A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
July 24, 2018
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, July 24, 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; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Administrative Specialist, Board Support.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor Mike Matheny from Church of the Lakes gave the Invocation and Commissioner Sullivan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda update
Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, said that since the agenda was first published in the previous week, for Tab 7, staff revised the fiscal impact of the public safety radios so that it would be consistent with the loan amount relating to the Infrastructure Sales Tax that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would be discussing later. He added that for Tab 8, with the BCC’s approval, staff would revise the related agreement with the City of Leesburg to address an omission in the document; additionally, in the City of Mount Dora’s agreement, some of the numbers were possibly transposed by the city and the staff wanted to address them after the meeting. He commented that staff revised Tab 27 from having a requested action to seeking direction, and he relayed that staff wished to postpone Tab 28 until a future meeting. He concluded that Commissioner Parks’ and Commissioner Sullivan’s requests were added as Tabs 29 and 30, respectively.
Commr. Sullivan requested to move the presentation of proclamations before citizens’ questions and comments.
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 May 22, 2018 (Regular Meeting) and June 5, 2018 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
proclamation - pretrial, probation & parole supervision week
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-102 recognizing July 15 – 21, 2018 as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week.
Commr. Sullivan read and presented Proclamation 2018-102 to community corrections professionals from Lake County.
proclamation - honoring ms. tammy ross jerkins
Commr. Breeden read and presented Proclamation 2018-67 to Ms. Tammy Ross Jerkins, Florida Teacher of the Year at Leesburg High School.
Ms. Jerkins thanked the BCC and said it had been a great year for her. She stated that she had been travelling the state and the nation on sabbatical and working with the other state teachers of the year. She elaborated that she had also been to Washington, D.C. to meet with the state’s representatives and senators about education issues. She remarked that she was very proud to be born and raised in Lake County and to have been educated by Lake County schools. She said her time as Florida Teacher of the Year would come to an end on July 31, 2018, and she wanted to express that she was returning to the classroom at Leesburg High School despite being offered other ventures. She related that nothing pleased her more than being in Lake County and teaching students here.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Reginald B. Green, a resident of Tavares, expressed concern over an issue of bringing a statue of Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith to the Lake County Historical Museum. He opined that the statue does not represent equality and the Lake County community and that taxpayer dollars should not be spent to bring the statue here.
Commr. Campione clarified that the BCC did not make any proposal to bring the statue to Lake County. She elaborated that the BCC does not decide what items are accepted into the Lake County Historical Museum, and she remarked that the statue would not be displayed in a public place, such as on a street, as the museum had proposed placing the statue in an inner part of the building where other historical relics were housed. She added that the statue was not proposed to be housed for purposes of celebrating General Smith, and the BCC does not spend any taxpayer dollars on items that the museum procures. She concluded that the museum accumulates funds through fundraising and other means to procure items.
Ms. Jannette G. Green, a resident of Tavares, opposed the Confederate statue and opined that Lake County residents did not want it here.
Ms. Lillie A. Brown, a resident of Tavares, also opposed the Confederate statue, stating that it reminded her of past racial segregation.
Ms. Gloria Savannah Austin, a resident of Sorrento, denounced the statue coming to Lake County. She read an email she had sent to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) about her opposition to the statue, how the statue has no ties to Lake County, and how it was a reminder of negative times in America.
Mr. Gary McKachnie, a resident of Mount Dora, opined that the statue was offensive and that the museum should not have considered housing it.
Ms. Dee Griffin, a resident of Tavares, opposed the statue and asked if the BCC believed that bringing it to Lake County would be best for all citizens.
Ms. Asia Eichmiller, a concerned resident, opined that the statue represented racial tensions and that it would venerate the Confederacy system.
Mr. Charles Mose, a pastor and resident of Tavares, opposed the statue and hoped that the BCC would also oppose the subject.
