglas Draper, Firefighter/Paramedic (not
present)
Office of
Fire Rescue
FIFTEEN
YEARS
Scott Catasus, Environmental Specialist
Office of Code Enforcement
THIRTY YEARS
Delores Collins, Office Associate III (not
present)
Public Works/Solid Waste Division
Cynthia Heffler, Assessment & Customer
Service Supervisor (not present)
Public Works/Solid Waste Division
PROCLAMATION 2018-39 Montverde Academy’s boys basketball
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-39 honoring the Montverde Academy’s Boys Varsity Basketball Team on their 2017-2018 season record and their many #1 National Rankings.
Commr. Parks then read and presented the proclamation to the team and their coach.
Coach Kevin Boyle thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for recognizing the team and said they were proud to be a part of representing Lake County.
MINUTES APPROVAL
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of March 29, 2018 (Special Meeting), April 5, 2018 (Special Meeting), and April 9, 2018 (Special Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
No citizens wished to comment.
CLERK OF COURTs’ CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Courts’ Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of the list 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.
Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2017-29 of the City Council of the City of Minneola amending the land use designation from “Regional Office” on the Lake County Comprehensive Plan to “General Industrial” on the Future Land Use Map of the City of Minneola’s Comprehensive Plan, for approximately 8.29 acres of property generally located on the north side of C.R. 561 just east of Causey Road and C.R. 561 intersection.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT agenda
Commr. Campione asked for the County Attorney to confirm information regarding the contract in Tab 21 for the mass grading at South Lake Regional Park. She inquired that since it was an unusual contract with the time frame contingent to the party performing according to the terms of the contract, was there the ability to enforce the contract and address any liquidated damages if they did not perform. She also shared concerns that the number of trucks needed per day could cause issues and wanted to know if that could be negotiated as needed.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, replied that since it was a county road, there were options the County could impose to ensure the truck traffic did not interfere with residents and that contract amendments could address that concern. She also responded there should be a performance and payment bond as well as other damage provisions in the contract and she confirmed there were liquidated damages in the contract.
Commr. Parks remarked that this was similar to other excavation projects happening in the county where traffic complaints can be addressed.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 21, pulling Tab 9, as follows:
PROCLAMATIONS
Request approval of a Proclamation 2018-45 designating the week of May 20 through May 26, 2018, as Emergency Medical Services Week in Lake County, per Commissioner Sullivan.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE
Building Services
Request approval to advertise an ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the Lake County Code to provide an exemption from building permitting for the replacement of the walking surface of an existing legally permitted dock or deck on residential property under some conditions. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.
Public Safety
Request approval to: apply for membership with the
Minnesota Multistate Contracting Alliance for Pharmacy (MMCAP) by execution and
submittal of an MMCAP Facility Membership Application and MMCAP Facility
Agreement; authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all
supporting documentation required to finalize the County's enrollment; and
authorize the County Manager to execute Cardinal Health Specialty
Pharmaceutical Distribution Consignment Agreement for CroFab®, Cardinal Health
Returned Goods Authorization Ongoing Assurances, and supporting documentation
required by Cardinal Health for new account setup. There is no fiscal
impact.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERNAL SUPPORT SERVICES
Human Services
Request approval and execution of an Amendment to Contract 13-0024A with Cigna Group Insurance / Life Insurance Company of North America for Lake County Employee Disability Insurance Benefits, continuing coverage at the current rates for an additional two-year period and guaranteeing the rates until October 1, 2020. The fiscal impact is $101,538.00 for the Employer Paid Disability (expenditure - County and Constitutional Offices).
Request approval and execution of the First Amendment to Contract 14-0027 with Humana Vision for Lake County Employee Vision Benefits, continuing coverage at the current rates for an additional one-year period and guaranteeing the rates through September 30, 2020. There is no fiscal impact.
Public Works
Request approval of Resolution 2018-46 authorizing the
installation of stop signs on Main Street at the intersection of Lake Street,
in the City of Leesburg. The fiscal impact is $200.00 (expenditure - sign
materials). Commission District 3.
Request approval to:
1. To execute an agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for right of way and construction
funding for the Citrus Grove Road widening project, from west of US 27 to
Grassy Lake Road, located in Minneola; and
2. For the Chairman to execute supporting Resolution 2018-47 and deliver the
agreement to FDOT.
The fiscal impact is $10,000,000.00 (100% Legislative Appropriation).
Commission District 2.
Request approval to award term and supply agreement for emergency debris removal services on an as-needed basis under Request for Proposal (RFP) 18-0905 to TFR Enterprises, Inc. (Leander, TX), Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (Knoxville, TN), and Southern Disaster Recovery, LLC (Greenville, SC). The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.
Request approval to accept a performance bond of $88,911.89 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #8253 and Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53159 issued to construct a turn lane and driveway for a Wawa convenience store on Morningside Drive in Mount Dora. The fiscal impact is $800.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 4.
Request approval to release a cash surety of $52,016.90 associated with Commercial/Subdivision Driveway Connection Permit #53141 issued to construct a turn lane for Pinecrest Lakes Academy on North Hancock Road in Clermont. There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Commission District 2.
Request approval and execution of the Fifth Amendment to Contract 13-0430 with PAQCO, Inc. (Leesburg) to provide for an additional one-year period of contract service for provision of pavement and base repairs, and extending and guaranteeing current contract pricing through May 31, 2019. The estimated fiscal impact is $200,000.00 (expenditure).
Request approval:
1. To award the CR 466A Phase IIIA, Project No. 2018-02, Bid No. 18-0911, FPN
430253-4-54-01, in the City of Fruitland Park to D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. (Inglis,
FL) in the amount of $3,368,888.88; and
2. To encumber and expend the $3,368,888.88 to D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. from
the following funds: Federal/State Grants fund ($2,750,000.00), Central
Transportation Benefit District fund ($312,455.88), and the County
Transportation Trust fund ($306,433.00); and
3. Of Resolution 2018-48 amending the County Transportation Trust Fund to
receive unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2018 in the amount of $306,433.00
from the City of Fruitland Park for the utility portion of the project.
The fiscal impact is $3,368,888.88 (expenditure - $312,455.88 from the Central Transportation Benefit District fund, $306,433.00 from the County Transportation Trust fund and $2,750,000.00 from the Federal/State Grants fund). Commission District 5.
Request approval to:
1. Release a performance bond of
$1,259,009.18 posted for the completion of infrastructure improvements for the
Johns Lake Landing Phase 4 final plat, located in Clermont; and
2. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements between Lake
County and John’s Lake LLC.; and
3. Accept a maintenance bond of $292,341.33 for maintenance of improvements;
and
4. Execute Resolution 2018-49 accepting Good Hearth Boulevard “Part” (County
Road No. 1262); Highland Woods Drive (County Road No. 1264); Crestmont
Boulevard (County Road No. 1264A); Blossom Valley Drive (County Road No.
1264B); Magnolia Valley Drive (County Road No. 1264C); Shady Hollow Loop
(County Road No. 1264E); and Hickory Wind Drive (County Road No. 1265) into the
County Road Maintenance System.
5. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of Sidewalk
Improvements Between Lake County and John’s Lake, LLC.; and
6. Accept $115,500.00 for performance of sidewalk construction; and
7. Accept $10,500.00 for maintenance of sidewalk improvements.
There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.
Request approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2018-50 to amend the MSTU Stormwater Fund to receive $15,000.00 of unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2018 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for reimbursement of costs related to FWC Grant No. FWC-17252 for the removal and destruction of a derelict vessel located in Astor. The fiscal impact is $15,000.00 (revenue). Commission District 5.
COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE
Community Services
Request approval of contract 18-0907 to B Hurd Realty
Services, LLC d/b/a Hurd Construction Management (Jacksonville, FL) for
improvements at the Umatilla Community Center. The fiscal impact is $274,636.00
(expenditure - 100% Community Development Block Grant funded). Commission
District 5.
Request approval of the Fiscal Year 2015 State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Annual Closeout Report and authorization for Allison Thall to execute the certification and any documents necessary to submit the Report to the State. There is no fiscal impact.
Parks and Trails
Request approval of contract 18-0205 for mass grading at South Lake Regional Park, located in the Groveland area, to Stahl Faust Immobilien, LLC (Bella Collina). There is no fiscal impact as the effort is being completed on a "no-cost" basis to the County. Commission District 1.
Transportation impact fee workshop
Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, stated the purpose of this workshop was to provide the Board with options to consider in regards to a possible transition from a transportation impact fee to a mobility fee. He remarked that a presentation was made to the Board on impact fees at the February 27, 2018 BCC Meeting, and that at that time, the Board inquired how fees are levied on certain categories and what changes could be made that would not hinder development, especially around medical, technology, industrial, manufacturing, family-owned retail, lodging and workforce housing. He said that the mobility fee being discussed at this meeting would replace the transportation impact fee if that is the direction the Board chooses; however, there were still options to keep the current fee but look at ways to modify it to meet the requests made by the Board. He said that Mr. Bill Oliver, Principal Engineer working with Kittelson & Associates, had worked on the last transportation impact fee update for the County, was an expert on impact and mobility fees and would be presenting information on the mobility fee.
Mr. Oliver defined that a mobility fee and transportation impact fee were similar in that they both are a one-time charge on development which creates additional roadway traffic in order to help fund the needed transportation system capacity. He stated that mobility fees were a modern rendition of the transportation impact fee and opined that they could do a better job of being more consistent with the County’s adopted transportation plan and with its economic development, land use and growth objectives. He explained that the mobility fee could be tailored to the County’s growth objectives and was more flexible to be used for bicycle and sidewalk networks, whereas the transportation impact fees primarily focused on roads. He then shared some history stating that back in the 1980’s, the state legislature realized that managing growth and maintaining the quality of life for Florida was important and required all local governments to adopt Comprehensive Plans (Comp Plans) on how they would manage growth and to establish level of service standards. He remarked that out of that mandate grew the concept of concurrency, which meant that as growth occurs, infrastructure to maintain those adopted levels of service and quality of life should be provided or that development should be denied. He elaborated that the revenue programs to fund the infrastructure needed to maintain levels of service and keep up with the pace of growth in Florida never evolved, and as a result, level of service standards were not met, congestion on the road systems started to grow and the proportionate share concept then emerged. He explained that through this proportionate share, a developer could fund a part of the infrastructure that was needed to mitigate their own impacts but not be required to fix prior deficiencies. He indicated that the execution of that proportionate share equation tended to promote urban sprawl because the only places where the developers could avoid the proportionate share obligations were in the suburbs and rural areas where the roads were empty. He also implied that this equation made a large scale developer pay more per home than a small scale developer and that the last developer into an area was often penalized because previous developers took all the available capacity at no charge. He opined that the system did not work well; therefore, in response to demands for a more equitable, fair and predictable approach, state growth management laws were amended in 2011 and largely did away with concurrency and proportionate share. He noted that during this process, transportation impact fees were starting to emerge. He elaborated that the 2011 amendments introduced the idea of mobility fees, which are like transportation impact fees but encourage other features with those fees, such as area-wide level of service concepts, incentives for specific forms of development, etc. He commented that these guiding principles for setting up a mobility fee were established: the dual rational nexus test, which says the fee has to be proportional to the extent of impact caused by the development and the payer of the fee has to be benefitted by the fee; the fee is charged to the extent that needs are not addressed by other revenue sources; the fee rate cannot charge new growth to cure problems caused by predecessors; and the equal protection concept, which maintains that every developer be treated equitably and fairly. He displayed the fee calculation, which equals the quantity of travel generated multiplied by the cost to provide that capacity minus the credits and incentives. He then showed a graph of impact fee funding history for a single family home in Lake County, noting it was $298 in 1985 and went up to $2,189 in 2010. He added that the fee was suspended during the recession and reenacted in 2014 with a two different fee schedule arrangement in which the north and central districts had a $500 fee and the south district set a $2,706 fee, in response to the requests from municipalities. He continued by explaining that there are two kinds of districts: the fee district, which establishes the magnitude of the fee that the land use pays; and the benefit district, which is where the revenue from the fees can be spent. He stated that currently for Lake County, fees collected in the north district must be spent within the north district, and the same applies for the central and south districts. He said that because it is difficult to accumulate enough money through fees to implement improvements, the mobility fee concept has a more flexible approach to how fee and benefit districts are established, which he noted he would discuss in more detail later in the presentation. He then showed a summary of Lake County’s transportation funding budget for FY 2017, noting that approximately three quarters of the budget was channeled into roadway operations and maintenance. He reported that a quarter of the budget was allocated to capital improvements, with the transportation impact fee accounting for 60 percent of that at $4.5 million. He added that during the impact fee study, it was identified that the actual transportation impact fee portion over the previous five years was closer to $3.5 million. He said that the other portion of the capital funding came through grants. He proposed that the Board consider questions such as: the quality of the transportation system they want for the future; how much growth is occurring in the county; at what rate is the needed infrastructure being provided; and does the County need a mobility fee, and if so, how much should the fee be. He reported that the 2017 impact fee study quantified that the growth and travel expected on county roads was 62,500 vehicle-miles of travel each year. He said in order to keep pace with that rate of growth, the County would need to add 6.5 lane-miles of roadway to the major road network in the county, noting that at the cost of $2.86 million per lane-mile, that would cost approximately $18.6 million per year. He indicated that the recent annual County revenues for expansion had averaged $8.8 million, with $5.3 million being one-time grants and $3.5 million coming from impact fees. He opined that there was a need for a mobility fee within Lake County, but to what extent was a question the Board should consider.
Mr. Oliver continued his presentation by noting that a modern mobility fee was multi-modal, goal-oriented, geographically stratified, and has the option to incentivize for desired development. He explained that when setting goals, these items should be considered: the quality of service; the modes of transportation desired; specific elements of the road system, such as which roads should be funded; importance of being time-specific to know when goals can to be achieved; defining costs and revenue needs; and the ability to vary by geographic area. He indicated that counties typically divide into core areas, suburbs and rural areas. He said that in Pasco County, the fee in the urban districts is lower, the fee in the suburb district is a medium range fee, and the fee in their rural district is the highest fee, in order to encourage development in their urban area. He remarked that this is technically justified because more congestion is expected in the urban areas, while the rural areas have longer trip lengths which need a higher quality of service and therefore a higher fee. He added that within mobility fees, the concept of benefit districts is different than fee districts, giving the example that if someone living in the rural district has a long trip length and travels into the suburban and urban district, there is a justification to take part of the fee collected in the rural district and spend some in the suburban and urban districts since their trip goes there. He explained that when this happens, a cost that reflects the portion of travel in each of those three districts and the quality of service that is promised in the three districts has to be established. He reported that with incentivized fees, it is a “buy-down” using non-growth revenues and explained that if one land use is discounted, then a second land use cannot be charged for a certain quality of service without being certain that quality of service is delivered. He clarified that if the first land use is given a discount, then revenues will fall short in delivering that quality of service; therefore, the amount of incentive being provided must be backfilled. He remarked that incentives can be provided in one of these three strategies: desired form of development, such as a style of development like traditional neighborhoods; desired type of development, such as employment land uses or public purpose uses; or desired location of development, like in urban core areas where industrial or medical centers are needed. He then displayed a map of Lake County identifying core, suburb and rural areas with the suggestion of possible different fee rates, such as higher fees in rural areas and lower fees in urban areas. The map also showed the potential to have larger “expenditure/benefit” districts where a higher fee could be collected in the southwest rural district but also spent within a larger benefit district beyond the rural area due to trips generated into the suburban area. He elaborated that this allows more flexibility and helps fees to be used quicker than the highly structured district system.
Mr. Schneider indicated that there were three options for the Board to consider as follows: keep the current system, which is the transportation impact fee with three benefit districts; make the fee uniform countywide and delver the same service throughout the county; or evaluate replacing the transportation impact fee with a mobility fee. He elaborated that the third option to have a mobility fee would include revised fee and benefit district boundaries, certain incentives, and revenues aligned with goals.
Commr. Parks stated that he supported the mobility fee concept and the evaluation of replacing the current system, since it was important to consider ways to improve the system. He asked how often the benefit districts are updated. He opined that in South Lake, the current impact fee has not slowed down growth, but wondered if money collected there through a mobility fee would go to another part of the county that was not growing as fast. He also noted that Four Corners should be included in the benefit district previously displayed.
Mr. Oliver responded that state laws addressing impact and mobility fees require that they must be based on the most recent localized data; therefore, updating fee schedules is built into the fee program, with most agencies doing it on a three to five year cycle, noting that Lake County does it every three to four years. He mentioned that he prefers maintaining consistency, predictability and stability over time, and did not recommended changing the districts on a regular basis. He added that the capital budget always comes to the Board for adoption and the expenditures of those fees are part of the capital program.
Commr. Parks asked for clarification on the incentive fee and if it came from non-growth related areas, such as a business fee collected separately.
Mr. Oliver replied that a portion of motor fuel taxes are a potential part of that incentive money. He stated that fees are usually set up to recognize 25 years of future revenues so that technically, the last 25 years of growth are paying for their own capacity. He said other tax revenues were also a possibility and gave the example that Pasco County did a countywide tax increment district in which they committed a third of the increases in property taxes for the purpose of incentivizing their desired forms of land uses. He added that they gave land uses for office, industrial and hotel a 100 percent discount while other land uses were discounted at various amounts in order to achieve their goals.
Commr. Sullivan clarified that if those land uses are discounted, there needs to be a funding source to make up for the discount. He remarked that if the Board decides to pursue this, it would take time and effort to do a new study. He said he liked the idea and commented that when he joined the Board, it was changed from six or eight districts to three. He opined that the county was experiencing tremendous growth but the current revenue sources needed to manage that growth and maintain the roads was not keeping pace, which he noted was why the potential gas tax was being considered. He implied that the question to consider was how to align the revenues to meet the goals and also coordinate with all the state roads that come through Lake County.
Commr. Breeden asked the estimated length of time it would take to transition to a mobility fee if the Board decided to go in that direction.
Mr. Oliver responded that there is an initial technical process that has to happen to put numbers together, which could be done in two to three months since a transportation study was done the previous year. He said the more intricate part is working with the planning staff on defining boundaries and districts which would take an extra month for that.
Mr. Schneider added that due to the 14 cities that are part of the impact fee program, staff would have to reach out to them and explain mobility fees and how it would be used in the urban, suburban and rural areas and this could take more time.
Mr. Oliver replied that the process could take four to six months based on this.
Commr. Breeden asked the Board if they decided to transition to a mobility fee, would there be a desire to raise the impact fees in the north and central districts until a mobility fee could be put in place.
Commr. Campione felt there was a sense of urgency since the City of Mount Dora currently had a multitude of Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications for residential development. She shared that her biggest concern was the need for roads to be built in that area due to increased traffic resulting from those developments. She opined this was definitely a clear time for a higher transportation impact fee to be in place in that part of the county. She recapped that the district reductions were done because of the economy in order to spur development. She felt that they should still examine the mobility fee process but said that since Lake County promotes the rural lifestyle, she did not like the idea of putting it in a high cost category and possibly harming those seeking that lifestyle. She opined that the suburban developments and subdivisions in those areas have the most negative impact on the road system and that should be the focus. She stated that in the meantime, she thought the current transportation impact fees should be raised since it takes 90 days to do that.
Ms. Marsh clarified that it would go into effect 90 days after the ordinance was adopted.
Commr. Campione asked how raising the fees would affect targeted industries, and encouraged looking at how much money would need to be available in order to incentivize target industries, especially hotels since the county needs places for people to stay as ecotourism is promoted. She encouraged finding a way to move forward with making changes to the existing ordinance while looking at the amount of funding needed for target industry incentives. She reiterated that Lake County wants and needs those businesses and felt that fees were punitive on the commercial side. She also commented on the “need for fee” presentation slide which said they should be adding 6.5 miles of additional roads per year, and remarked that the Lake County road system only had certain locations that needed that type of growth and other areas do not want four lane roads. She felt that staff knew the future needs for connector roads and suggested developing a list of potential roads for the next five to ten years and then determine the dollar amount needed to fund that.
Commr. Sullivan related that current impact fees were for new capacity and do not help with funding for paving clay roads.