Commr. Campione clarified that the issue of the statue was not on the BCC’s current agenda and that the BCC does not determine the Lake County Historical Society’s actions, though the BCC could consider what influence they could exercise after receiving the citizens’ comments.
Mr. Walter Cannady, a resident of Tavares, expressed his opposition to the statue and asked the Board to consider a similar viewpoint to his.
Ms. Marie Aliberti, a resident of Eustis, expressed concern with the statue. She opined that a City Commissioner said on Facebook that the City of Eustis would welcome Confederate statues and she stated that comment provided no benefit to her city. She asked the BCC to direct their efforts to the museum and the curator to prevent the statue from being housed there.
Ms. Lillian Lockette, President of the Lake County Democratic Black Caucus, said that the museum curator should be made aware that citizens do not want the statue brought to the county. She asked if the BCC could also speak on the citizens’ behalf to the Lake County Historical Society.
Ms. Patricia Spear, a resident of Eustis, stated her opposition to the statue and hoped that the BCC could find a way to ensure it would not come to the county.
Ms. Kathryn Williamson, a resident of Leesburg, hoped that the BCC could influence the museum curator and the Lake County Historical Society to prevent the statue from being housed there.
Mr. Perry Berkowitz, a resident of Leesburg, said he wrote a note to the BCC about the statue and the Lake County Sheriff’s collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He denounced bringing the Confederate statue to Lake County and he opined that sanctuary cities are safer than non-sanctuary cities. He opined that counties which did not comply with ICE requests experience fewer crimes than those that did comply. He also commented that research had shown that working with federal immigration enforcement created difficulty for local police agencies to investigate crimes. He read a response he received from Commissioner Campione stating that that the statue would not be placed on the town square to honor the man it portrayed and that preventing the statue from being housed at the museum would be an attempt to ignore history. He opined that a statue is created to honor that person, and that history is taught through history books instead of statues. He asked the BCC to consider what is best for all of the people in the county.
Ms. Nancy Hurlbert, a citizen of Leesburg, said she recently toured the Lake County Historical Museum and saw a “coming soon” poster in the military gallery for the Confederate statue. She said the general had no ties to Lake County and that the museum already provided education about the Confederacy in the county. She opposed bringing the statue to the museum, and she also expressed discontent with the museum’s display for the Groveland Four. She asked the BCC to oppose the statue, to ensure that the Lake County Historical Society is diverse, and to use the BCC’s museum funding for a better Groveland Four display.
Ms. Connie Albright, a resident of Eustis, opined that citizens did not want the statue, that the original installment of the statue coincided with an unsavory time in history, and that the statue promotes racial inequality.
Pastor Michael J. Watkins, a resident of Tavares, mentioned that the BCC had a lease agreement with the Lake County Historical Society. He opined that in the agreement, it was specified that the artifacts displayed should pertain to Lake County, and that there was a termination clause where at any time, without cause, any party could terminate the agreement. He said that the BCC works for the citizens and he opined that the citizens did not want the statue here, so the BCC should support them. He said the BCC gives the Lake County Historical Society thousands of dollars on an annual basis and that taxpayer money should not support an item that represents divisiveness in the county. He noted that Mr. Bob Grenier, curator of the Lake County Historical Museum, was quoted as saying he met with each of the Commissioners and had theirs and the Lake County Sheriff’s support.
Ms. Jane Hepting, a resident of Eustis, opposed the statue. She said in responding to the Lake County Sheriff agreeing to serve as an immigration enforcement partner with ICE, she opined that citizens did not want the Lake County Sheriff’s policing resources diverted to items that should not be on his agenda. She asked the BCC to encourage the Lake County Sheriff to not be engaged in enforcing federal law.
Ms. Vivian Carla Miller Mitchell, a resident of Eustis, opposed the statue, expressed concerns that there were no African-American members of the Lake County Historical Society, and opined that the BCC should ensure that each committee and society reflects the citizens they serve.