Commr. Campione said that was a good point as fees could not be used on clay roads and it was questionable if they could be used for adding shoulders, unless it was making it wide enough for bicycles and saying it was for multi-modal purposes. She said it was important, especially with the potential gas tax being added, that the public be aware that impact fees cannot be used to resurface existing roads. She reiterated the need to be clear that these were two different items, with impact fees adding capacity and the gas tax being used for resurfacing and keeping up with the roads the county already has.
Commr. Breeden asked for clarification on what the mobility fee could be used for and how it is different than an impact fee.
Mr. Schneider replied that it depends on the goals established but that a mobility fee could be used for new roads as well as other uses like sidewalks, walking paths, bike paths and transit. He stated one county was even using it to build park and ride lots.
Mr. Oliver commented that the evolution of the road impact fee was road capacity because it was easy to measure. He remarked that the legislation regarding mobility fees that was passed talks about the infrastructure and responding to the needs created by growth and uses the word “capital.” He added that the definition of capital is a facility which has a five year economic life or more. He implied that maintenance and operations would not be covered with mobility fees but the legislative phrasing does not limit to just capacity. He noted that if adding shoulders is part of the safety program needed in response to growth, then that may be something that could be covered. He indicated there was flexibility in how it is defined.
Commr. Blake asked if there is flexibility with mobility fees to put the money towards multi-modal needs, then how does that help with the 62,500 lane-miles needed, as using the money towards those items would take away from the needed road miles.
Mr. Oliver responded that 62,500 was the best estimate of growth based on motor fuel sales and population projections. He said the roads were the easier item to measure and that bike lanes and sidewalks were usually in the five to ten percent additional cost range.
Commr. Campione expressed interest in having some of the funding going towards multi-modal needs as people use the sidewalks and bike lanes to get around the county.
Commr. Blake expressed concerns with the previously presented benefit district example in South Lake going north, since many drivers in that area are headed into Orange County for work. He opined that if the transportation impact fee is raised, then the school impact fee should be reduced in order to offset that fee raise.
Commr. Parks inquired about the incentives and said that he would want to be narrow and strict on what the County would apply that to, such as a business that would bring higher wage jobs then what the county has now. He opined that hotels and restaurants would come no matter what, but that he was looking for primary producers to give incentives to.
Commr. Campione agreed with those thoughts but also expressed a desire to help small businesses trying to get started. She thought there was time, since the data still had to be collected and evaluated, to formulate the incentives and look at what the dollar amounts would need to be in order to have an impact. She said the business license fees could possibly be a tangible way to set aside money and bring in more business opportunities and therefore help all businesses.
Commr. Sullivan recapped that there was Board consensus to bring back the current system and look at raising fees immediately as well as consensus to move forward with the evaluation of mobility fees to consider if that is what the County wants to do. He asked staff to bring back to the Board in the next month or so the reestablishment of the current transportation impact fees, and have Mr. Schneider’s team continue the study of the mobility fees over the next three to six months to obtain more specifics on how that would work.
Ms. Marsh asked the Chairman to clarify that when staff brings back the increase in the north and central districts’ impact fees, did the Board want that percentage to match the same percentage being charged in the south. She said currently the north and central districts were discounted 85 percent and the south was discounted 30 percent, and asked if they wanted the north and central to also have a 30 percent discount.
Commr. Campione asked if the Board could adjust that amount at the adoption phase of the ordinance.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that the rate could go lower but not be increased. She said for example, if the increase was at 30 percent of the rate in the study, then a lower percentage could be chosen and would apply to all districts or a different percentage could be given for the north and central districts. She asked if the Board preferred it to be for approval to advertise in order to have time to consider the amounts or did they prefer it to be a public hearing and then discuss during that hearing. She mentioned that it can be more difficult to make adjustments during a public hearing but that with an approval to advertise as a presentation, then the Board can change the numbers before it comes back for a public hearing.
The Board agreed to have it come back as an approval to advertise.
Commr. Parks stated that with the South Lake fee, the cities and the Chamber of Commerce were supportive and suggested considering their input.
Commr. Campione remarked that the Homebuilders Association would probably want to have input as well. She asked if it was possible to compile a list of projects for each of the districts, displayed on a map, in order to show the areas where the County would do road work.
Commr. Parks inquired about the timing of when impact fees are collected and thought the legislation that passed has them being collected when the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is obtained.
Ms. Marsh replied that she thought that impact fee bill did not pass but noted that the Lake County code already has a provision for them to be delayed and collected at CO. She stated that bill did not really affect Lake County; however, other counties were collecting at building permit.
Commr. Campione asked if the County was allowing them to be prepaid at the time of platting.
Ms. Marsh responded that prepayment was still in the code and cautioned that if a higher fee is approved, there have been instances in the past where developers come in early to pay at the lower fee. She suggested that if the Board wanted to take out the prepayment option, it could be part of the ordinance; however, builders would still have 90 days to prepay before the new fee would go into effect. She clarified that if the prepayment option is taken out of the ordinance at the same time the fee increase is approved, builders could only pay at the time they pull a building permit; however, if the prepayment option is left, then they can prepay and have a year from that prepayment to pull a permit at which point if they have not pulled the permit, they receive a credit for the prepayment and pay the difference for the new fee amount.
Commr. Campione confirmed with Ms. Marsh that the 90 day requirement applied to increasing the fee and did not apply to the prepayment. She suggested then that the prepayment provision be taken out immediately.
Commr. Breeden asked what other counties, besides Pasco County as previously mentioned, were moving to a mobility fee.
Mr. Oliver replied that almost every county was moving to a mobility fee and added that the City of Orlando and Hillsboro County were multi-modal, with Orange and Miami-Dade Counties moving in that direction.
Commr. Campione asked for a list of surrounding counties’ fee schedules and Mr. Oliver displayed a list on the overhead.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for staff to move forward with the mobility fee analysis and research, since it would involve utilizing a consultant.
public hearing – gas tax ordinance 2018-21
Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF A FIVE-CENT LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAX IN LAKE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE LEVY BY VOTERS IN A REFERENDUM; PROVIDING THAT THE IMPOSITION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN (10) YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2020; PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUEL TAX; PROVIDING FOR THE FUEL TAX PROCEEDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG LAKE COUNTY AND THE MUNICIPALITIES; PROVIDING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2018; AMENDING THE BALLOT LANGUAGE APPROVED IN ORDINANCE NO. 2018-14; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR NOTIFICATION TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR INFORMING THE PUBLIC; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE II; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE NO. 2018-14; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING A CONFLICT CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Marsh noted that this ordinance was being brought back before the Board because the previously approved Ordinance 2018-14 ballot language used the wording “for/against” and that due to the statute, it needed to read “yes/no.” She said this was the only change.
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. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 3-2 the Board approved the adoption and execution of Ordinance 2018-21, amending Lake County Code, Chapter 13, Article II, entitled “Gas Taxes,” to add a new section regarding the levy of a 5-cent local option fuel tax pursuant to Section 336.025(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), upon every gallon of motor fuel sold in the county and authorization of a special election, amending the ballot language approved in Ordinance 2018-14 from a “For/Against” voter selection to a “Yes/No,” and repealing and replacing Ordinance 2018-14.
Commr. Parks and Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing – animal Ordinance 2018-22
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 LAKE COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED “ANIMALS”; EXPANDING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE; AMENDING DEFINITIONS; MODIFYING CIVIL PENALTIES AND IMPOSING A SURCHARGE; ESTABLISHING VOLUNTARY ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION; PROHIBITING THE RETAIL SALE OF DOGS AND CATS; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A MANDATORY LOCAL LICENSE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ms. Marsh mentioned that an errata sheet was given to each Commissioner with comments received the previous day from a representative from the United States Humane Society. She noted there were changes to Section 4-3 Definitions and Section 4-42 Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Carla Wilson, a citizen responsible for the Seminole County retail pet sale ban that passed in February 2018, stated she was glad to see Lake County considering this ordinance to prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats. She thanked the Board and encouraged them to pass this ordinance.
Mr. Bryan Wilson opined that this was a growing trend across the country and stated Lake County was the third county to consider this, since it was mostly addressed at a city level. He appreciated the Board considering this ordinance and felt that the retail pet market depended on impulse purchases which often resulted in animals being abandoned and then taken care of by overburdened animal services departments. He opined this was a humane and fiscally responsible action for the County to be proactive in this matter.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Breeden asked if this would impact stores like PetSmart which offers rescue animals.
Ms. Marsh replied that since they do not sell animals from a breeder or broker but use adoption groups that they bring into their store, this ordinance does not affect their practice of offering space for groups to bring animals for adoption.
Commr. Blake commented that he was in favor of most of the ordinance but indicated he could not vote for it because he felt it was a blanket prohibition on retail sales and believed there were better ways to target those selling animals improperly.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-22, amending Lake County Code, Chapter 4, entitled “Animals,” and including the errata sheet containing changes to the wording in Section 4-3 Definitions and Section 4-42 Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats.
Commr. Blake voted no.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:43 a.m. for 15 minutes.
2018 legislative session presentation
Ms. Angie Langley, part of the legislative lobby team for Lake County, thanked the Board for the opportunity to represent the County in Tallahassee.
Mr. Christopher Carmody, with Gray/Robinson, Attorneys at Law, thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to work on their behalf in Tallahassee during the recent legislative session to advocate the positions of Lake County. He commented that all sessions are unique and can often be referred to by their key legislation and opined that this session would be known as the Parkland Session. He remarked that the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018 changed the dynamics of this session, with $400 million of the budget then taken out to be designated to those concerns. He added that because of this and along with other revenue shortfalls, the budget was greatly impacted, which then affected all the requests for this legislative session. He reported that the state budget this year was $89 billion and shared these two focus areas: health care, with health and human services encompassing almost a third of the budget; and educational funding, with both kindergarten through twelve and university levels increasing, with one highlight being that the Bright Future Scholarships for students in the state university system are now fully funded. He mentioned these three specific wins for Lake County: Lake Technical College received funding for their project; Veterans Court, with the creation of a critical services court system funded at $7.5 million as a recurring grant, allows the County to receive funding year over year; and library funding. He relayed that the County Road (C.R.) 437 project for $7 million was vetoed and the County would not be eligible to receive funding through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the coming year; however, this did not restrict the County from going through the budget process again next year and asking for the same project. He indicated that decisions on how to approach needs for next year may be decided after the November 2018 elections, since a possible new governor may change the dynamics for the next year.
Mr. Robert Stuart, with Gray/Robinson, reiterated that the event in Parkland, Florida and the legislators’ response to that drove the vast majority of the last three weeks of the legislative session, noting that the Senate even held a Saturday session to address the bill related to this event. He relayed that this was an omnibus bill and focused on several items including school safety and investing $400 million into school resource officers as well as the guardian program, noting that Governor Scott was not supportive of the guardian program portion of the bill but said that if school districts opt out of this program, then that money should be reallocated to more school resource officers. He commented that the Department of Education was currently evaluating how to get this bill implemented and would be answering districts’ questions within the next several weeks. He indicated that the bill also addressed, for the state of Florida, a three day waiting period for the purchase of all firearms, a 21 age minimum for the purchase of firearms and the banning of bump stocks, as well as other items. He reported that in regards to home rule, there was a lot in the way of preemption bills filed this year, noting that typically they originate in the House of Representatives and often times are not approved in the Senate; furthermore, he noted that in most cases this year, they were not approved in the Senate. He gave examples of some of these bills including ones on tree trimming and who governs that, preempting economic development councils and how they do their business, and one on vacation rentals. He noted that very few of these preemption bills passed, and he hoped that government closest to the people and home rule powers being protected would be the new trend. He mentioned that he learned about the formula used for the state aid to public library grants and reported there was a moment in the legislative session where the senate lowered the state aid dollar amount to a place that would have stopped the state’s ability to draw on federal money. He relayed that his team took action and met with the budget chairs in both the House and the Senate to educate them that if the money fell below $22 million, the state would lose approximately $8 million in federal funding. He commented that this then led to the money for statewide grant and aid program being restored. He added that $750,000 was also allocated for the online high school program. He closed by stating how grateful they are to represent Lake County in Tallahassee.
Mr. Carmody remarked that they worked on a specific policy issue in the tax package this year that related to Lake County and thanked Ms. Marsh for coming to Tallahassee to help explain the County’s infrastructure sales tax. He explained that due to some Florida Statute changes, there was concern regarding Lake County’s use of the infrastructure sales tax; therefore, they went to the legislature to confirm the County was not violating any laws regarding the use of the tax. He gave credit to Senator Kelli Stargel, who represents Lake County and is the Senate Finance and Tax Chairman, for helping with a rule that was included in the tax package, signed by Governor Scott, and ensures the County is using this tax properly. He concluded that even though there were some frustrations with transportation issues, he relayed that they had a great meeting with FDOT to discuss priorities for this year and upcoming years.
Commr. Sullivan asked for clarity regarding transportation legislative appropriations and if the district looks at that as a displacement of other funding the County is supposed to receive due to its population. He gave the example of how the Citrus Grove Road appropriation displaced other money and how that put the County behind in other projects.
Mr. Carmody responded that there is a county by county allocation list prepared at the end of the legislation session in order to track projects in the various counties and there were many road projects as part of the FDOT plan. He stated the Board needed to decide if there was a road project more important than what was in that FDOT plan and if they wanted them to address that with FDOT. He stated that Citrus Grove Road was a good example of this and noted that C.R. 437 was one as well, because of the growth the county is experiencing and the need to upgrade and realign some roads. He indicated they would continue to have conversations with FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regarding what projects were on the list and which ones needed to be at the top of the list so they can be a part of next year’s road plan. He explained that if FDOT and MPO were not willing to reprioritize the list, then they would need to decide if they take those issues to Tallahassee and ask to have them put into the budget.
Commr. Breeden opined that before the Citrus Grove Road allocation, no one was aware that this was not additional funding. She asked if the rules changed with FDOT or if there was always the penalty of not being able to ask for a project for a year once it gets vetoed.
Mr. Carmody commented that the County could go back to the legislature next year and request the funding. He elaborated that there is sometimes an unspoken policy that projects do not go in the budget if they were vetoed the previous year; however, he commented that he has seen where the first year something might be funded and vetoed, but then they reeducate and it is not vetoed. He relayed there were many factors that could affect it. He reiterated that they could go back and ask for the money and if they are successful at getting it put into the legislative budget, the Governor could sign it as there was no law stating he has to veto it. He elaborated that no agency can get a project in the budget, have it vetoed by the Governor, and then try to have it reallocated and used in another way.
Commr. Parks asked for details on the Tourism Development Tax (TDT).
Mr. Carmody relayed that there was a push by a Pinellas County senator and a Melbourne based House member to tweak how tourism development taxes are spent. He explained that Brevard County recently spent TDT money on baseball fields and this legislator wanted it to be spent on estuaries and lagoons, which was not legally allowed. He elaborated that for Pinellas County, they are at 90 percent hotel occupancy year round and spend 60 percent on marketing. He said they cannot build any more hotel rooms because they do not have enough sewer capacity, and they wanted to build a lift station. He commented that their argument was that since they are spending 60 percent on marketing and are at 90 percent capacity, what is holding them back on tourism growth is the ability to have more hotel rooms so they wanted some of the TDT funds to go towards infrastructure. He recalled that the details state that TDT money can be spent on infrastructure, but there has to be a two-thirds vote from the county commission and only in counties where there is greater than $10 million in TDT collections, that 40 percent has to already be spent on marketing, and that 30 percent of the project has to come from county funds, not TDT.
Commr. Breeden asked about the library funding reduction.
Mr. Stuart responded that the funding was approximately $22.5 and was still at a level to receive federal funding, but there was about a $2 million year over year statewide reduction.
Mr. Carmody thanked the Board and the local delegation for their efforts and reported there would be some changes in representation moving forward.
school security update
Commr. Sullivan remarked that due to the state legislation bill regarding placing safety resource officers in every school, he met with Ms. Diane Kornegay, Lake County School Board Superintendent and her staff, Sheriff Peyton Grinnell and his staff, the County Manager, the County Attorney and Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Budget Director, in order to discuss how this would impact the County budget and possible solutions. He indicated there were several options to help meet this mandate as follows: the guardian program, which allows an armed personnel in the school system who has been trained but does not have the same authority as a law enforcement officer; for the school system to hire employees within their own system for security, who have to be certified law enforcement officers; or a cooperative agreement between a law enforcement agency, noting this was the option favored by the Lake County School System. He reported that the County currently funds about 22 school resource officers, costing $3.2 million to the Sheriff’s Department, of which the school system contributes $1 million to that. He explained that in order to put school resource officers in every Lake County school, it would require an additional 20 to 22 officers, costing approximately $4 million, which would then put the total cost for school resource officers at about $7.4 million. He explained this would be a six percent increase to the sheriff’s budget and approximately a four percent increase in the total current overall budget. He mentioned that his goal for this meeting was to discuss this with the sheriff and get his input, commenting that this would affect the goals the Board had identified in their goals workshop in March 2018. He reiterated that the Board’s goals were to not have a tax increase and to rebuild reserves. He reported that staff discussed these possible ideas: if the Board decided to fund this, while they could not put it on the Truth in Millage Law (TRIM) notice, it could be broken out on the final bill designated as a specific line item to pay for resource officers; or they could recommend the school board provide their own security, although he noted that the school board may not be able to meet the need since their security would have to meet all the same requirements as law enforcement officers; or there could be other possible options considered. He noted that the sheriff was present to answer any questions and to help explain why the school board wanted to coordinate with his department in providing the school resource officers.
Commr. Parks asked if the school board voted to use the sheriff’s department.
Commr. Campione inquired if the school board was under the opinion that the only money they would have available to contribute to this would be the money given to them specifically by the state legislature for this purpose. She asked if they had other funds they could utilize or changes they could make within their organization to produce funding.
Commr. Sullivan stated the school board had not voted on options yet and that they anticipated about an additional $1.2 million in funding for school resource officers which would total approximately $2.2 million. He noted those numbers were not specific until an actual plan was formulated. He said there was no time requirement for when this had to be implemented but only that Governor Scott wanted a plan in place by October 2018.
Commr. Parks asked if those numbers were capital or operational.
Commr. Sullivan replied he thought it was operational but noted he did not think it was recurring revenue.
Commr. Breeden stated she thought that they were receiving about $1 million from the state but that they were also putting approximately $800,000 towards current resource officers.
Commr. Sullivan responded that they receive about $1.2 million but that their charter schools qualify for around $400,000 of that amount, which is where the $800,000 comes from.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she thought if the schools did the guardian program or a combination of that program and a resource officer in each school, then the sheriff would receive money to do training for the guardian program but there would not be recurring costs since there would not be an additional stipend provided to those employees. She opined that if there were guardians for every school, then there would be no significant ongoing cost for that option. She felt that a combination of those two options would be the safest for schools because a potential shooter would be able to identify who the resource officers were, but would not know people on campus who were well trained for security.
Sheriff Grinnell remarked that the best option was a highly trained law enforcement officer on campus and reported that his department currently had officers in 23 schools, with some high schools having two officers assigned to them. He stated he was willing and ready to have training for the guardian program if the school board chose that option. He noted that each additional layer of security that can be provided was good and stressed that he needed to know what direction the school board wanted to go so he could help meet the needs of this mandate. He opined that he thought the Governor’s intent was to have all campuses covered by this next school year with either a law enforcement officer, a guardian or a combination of the two. He added that law enforcement agencies from all over the state were recruiting from Lake County’s training academy. He commented this was about keeping kids safe and he wanted to be prudent and ready to go, noting that it would be a challenge to hire, do the in depth background checks, provide the training, and have officers ready by August when school starts. He indicated that the Florida Sheriff’s General Council released a memorandum to all sheriffs that there was the ability for school boards to raise their millage rates in order to meet this standard. He reiterated that he was willing to do whatever was needed to keep school students safe but that he needed to know what that would be.
Commr. Breeden asked how many additional schools there were above the 23 that already have officers and within the $4 million estimated additional funding, how much was capital.