Mr. Charles Cassella, a resident of Leesburg, expressed his opposition to the statue, said that General Smith was a slave owner, and opined that Lake County should not indicate that they want to honor this person.
Ms. Joy Albrecht, a resident of Groveland, expressed her discontent over the proposal to bring the statue to Lake County. She opined that no positive reason had been given for housing the statue.
Ms. Rose Plouf, a resident of Mount Dora, opposed the statue coming to Lake County and felt that General Smith did not deserve a statue.
Ms. Rosemary Lane, a resident of Tavares, opined that the statue does not represent Lake County or the State of Florida and that it should not come here.
Ms. Aretha “Mae” Hazelton, a resident of Eustis, said that at a recent meeting of the Lake County Historical Society, when asked if the Lake County Sheriff supported bringing the statue to the museum, Mr. Grenier stated that the Sheriff would support it. She requested that Sheriff Peyton Grinnell address the BCC regarding if this statement was accurate. She then indicated that Mr. Grenier expressed that he had support from the BCC for the acquisition of the statue. She requested that the BCC individually confirm or deny the accuracy of Mr. Grenier’s statement and inquired if any of the Commissioners had asked Mr. Grenier to seek input from the African-American community of Lake County prior to his presentation at the June 28, 2018 General Edmund Kirby Smith Statue Location Selection Committee in the City of Tallahassee, FL.
Pastor Chris Walker, a resident of Groveland, asked why Mr. Grenier felt that Lake County should house the statue and why the BCC felt that they should support it. He hoped that the BCC would oppose the statue and said that he would like to hear the BCC say that they did not support the statue.
Mr. Dave DeProspero, a resident of Mount Dora, expressed his discontent with the statue and opined that it would define the county.
Ms. Janet Manchon, a resident of Mount Dora, expressed her opposition to the agreement between the Lake County Sheriff and ICE. She said she would like to know how the Sheriff made the decision to enter into the agreement and she indicated concerns over a lack of notice or opportunity for citizen input prior to the agreement. She opined that immigrant residents are an essential part of the Lake County community and that business profits, faith communities, neighborhoods, and the county’s tax base depend on their participation. She opined that the Sheriff’s argument for the agreement was based on the false premise that most or all immigrants are criminals, and she indicated concerns about this agreement. She requested that the Sheriff’s contract with ICE be rescinded, with any further consideration of this matter being accompanied by a transparent process and significant community input.
Ms. Ruth King, a resident of Mount Dora, asked if it would be appropriate to hear from the BCC to determine if Mr. Grenier’s statement was true, and she stated that she opposed the statue. She expressed concerns with ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division and asked for their agreement with the Lake County Sheriff to be rescinded.
Commr. Sullivan stated that the BCC could speak to Mr. Grenier’s statements after all the citizens’ comments were received.
Ms. Georgette P. Ward, a resident of Lady Lake, stated that the Tri-City National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) opposed the Confederate statue coming to Lake County and asked for the BCC to represent this view when discussing it with the Lake County Historical Society.
Mr. Louis C. Ward, Chairman of the Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Commemorative Committee, requested that the BCC oppose bringing the statue to Lake County. He opined that his organization opposed the statue for these reasons: General Smith was not significant to the history of Lake County; transportation expenses to bring the statue to Lake County would be at least $10,000 and this money could be used for other programs; General Smith’s birthplace of the City of St. Augustine, FL refused to accept the statue; the City of Eustis also rejected the statue; since the 2015 shooting of African-American worshippers in South Carolina, there had been a national backlash against Confederate symbols and statues; and there had been a legislative vote to remove General Smith’s statue from the National Statuary Hall Collection in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Chris Higgens, a resident of Eustis, expressed her concerns about Mr. Grenier’s statements concerning the BCC’s support of the statue.
Ms. Linda Kero, a resident of Leesburg, noted concerns about the statue and the Lake County Sheriff’s agreement with ICE. She requested that the BCC relay their position on the statue.