Sheriff Grinnell replied there were questions regarding charter schools but that there was approximately 23 more schools, and noted the need to account for relief officers and supervision. He implied that with 35 additional deputies who would need vehicles, at the cost of about $40,000 to $42,000 per vehicle, it would be approximately $2 million for capital needs.
Commr. Breeden noted there was also the possibility of implementing a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) for the specific purpose of funding these resource officers, but that would take a year to accomplish. She asked what the sheriff’s thoughts were on allowing the school board to use a private security company for the first year while the MSTU was put into place.
Sheriff Grinnell replied that his general council stated that would be outside the statute and not allowed because it has to be a school board employee. He noted that the funding the school board was currently receiving for this measure could not be used for private security.
Ms. Marsh remarked that the statute did not put a deadline of when the plan had to be in place; though the statute was effective now. She confirmed that the statute was clear that the resource officers have to be employed by the law enforcement agency or by the school board and does not seem to make provision for an outside security firm.
Commr. Parks asked how the guardian program was at no cost.
Sheriff Grinnell explained that the money the school board currently has allocated from the Department of Education would be adequate for the sheriff to provide initial training to the guardians. He clarified that the guardian training program was 132 hours, that the curriculum was ready to be implemented, that the school board owns the range, and that training could be accomplished over the summer once the school board identifies the volunteers for the program. He elaborated this was different than the requirement for a law enforcement officer who has to complete the sheriff’s academy, which is close to 800 hours of training.
Commr. Campione commented that as the Board evaluates who should be providing the funding, she opined that program should be something the school board considers and suggested they implement a combination of both resource officers and the guardian program. She recommended they use it as a pilot at some schools and at least have it ready as a tool they could implement.
Commr. Parks agreed that it was a good option to have ready for use.
Commr. Blake thanked the Sheriff for being present and agreed with Commissioner Campione that the element of surprise was vital and that it could be easy to track the movements of a resource officer. He noted that there was a school resource officer on the Parkland campus and that still did not prevent the event. He encouraged the school board to consider the guardian program option, especially since it was budget neutral, and to understand the impact resource officers could have on their budget and not assume the sheriff’s budget would cover the costs.
Commr. Sullivan reiterated that the sheriff needed direction quickly. He believed the best option was school resource officers but agreed it was not the BCC’s responsibility to decide. He suggested that the funding for this mandate be placed in the budgetary process and be discussed in order to find the best option for meeting it.
Commr. Parks opined that the school board needed to take a formal vote on what option they wanted and then provide a recommendation to the BCC.
Commr. Campione added they needed an answer to the questions if the school board could use capital funding and sales tax revenue to purchase resource officers’ squad cars, if they could raise their funding, and what the legal parameters are for use of their funding. She agreed that there needed to be a discussion with the school board. She asked if the school board could raise their millage rate according to a budgetary mandate and if this was going for a declaratory action or to the attorney general.
Ms. Marsh responded that she had not heard it was going to a declaratory action nor to the attorney general. She remarked that she did have a 2017-2018 Funding for Florida School Districts put out by the Florida Department of Education, which is a 43 page document that explains the different funding sources for schools, and that she would give that to the Board for reference. She noted that the school board’s state millage is mandated by the Commissioner of Education and that they have a local millage that is also mandated and determined by the State. She added there were a few other options such as an operating discretional millage, which is a maximum of 0.748 mills they could levy, and a separate provision in the sales tax that they could levy if put on the ballot. She remarked that she was not certain where the school board was with their millage rate and what they were doing with these options.
Commr. Campione asked if school resource officers would be full time and what they would do in the summer when school is out.
Sheriff Grinnell replied that they would be full time deputies and that there would also be school safety specialists who would do site checks. He added the resource officers would do in-service training, take vacations, practice active shooter drills, and be busy doing other mandates of the bill during the summer.
Commr. Breeden asked if there was any flexibility in the recommended 35 additional hires for the 23 extra schools.
Sheriff Grinnell responded that the only possibility was if there was a hybrid of school resource officers and guardians so there would not be as many resource officers needed. He explained that the budget projection he sent was based on his department cost.
Ms. Marsh reminded the Board that if the school board needed something to go on the ballot as a voter referendum, they would need to provide an ordinance or resolution to the BCC for approval to go on the ballot. She reiterated that if there was anything passed to go on the voter ballot, there was the same deadline of August 1, 2018 for the November 2018 voting process.
Commr. Sullivan suggested the Board push forward with a plan and meet half of the requirement. He elaborated that they were projecting their revenues to be at approximately a five percent growth; however, they still had budgetary items they needed to meet such as replenishing reserves. He reiterated his goal for today’s meeting was to bring this to the Board in order to give the sheriff guidance. He asked the sheriff how many deputies he would have hired this year, based on attrition, for current schools and if there was a pool of reserve officers who would qualify to be utilized for the resource officer positions.
Sheriff Grinnell responded he would have hired possibly 10 to 12 deputies, noting that some of the academy classes were only 18 or 19 recruits. He stated that there were reserve officers who would be qualified; however, there were very few of these types of officers. He explained that there was a provision in the statute which would allow a retired law enforcement officer to come out of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), after being retired for six months, and be employed, but only if they go into a school for the sole purpose of meeting this mandate. He thanked the Board for allowing time to discuss this matter, stated he was open to either option or a combination of the two, and reiterated his need for direction on how to proceed in order to increase school campus safety.
Commr. Blake mentioned that in the Board’s goals retreat, the possibility of having municipalities contribute to the cost of the school resource officers was discussed and he inquired if that was considered at the meeting Commissioner Sullivan had with the School Board Superintendent and Sheriff.
Commr. Sullivan responded that it was discussed and explained that the City of Mount Dora does contribute towards the school officer they have at their high school but that it had not been coordinated yet with the other cities.
Commr. Campione stated that the millage rate was countywide as it applies to funding the Sheriff’s Department and that currently everyone contributes, whether they have a police department or not, in order to have a chief law enforcement agency in the county and have continuity across the county. She opined that due to this, it could be challenging to ask the cities to contribute.
Commr. Sullivan recapped that the BCC would make this a part of their budgetary process and would work with the school board to determine what funding it could utilize to help contribute to the need for school resource officers. He advised staff to put together a possible plan that could be implemented once funding is determined. He thanked the sheriff for being present at the meeting to help discuss possible options.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a lunch recess at 12:20 p.m. for 40 minutes.
regular agenda
stormwater program and fertilizer ordinance update
Ms. Mary Hamilton, Environmental Services Manager, presented an update on the stormwater program and the fertilizer ordinance. She commented that the stormwater program started in the late 1990’s and displayed a list of the stormwater program’s chronology, noting that throughout the years this program had prioritized watersheds, put in capital projects, performed maintenance, acquired a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and most recently, adopted a fertilizer ordinance. She mentioned that one of the main programs within stormwater is floodplain management. She stated that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in the late 1960’s, with Lake County having its first NFIP map in the early 1970’s. She reported that the ten year mapping cycles started in 1992 and subsequently in 2002 and 2012, with it getting close to time for the next update. She indicated these services provided for residents under floodplain management: permitting for residential structures; providing base flood elevations (BFEs) determinations for those permits; maintaining the County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps provided through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); assisting with map amendments that are processed through FEMA; providing citizen outreach and education; and administering the Community Rating System (CRS). She explained that the CRS was a voluntary program that started in the early 1990’s which allows for local jurisdictions to provide certain activities that are above the minimum standard and this equates to discounts on residents’ insurance premium. She gave the example that when Lake County first joined the CRS, they were a Class 9, which is the lowest class and gets a five percent discount; however, through the years, the County raised the program to be a Class 7 and now residents receive a 15 percent premium insurance discount. She remarked that the other stormwater program is the total maximum daily loads (TMDL), which is administered through the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and that the County is involved through the basin management action plans (BMAP) process. She specified that the County has these BMAP obligations: structural improvements; education; maintenance; and non-structural best management practices (BMPs). She showed a map to demonstrate Lake County’s involvement in the BMAP process, noting the three BMAP areas of the Upper Ocklawaha, Wekiva, and Silver Springs. She elaborated that on the map there were two current de minimis exemption areas, which means the County has less than five acres or a nominal pollutant load, and therefore the County is not tasked to do anything in those two areas. She reported these recent BMAP updates: five water bodies within Lake County that were not projected to meet the TMDL for phosphorous and nitrogen, which are Trout Lake, Lake Carlton, Lake Harris, Peehaw River, and Lake Yale, noting they were actively working to get projects started in those areas; Lake Denham had a TMDL established in 2017 for total phosphorous; and the passing of the Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act, which required the fertilizer ordinance adopted last year. She stated that another program was the NPDES which has the following regulations: requires permits to be obtained, with Lake County’s first permit issued in 2005; permits cover a five year rolling cycle with annual auditing; and requires the minimal controls of public education, illicit discharge, construction runoff, post construction management, and best management practices. She then showed some pictures of various public education events they had held with different schools, online training for County employees, brochures on illicit discharge detection and elimination, erosion control education for contractors, and mapping for post construction management. She noted that the map was developed from prior basin studies and inspections, that they have mapped over 17,000 structures, that 95 percent of their system was inventoried, and that there were over 300 outfalls to lakes within Lake County. She displayed a brief table of capital improvements, noting that most were developed through a basin study or flood study and that they receive credit for their BMAP/TMDL efforts. She shared some examples of projects such as the Magnolia Lane Water Quality Retrofit, in which construction costs were funded by a legislative appropriation and a St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) grant match, and the Royal Trails flood improvement. She relayed that another function provided by stormwater is the administration of the lot grading program which is for residential building permits, has three inspectors covering assigned areas in the county, provides guidance and training to builders, and handles ADA sidewalk and erosion inspections. She reported that the water lab had been in place for a long time, was certified, provides support for the TMDL program, performs landfill sampling for FDEP permit compliance, does citizen sampling services for potable water, and supports the Adopt-a-Lake and Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB) programs. She then showed some pictures of various KLB and Adopt-a-Lake events.
There was brief discussion regarding a partnership with the SJRWMD for Lake Yale improvements.
Commr. Sullivan commended Ms. Hamilton for the department’s change from a CRS Class 9 to Class 7 rating, and for the significance of the insurance discount this improved for citizens. He expressed concerns of the nutrient loads for Lake Harris.
Ms. Hamilton explained that what is happening with those five lakes mentioned earlier in the meeting, is that in the Ocklawaha BMAP, the DEP decided to assign allocations to the local governments in order to address septic tank loadings and to improve lake quality to where it should be. She said that the DEP was in the process of developing documents which will be assigning, inclusive of the County, these loads between the years of 2022 to 2027. She noted the County would need to have conversations on the effects of this allocation and develop a plan to address it.
Commr. Campione inquired about some grant funding that SJRWMD had available for citizens to apply for in order to do enhanced septic systems, and suggested getting this information regarding the funding out to residents who might want to upgrade their septic systems.
Mr. Nick Mcray, Stormwater Manager, answered that there was a first generation of funding that was made available concurrent with the Florida Springs Initiative, which makes funding available to those properties in the priority focus areas of spring sheds.
Ms. Hamilton continued her presentation with an update on the fertilizer ordinance, stating that on April 18, 2017, the BCC adopted the state model ordinance in its basic form. She recalled that as part of that meeting, the Board asked KLB to review the ordinance for additional recommendations, which they presented in November 2017 and included the enhanced fertilizer ordinance containing the summer phosphorus and nitrogen application ban, increased setbacks to 15 feet, and a 50 percent minimum slow release of nitrogen. She reported that they would be doing a press release to remind citizens of the summer ban starting June 1, 2018, but reiterating that enforcement would not happen until November 2018. She shared these outreach and educational events regarding the fertilizer ordinance that her department had been doing: incorporation into NPDES outreach efforts; flyers being distributed through the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) and the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District; ongoing outreach to 111 Home Owner’s Associations (HOAs) and property management companies as well as 141 landscape businesses; ongoing citizen events through the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Extension Lake County; application for a FDEP 319 grant to fund a promise program; presentation to the City/County Manager’s meeting on June 7, 2018 to get cities to adopt the same ordinance for consistency purposes; presentation to the League of Cities in July or August 2018; and the Office of Communications press releases, social media posts, brochures, and web banner on the County website.
The Board commended Ms. Hamilton and her department for their hard work on education regarding the fertilizer ordinance and for the number of HOAs and business applicators they have been able to reach.
Ms. Hamilton mentioned they were all very receptive to receiving the information and abiding by the new ordinance.
work sessions – budget fy 2019 presentations
offices of public safety and compliance
Mr. John Molenda, Assistant County Manager, stated that the Office of Public Safety and Compliance would be broken into two budget presentations with the compliance departments’ reports being given today by the directors for the Offices of Building Services, Code Enforcement, and Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Tony Lopresto, Director of the Office of Building Services and Lake County’s Building Official, relayed that his department had 43 full time employees who provided these services: issuing contractor licenses to local residents; the board of examiners to mediate between consumers and contractors and ensure license compliance; construction plan review by State Certified Plans Examiners; permitting; and building inspections. He reported that two years ago, one of Lake County’s Chief Plans Examiners was nominated for the State of Florida Plans Examiner of the Year and that one of the County’s Plans Examiners was also awarded that this year. He shared these accomplishments for the department: Mr. Lopresto was appointed by Governor Scott to the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board; Building Inspectors hold a combination of 30 state certified licenses; Plan Examiners hold 19 state certified licenses; four inspectors were currently enrolled in the state cross training program; three employees obtained Fire Safety Inspector II certifications; Chief Fire Safety Inspector, Ms. Danielle Larsen, recently completed the building inspector cross training program and passed the state examination; two employees obtained FEMA certifications; and the department successfully assisted 10,627 walk-in customers and processed 46,458 incoming phone calls. He mentioned that some of the department’s efficiencies implemented last year, such as over-the-counter and expediting permits, had to be restricted due to the large influx of permits and applications; however, he stated that they were still able to keep in place their electronic plan review, permit submissions and internet applications. He reported that they reactivated the self-serve lobby sign-in system, provided training for permitting technicians to ensure consistency, and continued inspector cross-training for multi-discipline certifications to increase efficiencies. He elaborated that because Lake County is so rural, having multi-discipline certifications allows inspectors to inspect buildings from the footer to the roof and saves the County the expense of sending out four different inspectors. He added that a few years ago, the BCC approved a tiered system for inspector salaries in which they were compensated for additional licenses, and he stated this has helped tremendously with inspector retention and recruiting. He then displayed several graphs with benchmarks comparing Lake County to surrounding counties in various areas and reported these statistics for the County: they reviewed almost 9,000 plans with only four staff members; that plans reviewed per reviewer were over 2,200; that 12 building inspectors performed almost 40,000 inspections; that almost 11,000 permits were issued for the year, with staffing at a level to do about 800 per month and the projection to issue approximately 1,500 per month this year; and there were currently nine permit technicians. He shared the Building Services Department proposed budget of $6,289,640 for total expenditures, noting that personal services was going up about eight percent due to additional staff being approved and merit raises, that operating expenses went down, that capital outlay went up due to $121,000 spent for a software upgrade which will make the department more efficient, and that reserves were increasing by approximately $400,000 or more. He specified that the software upgrade would help with new developments by allowing builders to transmit data electronically to plans examiners and would also assist with walk-in customers by providing laptop workstations so they can do their applications electronically, which saves time and reduces paperwork. He explained that other departments could also use this module and benefit from it.
Mr. Cole reiterated that the Board had approved the hiring of additional staff to help with the backlog of permits and emphasized that staff was committed to the process of getting caught up on the outstanding permits.
Mr. Lopresto commented that efficiencies were already getting better and felt that with the additional staff, the intake and outflow would be dramatically improved.
Commr. Breeden asked what was the average number of certificates held by the building inspectors.
Mr. Lopresto responded that it was about five to six licenses but that some have seven to eight, which allows for a higher level of service to customers.
Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Lopresto and his department for working hard to get through the backlog and asked when the $50 expedited permitting would be brought back.
Mr. Lopresto replied that it typically takes new hires about six months to become proficient and they would possibly re-implement then.
Commr. Sullivan suggested that the $50 fee might be too low and a possible higher fee should be considered.
Mr. Glen Guzman, Director for the Office of Code Enforcement, related that the services their department provides were as follows: respond to complaints related to County codes; provide standard housing inspections; remove illegal signage/snipe signs in the county right-of-ways; conduct annual inspections of Conditional Use Permits (CUP); perform environmental inspections and investigations; conduct mining, average setback and commercial landscape inspections; conduct monthly public hearings for Code Enforcement and animal services cases; review and coordinate with Planning and Zoning on County Code amendments; and oversee the demolition and cleanup of oversight properties in violation by order of the Special Master. He displayed a department organizational chart, noting there were eleven full time employees. He reported that for accomplishments this year, the department completed over 5,000 inspections, collected over $33,000 in fines, joined the Central Florida Code Enforcement Association providing free officer training to maintain certification, enacted cost recovery for cases going to hearing as authorized by Section 162.07, Florida Statutes, and have processed this first quarter an over 21 percent increase from FY17. He stated that the county is divided into four zones in order to balance workload and population with each officer responsible for 165 square miles. He mentioned they had combined their digital cameras, GPS, and mobile devices into one unit which provided cost savings and that centralizing the issuance of violation notices for consistency purposes had reduced officer data entry in the field. He said the department had relocated to the Administration Building and that mobile offices were enhanced to improve response times. He then showed several graphs showcasing department benchmarks compared to surrounding counties, noting that the population per officer was around 33,000, total complaints were over 2,500 per year, and that 86 percent of cases were brought into compliance which was greater than any other county. He ended with the proposed budget of $790,495 in total expenditures, of which personal services had increased 1.2 percent and operating expenses had decreased 1.1 percent. He stated they were starting to retain revenues from collected fines which would be used for property cleanups or demolitions, noting that they would be attaining approximately 17 properties that would need this work and would cost about $75,000 for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Cole shared that the Board had expressed an interest in finding a way to create a fund or revenue to go back into removing abandoned structures; therefore, he asked Mr. Guzman and Ms. Jennifer Barker, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to start putting 100 percent of the money collected by fines into a fund that could be used for removing those buildings, instead of going into the General Fund.
Commr. Sullivan and Commissioner Breeden thanked them for their service and for the great work they do with the public.
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, gave a brief overview of the department stating they have 14 full time employees and provide these services: process development applications, including single family homes and commercial permits; handle rezoning, Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendments, and variances to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); and ensure all applications and permits are consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs. He said that their biggest accomplishment this year was the evaluation and appraisal report (EAR), which is required by Florida Statutes and was the first time it had been done since the adoption of the 2030 Comp Plan. He specified that in past years, a consultant had to be hired to prepare this document and transmit it to the state, which cost the County a substantial amount of money. He reported that this year, it was able to be done in-house with current staff and saved the County money. He elaborated that other accomplishments this year included the adoption of the new sign ordinance and the South Lake Hospital major site plan near the Summer Bay Resort. He reported these efficiencies for the year: streamlining of the permit application and submittal processes, with every application being transmitted electronically, except mining ones which require a meeting with the applicant; and the elimination of the office vehicle and its associated costs. He then displayed several benchmarking graphs comparing Lake County to surrounding counties and reported that the number of rezoning cases processed as well as the number processed per employee for the county was in the middle range as compared to the other counties. He explained that site plans review time can vary quite a bit, depending on the quality of the submittal, but noted Lake County was in the average as compared to the other counties; however, the County far exceeded the other counties in the number of site plans reviewed per employee. He reported that the number of Comp Plan amendments processed was high this year and that the number processed per employee was higher than the surrounding counties. He concluded stating that they were able to maintain their level of service while experiencing minor savings through staffing changes and decreased expenditures and presented a total proposed budget of $1,141,313 in expenditures. He noted that the grants and aids fee on the proposed budget was for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, which is mandated by the State Statutes and increased because it is tied to the county population.
Commr. Sullivan thanked all the directors for their presentations, their achievement in efficiencies and the work they do for Lake County citizens.
community services department
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Director of the Community Services Department, stated that the Lake County Community Services Department’s mission is to serve as the link between government and the community and to work with numerous partners to improve the quality of life of Lake County residents in need. She noted that the Community Services Department was made up of Health and Human Services, Housing and Community Development, Transit, and the Probation Division and consisted of 42 full time employees.