Mr. David Warden, a resident of Sorrento, asked why the statue was proposed to be moved to Lake County when General Smith was born in the City of St. Augustine.
Mr. Don Juravin, a resident of Montverde, opined that the Confederate statue should be displayed openly in a park for purposes of remembering a negative time in history.
Commr. Sullivan said that he told Mr. Grenier through email that he did not see any reason to avoid pursuing the statue, though his background with the issue may have been different from others’. He stated that he did not believe the Commissioners would have supported the statue if the citizens’ input had been received beforehand. He indicated that he was the liaison to the Lake County Historical Society and that he would take the citizens’ comments to them. He added that the Lake County Historical Society had yet to officially accept the statue, and he opined that accepting the statue would not create any positive consequences. He thanked the citizens for attending the meeting and encouraged them to become involved in more of the BCC’s meetings.
Commr. Breeden thanked the citizens for attending and said that their opinions were important to the BCC. She said that she did support Mr. Grenier moving forward with trying to secure the statue, and she relayed that Mr. Grenier was passionate about history and saw an opportunity to acquire an object that was on the national stage. She commented that while she previously supported Mr. Grenier’s efforts, she now hoped that the Lake County Historical Society would make a different decision. She opined that Mr. Grenier did not have any negative intent when attempting to acquire the statue and that he cares about the community.
Commr. Blake relayed that Mr. Grenier had previously informed him of the attempt to obtain a statue of a Civil War general for the Lake County Historical Museum’s military exhibit. He indicated that he supported Mr. Grenier’s efforts and he reiterated that Mr. Grenier was interested in history. He relayed that he recently responded to a local pastor’s concerns with the thought that monuments that represent negative times in human history should not be removed, as this could cause society to forget those events. He said that he would have preferred if the statue was of another person, such as Ulysses S. Grant, but he did not see the role of the BCC as government censors on a separate museum body.
Commr. Parks thanked the audience for attending and commented that he had a previous discussion with Mr. Grenier about the statue. He said the BCC did not have the citizens’ input and agreed with Commissioner Breeden that the statue should be reconsidered.
Commr. Campione agreed with Commissioner Blake that erasing history prevents learning about it. She explained that the statue was previously housed in the National Statuary Hall Collection, and only two statues from each state were placed in that location. She elaborated that the statue was removed from that location because it was decided to not celebrate it further, and she opined that a museum would now be an appropriate location for it; however, she did not want to be involved with an action that would divide citizens in our county.
Commr. Sullivan reiterated that he would relay the information gathered at the current meeting to the Lake County Historical Society, and he indicated that there was no longer a desire to bring the statue to Lake County.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 11:16 a.m. for 14 minutes.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 6, 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.
Deer Island Community Development District Resolution for Proposed FY18/19 Budgets
Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 2018-03, approving proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 2018/2019 for the Deer Island Community Development District and setting a public hearing thereon pursuant to Florida law. The District’s public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. August 22, 2018, at Club 448, 16024 County Road 448, Tavares, Florida.
City of Fruitland Park Ordinance 2019-009
Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2018-009 from the City of Fruitland Park amending the boundaries of the city in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, to include within the city limits approximately 13.44 +/- acres of land generally located east of US Highway 27/441 and north of Register Road.
Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.
City of Groveland Ordinances 2018-03-09 and 2018-03-10
Request to acknowledge receipt from the City of Groveland Ordinance 2018-03-09, Annexation and Ordinance 2018-03-10, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for BWC Truss, Inc.
Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Annual Financial Audit
Request to acknowledge receipt of the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Sullivan noted a citizen’s request to pull Tab 6 for discussion.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 22, pulling Tab 6 for discussion, as follows:
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Request approval to award contract 18-0414 to BenefitFocus (Charleston, SC) to implement an Online Benefits Enrollment System. The fiscal impact for the balance of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 is estimated to be $12,672.00 (expenditure - implementation costs). The fiscal impact for FY 2019 and subsequent fiscal years is estimated to be $30,000.00 (expenditure).
PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE
Public Safety
Request approval to award Contract 18-0206 to Motorola (Lake Mary, FL) for purchase of Public Safety Emergency Network Radios and related ancillary equipment for Lake County and other public safety entities within the county, contingent upon successful closing of the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan with Citizens First Bank. The estimated fiscal impact is $12,295,001.94 (expenditure).
Request approval of the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement for County-Wide Emergency Network Radios, contingent upon the award of Contract 18-0206 to Motorola (Chicago, IL) for purchase of Public Safety Emergency Network Radios for public safety entities in Lake County, and approval of the Addendum to such Interlocal Agreement with the City of Clermont, all contingent upon successful closing of the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan with Citizens First Bank. There is no additional fiscal impact related to these agreements.
Request
approval to award Contract 18-0210 to Intermedix Corporation (Winter Park, FL)
for Lake County Emergency Medical Services billing services. The estimated
annual fiscal impact is $500,000.00, which will be offset by the reduction in
in-house billing support costs (expenditure).
Request approval to award Contract 18-0442 to Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc., for a Fire and Rescue Assessment Fee Study for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and a subsequent updating effort for a five-year period. The FY 2019 fiscal impact is $51,010.00 (expenditure), with optional updates at a cost of $11,550.00 (expenditure) at any designated time during the full contract term.
Request approval to purchase a command vehicle for the Office of Fire Rescue and authorize the County Manager to execute all supporting documents. The fiscal impact is $33,909.00 (expenditure).
Request approval to apply for and accept funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to purchase generators and install hurricane windows and doors at identified Lake County fire stations, and authorization for the County Manager to execute all supporting documents and all related budget adjustments. The fiscal impact is up to $1,280,000.00 (revenue/expenditure – $960,000.00 in grant funding and $320,000 in County funding for the required 25% match).
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERNAL SUPPORT SERVICES
Public Works
Request approval for the Chairman to execute Right-of-Entry agreements with PMG Properties, Inc., and Bay Street Baptist Church, Inc., to install a fence as a condition of pond construction due to its location within a railroad right-of-way, located in Eustis. The fiscal impact is $6,500.00 (expenditure). Commission District 4.
Request approval to:
1. Release a performance bond of $518,383.37 posted for the completion of infrastructure improvements for the Sawgrass Bay Phase 3A final plat, located south of Clermont.
2. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements with Avatar Properties, Inc., (Orlando, FL).
3. Accept a maintenance bond of $47,125.76 for maintenance of improvements.
4. Execute Resolution 2018-103 accepting Yelloweyed Drive “Part” (County Road No. 0360D); Fescue Street “Part” (County Road No. 0361A); Beargrass Street (County Road No. 0361B); and Soft Rush Court (County Road No. 0361C) into the County Road Maintenance System.
5. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of Sidewalk Improvements with Avatar Properties, Inc.
6. Accept a performance bond of $28,930.00 for performance of sidewalk construction.
7. Accept a maintenance bond of $2,630.00 for maintenance of sidewalk improvements.
There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
Request approval to:
1. Accept the final plat for Sherydan Glenn, located in Lady Lake, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Sherydan Glenn final plat.
2. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements with Sherydan Glenn, LLC.
3. Accept a letter of credit for maintenance of $9,348.40 for maintenance of improvements.
4. Execute Resolution 2018-104 accepting Nantahala Lane (County Road No. 7815) into the County Road Maintenance System.
The fiscal impact is $1,551.00 (revenue – final plat application fee). Commission District 5.
Request approval to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Fruitland Park for the transfer of jurisdiction of Shiloh Street, located within city limits, from the County to the City. The fiscal impact is $35,413.72 (expenditure). Commission District 5.
Request
approval to award Contract 18-0906 to P & P Striping, LLC (Pomona Park, FL)
to provide traffic striping and marking services throughout the County on an
as-needed basis. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $400,000.00
(expenditure).