Ms. Allison Thall, Health and Human Services Division Manager, stated that this division provides services to Lake County citizens through the Children and Elder Services, Community Health Worker Program and Veterans Services. She added that they also manage the state mandated programs related to Medicaid, inmate medical, and public health. She noted that the division contained 7 full time employees who have served and assisted over 8,000 residents this year and received over 10,000 phone calls. She reported that they were able to contract with 14 private not-for-profit agencies to serve at risk children and with nine not-for-profit agencies to provide basic needs for individuals and elders in crisis, and they also partnered with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office to monitor and analyze the County’s contract with Armor Correctional Health Services for inmate medical care. She reported that the division’s efficiencies had been enhanced through the contract with Armor Correctional Health Services, which had resulted in increased accuracy and accountability of inmate medical claims as well as a cost savings in pharmaceutical services. The division also standardized the Health and Human Services Grant Reporting functions by having the Children’s Services Council and the Health and Human Service Grant submit the same financial and activity reports on a quarterly basis. She displayed a graph of the actual state mandated Medicaid costs assigned to each county by the Department of Revenue, noting that Orange County had the highest cost; however, she stated that the Medicaid per capita costs were not as disproportionate, and that Sumter County had the lowest number for both categories. She showed the veteran financial benefits distributed by the Veterans Administration graph and noted this was driven primarily by the veteran population per county. She said the per capita benefit per veteran slide represented both the medical and pension claims that Veteran Services Officers assisted in securing for Lake County veterans on a daily basis. She explained that this division’s budget was funded entirely by the General Fund and reported the following for the FY 19 proposed budget of $7,383,447 in total expenditures: personal services were $410,269 which was a 1.2 increase; operating expenses were $5,366,255; debt service were the funds for the purchase of the health department administration building; and the grants and aids amount stayed the same. She concluded that this budget reflected an overall decrease of 2.1 percent.
Ms. Thall, since also serving as the Interim Housing and Community Development Division Manager, continued with the presentation stating that the Lake County Housing and Community Development Division’s mission was to improve the quality of life for Lake County residents by providing affordable housing opportunities and neighborhood improvements. She commented that there were nine full time employees who work in three separate housing programs which included the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), Section 8, and the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDGB). She reported these accomplishments for the year under Section 8: received a “High Performer” rating from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) audit with a 94 percent performance on the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) score; maximized the number of families served under Section 8; and maintained voucher utilization at about 95 percent. She indicated these accomplishments under the CDBG program: provided emergency home repair service for ten families; acquired or rehabilitated five homes for affordable home purchase; replaced a mobile home for one family; completed improvements at the Tavares Nature Park in partnership with the City of Tavares; and completed the Leesburg Neighborhood Resource Center project in partnership with the City of Leesburg. She relayed that the SHIP program had these highlights for the year: assisted 120 families with the Rental and Energy Assistance for Connecting to Housing (REACH) program for rental and utilities security deposits; assisted 32 families with the Homeless Assistance and Rental Plans (HARP) program, which provides rental assistance to help prevent homelessness; and replaced or rehabilitated six homes for eligible families. She elaborated that efficiencies for the department included the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which enables families assisted through Section 8 to increase their earned income and reduce their dependency on welfare assistance and rental subsidies, and the Multifamily Rental Development, which provides financial support to small and large rental developments to increase affordable housing access. She then displayed benchmark graphs comparing Lake County to surrounding counties in the areas of CDBG funding per household, SHIP funding per household, and households with cost burden, which equates to the cost of housing that exceeds 30 percent of a family’s income. She concluded with the proposed budget of $10,558,076 in total expenditures, noting that this division is funded entirely by federal and state grant funds, and reported these numbers: personal services at $759,496 which is a 1.1 percent decrease; operating expenses at $356,958 with a 8.4 percent decrease; grants and aids at approximately $9.1 million, which is an eight percent decrease; reserves represented a 53.2 percent decrease; and the overall budget represented a 10.4 percent decrease.
Mr. David Hope, Transit Division Manager, stated that the Lake County Transit Division provides a fixed route bus service, a paratransit service, seven routes through LakeXpress, and route 55A provided by LYNX, which goes from Four Corners into Orange and Osceola Counties. He relayed that service operates Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and clarified that fixed route provides more service, since residents go to a bus stop for this, than paratransit, which goes directly to individuals homes. He noted that there were five full-time County staff within the Public Transit Division, and operations and maintenance were contracted to a third-party company named McDonald Transit, which is funded by grant money. He shared a slide listing transit accomplishments for the year, which included installing an 800 megahertz radio system in fixed route vehicles and providing transportation to and from shelters on cold weather days and during Hurricane Irma. He explained that the Mobility Enhancement Grant (MEG) would be coming soon and indicated that if awarded, it would allow more service during the day, on weekends, in the evenings, and would save money while providing more service. He commented that the County was finalizing providing service on route 55A, instead of through LYNX, which could save the County $20,000 annually. He noted that a transit system analysis would also be implemented in FY 2018/2019. He displayed benchmark graphs specifying that Lake County had the following: 10 fixed route buses that service seven routes, with the City of Orlando having the biggest system; 32 buses for paratransit buses; and fares of $1.00 for fixed route and $2.00 for paratransit, noting that fixed routes generate approximately forty-seven cents per trip and paratransit generates about $1.02. He explained this was because many residents will not pay the full fair because they buy passes, have fees funded by an agency, or do not pay a fare. He added that fixed route was more cost effective than paratransit, and reported that the cost per trip on fixed route was about $9 for a one-way trip, with it costing approximately $39 for paratransit. He concluded with the proposed budget of $11,958,421 in total expenditures, commenting that ten percent comes from the County General Fund with the rest being funded by federal and state grants as well as a few other revenue sources.
Commr. Breeden asked why there was a difference in the reserves amount.
Ms. Barker replied that a majority of the reserves was related to purchase orders (POs) carried forward due to outstanding POs for the purchase of buses.
The Commissioners inquired about the MEG grant and the impact it would have.
Mr. Hope responded that there would be approximately 16,400 trips the first year from that state funding source. He clarified it was an annual process and they were not sure if it would be available next year. He commented that the County also needed to have sustainability, which he implied was built in by the coverage and savings of route 55A and by lowering the cost on trips throughout the day.
Mr. Cole clarified that this was a pilot of the ridesharing experience to see how that works and that information would be part of the overall analysis.
Mr. Tony Deaton, Chief Probation Officer, stated that the Probation Division provides supervision to offenders who are on probation from misdemeanor offenses and criminal traffic charges, and ensures they comply with court ordered conditions. He explained that their staff promotes law abiding behavior by requiring offenders to be employed, perform community service, make restitution, attend counseling and remain substance free as appropriate. He said there were 15 full time employees, with twelve paid for by the General Fund and were primarily probation staff, and three who work with teen court and the juvenile diversion and are not funded by the General Fund. He recalled these probation accomplishments: monitored over 4,600 court-ordered cases by performing almost 13,000 personal supervision contacts with adult offenders; assumed supervision of an average of 280 new cases each month while ensuring 72 percent of offenders exiting probation did so successfully; enforced the collection of over $60,000 in restitution which was returned to crime victims for their losses; coordinated over 13,000 hours of community service performed by 465 offenders; and partnered with Goodwill to hold a job fair in the City of Leesburg and to supervise probationers at the Clermont Job Center. He relayed the department eliminated one full time limited-term position, did not fill one Non-General Fund full time position, eliminated the use of one office vehicle that was underutilized, and worked with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and jail staff to coordinate the arrest of over 226 probation violators before their release from jail on new crimes. He reported these benchmarks for the County: assessment of $55 per month per offender, with only Seminole County being higher; 1,195 active cases, compared to Polk County with the highest and Sumter County with the lowest number; and Lake County has six probation officers, with four other counties having more than that, which means Lake County supervises 199 cases per officer with 200 being the maximum suggested by the Inspector General’s Office. He concluded by sharing the proposed budget of $716,203 in total expenditures, noting that personal services was the majority of the budget at $675,500 which is an increase of 2.8 percent, with operating expenses decreased by 25.5 percent at $40,703, and an overall 0.7 percent increase in the budget. He added that probation offender fees offset 82.6 percent of their budget, with 17.4 percent coming from the General Fund.
Ms. Keedy then presented a graph showing the proposed budget for Administration, noting $318,103 for personal services and $24,609 in operating expenses, for a total administration budget of $342,715. She concluded with a graph showing the combined Community Services Department budget which reflected these numbers: $2.6 million in personal services; $12.8 million in operating expenses; $4.2 million in capital outlay; $112,700 in debt service; $10.6 million in grants and aids; $476,657 in reserves; and a proposed total budget of $30,958,859, which reflects a 5.2 percent reduction.
Mr. Cole mentioned that since becoming County Manager, he has spent time in the various departments to better understand them and the services they provide. He said he attended two sentencing hearings in teen court and also did some housing inspections, and remarked how pleased he was to see the professionalism of this staff and the positive effect they are having on people in the community.
offices of communications, library services, extension services, and information technology department
Mr. Bill Veach, Deputy County Manager, stated that the directors for the Offices of Communications, Library Services, and Extension Services as well as the director for the Information Technology Department would be presenting their department’s proposed budget, and he noted that each of these departments were funded substantially by the General Fund.
Ms. Kelly Lafollette, Director of the Office of Communications, remarked that this department has nine full time employees who support outreach initiatives for the BCC in the three key service areas of Communications, Media Relations & Multimedia Outreach; Graphic Design; and Web Development and Programming. She commented that they provide the following services: public relations, web and graphic support services for all County offices and departments; web and graphic support for the Property Appraiser and Supervisor of Elections; web support for the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and crisis communication, web and social media staff support for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) activations. She highlighted that for Hurricane Irma, her department contributed over 667 hours of staff time in the EOC, noting that work was done before, during and after the storm in the areas of news releases, media interviews, web updates, and social media in order to inform residents on how to prepare for the storm and on post-storm recovery. She reported that during that event, over 250 storm related posts were made to the Emergency Management Facebook page, with those posts having a lifetime reach of over 2.2 million people. She relayed that as a result of the Animal Shelter being brought back under the BCC, the Communications Team had carried out a massive outreach and rebranding effort in order to support the shelter and boost pet adoptions. She elaborated that this included developing a new logo, helping to coordinate numerous adoption events, and garnering positive media coverage for the shelter. She added that another recent accomplishment was the launch of a mobile responsive website for Lake County Transit. She said that her department was able to help the County save money by developing the new branding package in-house for the incoming Supervisor of Elections, which included designing a new logo, stationary and marketing materials as well as developing a brand new website, all of which happened within a two month timeframe. She displayed a graph benchmarking the number of visits to the Lake County website as compared to surrounding counties’ websites, noting that the number reflected for the County only included the visits to the BCC website and did not reflect the total visitation of 2.7 million visitors for all of the 15 websites maintained by her office. She concluded with the proposed budget for the Office of Communications as follows: personal services were $508,889, which only reflects the General Fund portion but that in addition, seven positions receive a portion of their funding through tourism tax dollars and the library fund; operating expenses were $46,755, which is a slight increase due to the acquisition of new tools to help manage and archive the County’s 17 social media sites; and a total budget of $555,249, which reflects a 0.87 percent decrease but maintains current levels of service.
Mr. Steve Earls, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, remarked that his department provides technology services to the County government through the following: telephone, mobile and cellular devices; a full range of computer services and support; geographic analysis, mapping and data services; records management services; and audio-visual services. He explained that the IT Department was made up of a total of 25 full-time staff employees working in the four divisions of IT Business Office, Programming and Applications, Technical Services, and Geographical Information Services (GIS). He mentioned these IT accomplishments: implemented new network security measures that include vulnerability scanning and continuous network monitoring; upgraded all County computers and laptops to Windows 10; migrated all County, Supervisor of Elections, and Property Appraiser email users to the Microsoft Cloud; deployed 74 new Sharp multi-function copiers to County offices; upgraded the Administrative Building telephone system; and added 3,116 new addresses and 44 miles of new streets to the GIS system. He reported they rolled out the new IT service management application, which is a single web portal used for requesting all IT services that tracks customer requests and allows for a coordinated approach to service management. He stated that IT also created two new software applications, including the Emergency Communications Operation Center (ECOC) Shelter Dashboard, used to monitor shelter statistics, and the Supervisor of Elections dashboard, used to monitor important precinct information. He relayed that eight websites and seven databases are hosted in the Microsoft Cloud, providing better reliability, performance, and lower cost. He said they also replaced the County Library System’s computer and printer management system and upgraded all patron computers to Windows 10. He then displayed a benchmark graph showing IT cost per capita, noting that Lake County was the lowest at $9.39. He concluded with the proposed budget for FY 2019 at $2,979,551, commenting it was down 4.3 percent and is funded 100 percent by the General Fund. He reported that this $134,575 reduction was achieved by the transfer of one GIS analysis position to the Office of Public Safety Support and by deferring some equipment replacements.
Mr. Lloyd Singleton, Director of the Office of Extension Services, stated that the UF/IFAS Extension Lake County delivers research-based information and training to citizens in the areas of agriculture, nutrition, families and youth development with a full time staff of 16 employees. He said the annual farm tour was helpful in raising agriculture awareness and remarked it would be held on November 16, 2018. He relayed that Discovery Gardens, the annual Landscape and Garden Fair, and the Master Gardener plant clinic continue to meet residential horticulture needs and that the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) identifies and assists in the implementation of significant water savings in agricultural operations. He recalled these accomplishments for 2017: provided group teaching for over 5,000 people; provided almost 2,500 field and office consultations; provided over 6,000 phone and email consultations; created nearly 200 educational materials; supported 22 4-H Youth Clubs with over 500 youth; held the Tropicana Speaking Contest for over 5,000 youth participants; received support of 9,000 volunteer hours from trained Master Gardeners; and the MIL was able to assist in the savings of over 100 million gallons of water. He highlighted that last year they were able to increase their funding through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) grant for the MIL by 78 percent, which allowed for the addition of another team and partial reimbursement for existing clerical staff. He then showed a benchmark graph comparing Lake County’s General Fund contribution as compared to neighboring counties. He said the proposed budget for FY 2019 of $800,512 in total expenditures was an overall reduction of 3.6 percent, highlighting the increase in grant funding for the MIL which represented 20 percent of the funding, with the General Fund providing 80 percent.
Mr. Boyd Bruce, Interim Director for the Offices of Library Services, indicated that the Lake County Library System is comprised of 43 full time employees serving in nine municipal member libraries and six County branches that provide programs and services to all county residents. He commented that these libraries work together through a cooperative agreement to ensure consistent customer service with a total of 119,681 library card holders. He recalled these FY 2017 accomplishments: over 2 million total circulations; 7,604 total programs; 161,681 in program attendance; 1.5 million library visits; 360,338 computer sessions; 208,231 wireless sessions; technology sessions of individual and group classes with 63,023 attendees; and 17,069 new library cards issued. He also reported that they had contracted for architectural drawings for the Cagan Crossings Community Library second floor completion, implemented the first year of a new long range plan, and provided a 3-D printer in Astor through the charitable donations of community members. He mentioned these efficiencies for the year: awarded the contract for an integrated print solution that makes printing easier and more accessible to patrons; reorganized processing procedures to increase availability from seven days to 24 hours; locked-in internet/fiber connectivity rates for the next 10 years; continued a reciprocal borrowing with partners; and had multiple friends groups totaling 916 members throughout the county. He then displayed several benchmark slides regarding system budget per capita, library system visits per capita, and program attendance as a percent of population. He concluded with the proposed budget of $4,504,947 in total expenditures representing a 1.1 percent decrease, noting that funding sources were the General Fund at 90 percent, miscellaneous revenue at six percent, and state aid at four percent. He highlighted that the relocation of administrative staff resulted in savings in the operating costs.
other business
appointments to the children’s services council
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointments of the following to the Children’s Services Council to serve two-year terms beginning May 15, 2018: Ms. Sharlene Smith, District 1; Ms. Diana Violette, District 2; Ms. Julie Yandell, District 3; Mr. B.E. Thompson, District 4; Mr. Josh Gussler, District 5; Mr. Daniel Terry and Ms. Barbara Crewell, as members-at-large from District 5; Ms. Monica Hite, Lake County School Board Representative; and Mr. Russell Mohrbach, Department of Children and Families Representative, with the approval of a waiver of potential ethical conflict for Mr. Byron E. Thompson.
appointment to the parks, recreation & trails advisory board
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the reappointment of Ms. Patricia Burgos, as the Lake County Water Authority representative, to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board to serve a two-year term ending May 20, 2020.
reports
county manager
financing for animal shelter and public safety radios
Mr. Cole stated that at the April 24, 2018 BCC meeting, the Board instructed staff to seek financing using its sales tax revenue for the Animal Shelter and Public Safety radios. He mentioned he had been working with the financial advisor to develop a solicitation to obtain bank loan proposals. He indicated that they expect Request for Proposals to be ready by the end of this week with a recommendation to the Board in late June or early July.
pine meadows conservation area grand opening
Mr. Cole commented that on Friday, May 18, 2018, starting at 9:00 a.m., would be the Grand Opening of the Pine Meadows Conservation Area, which is east of Eustis. He stated the event was in coordination with their partners the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and would be held at the eastern end of Pine Meadows Golf Course Road, east of State Road 19, and north of County Road 44.
commissioners reports
commissioner parks – district 2
lakeshore drive public workshop
Commr. Parks reported there was a public workshop the previous week regarding Lakeshore Drive in Clermont and he complimented Mr. Fred Schneider and his team for doing a wonderful job. He stated there were about 100 people in attendance and they received good feedback from the residents.
transportation summit
Commr. Parks remarked that through the Central Florida Expressway, he hoped to organize a Transportation Summit in the summer to discuss the future of transportation, especially the subject of autonomous vehicles, the infrastructure needed for them, and what car companies are doing with electric vehicles and their impact. He shared his desire for the Commissioners to support this summit.
wellness way review team meetings
Commr. Parks said he was pleased that meetings with the Wellness Way review team had gone well and he hoped to have a report to the Board soon.
law enforcement memorial
Commr. Parks stated he appreciated the honor to speak at the Law Enforcement Memorial the previous week.
The Commissioners commended Commissioner Parks on the excellent job he did presenting.
commissioner breeden – district 3
hidden rivers development
Commr. Breeden announced that the Hidden Rivers Development on Shirley Shores Road was going to come before the City of Tavares Council the following week and she would be attending that meeting.
tourism week events
Commr. Breeden reminded the Board that this was Tourism Week and that the Lake County Florida Tourism Facebook site was showcasing a variety of destinations and encouraged the Commissioners to visit the site.
commissioner blake – district 5
homelessness forum
Commr. Blake thanked Commissioner Campione for organizing the Homelessness Forum a few weeks prior.
Commr. Campione said there would be some follow up meetings and then information would be brought to the Board for further discussion.
beacon college new residential hall
Commr. Blake stated that the dedication of the new residential hall at Beacon College was wonderful and that it contributes to the Renaissance of Downtown Leesburg.
fire truck dedication to mr. roy hunter
Commr. Blake mentioned that the Fire Truck dedication for the late Mr. Roy Hunter was very nice and took place in Paisley the previous week.
Commr. Campione recalled it was a very touching ceremony and that the Lake County Fire Department did a wonderful job.
commissioner sullivan – chairman and district 1
appointment to the careersource central florida board of directors
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the reappointment of Ms. Sheri Olson, as a private sector representative, to represent Lake County on the CareerSource Central Florida Board of Directors to serve a three-year term starting July 1, 2018 and ending on June 30, 2021.
school security discussion
Commr. Sullivan thanked the Board for their willingness to discuss the school security program during the day’s meeting.
Commr. Campione said that during the break, she confirmed that the Lake County School Board had used their discretionary millage so it was not available, and noted that under the new legislation, they were only currently allowed to use capital funds from the state for hardening purposes. She explained that there was a millage that could be added if the voters approved it and was something that could be considered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
__________________________________
timothy i. sullivan, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________
GARY J. COONEY, CLERK