Request approval to award a lease and maintenance agreement under Request for Proposal 18-0702, for two Motor Graders from Dobbs Equipment, LLC (formerly Nortrax Equipment, Riverview, FL). The total fiscal impact is $258,109.44 (expenditure).
COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE
Community Services
Request approval of the Citizen Participation Plan relating to the administration of the Community Development Block Grant program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and approval of Resolution 2018-105. There is no fiscal impact.
Request approval of Resolution 2018-106 amending the Transit fund to receive $759,832.00 in unanticipated revenue for Fiscal Year 2018 from the Federal Transit Administration to purchase a bus, replacement vans, sedans/station wagons, and transit stops, pads, and shelters, and approval of the associated budget transfer. The fiscal impact is $759,832.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100% grant funded).
Library Services
Request approval to designate George Taylor as the Single Administrative Head of the Lake County Library System and authorize the Chairman to execute Florida Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services Form DLIS/SA01, State Aid to Libraries Grant Certification of Credentials - Single Library Administrative Head. There is no fiscal impact.
Parks and Trails
Request approval
to terminate for cause Contract 17-0443 with Simply Cleaning Solution, Inc.
(Bushnell, FL), for janitorial services at Lake County Parks and
Trails, with interim service to be provided in-house pending award of new
contract. There is no fiscal impact.
tab 6 Settlement from county’s excess insurance carrier
The BCC clarified that Tab 6 was pulled erroneously from the consent agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept the settlement received from the County's excess insurance carrier in the amount of $54,247.28 for a claim related to damage to an ambulance and payout of $100,000.00 to Lake-EMS from Risk Fund as payment for Self-Insured Retention on vehicles.
public hearings: REZONING
rezoning consent agenda
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director of the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He said most of the cases on the current meeting’s consent agenda were heard at the March 27, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and each of them were recommended for approval. He relayed that there were speaker cards for Tabs 1, 2 and 6, and he said that staff would request that the BCC accept the consent agenda with the exception of those three tabs.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, as follows:
Tab 3.
Rezoning Case # FLU-18-07-2
Oak Properties – Future Land Use Amendment Transmittal
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 41 acres (Alternate Keys 2665645 and a portion of 1453313) from Regional Office to Urban High Density.
Tab 4. Ordinance
No. 2018-32
Rezoning Case # FLU-18-06-1
Oasis of Hope - Small Scale Map Amendment Adoption
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on 7.57 acres (portion of Alternate Key 1744300) from Wellness Way 3 to Urban Low Density.
Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2018-33
Rezoning Case # RZ-18-03-1
Oasis of Hope CFD Rezoning
Rezone 30 acres (Alternate Key 1744300) from Agriculture (A) to Community Facility District (CFD) to facilitate the development of a church and related uses.
Tab 7. Ordinance No. 2018-34
Rezoning Case # FLU-18-04-4
Eveland Future Land Use Amendment - Adoption
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) on two subject parcels containing approximately 42.62 acres from Wekiva River Protection Area A-1-40 Sending Area (A-1-40) Future Land Use Category to Wekiva River Protection Area A-1-20 Sending Area (A-1-20) Future Land Use Category in order to reconfigure three Lots of Record.
Tab 8. Ordinance No. 2018-35
Rezoning Case # CP-18-02
EAR Update - Adoption
Amend Lake County 2030 Comprehensive Plan to provide consistency with current Florida law.
rezoning regular agenda
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2018-30
Rezoning Case # FLU-17-12-2
Bella Collina - Future Land Use Map Amendment - Adoption
Amend Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy I-1.3.11 Bella Collina Future Land Use Category (FLUC) to include: a decrease in the maximum allowable density by reducing the total from 868 to 866 single-family dwelling units; convert two residential lots to allow for a free-standing restaurant and bar adjacent to the existing 100 unit lodge/hotel; dock and boathouse location criteria in accordance with a permit issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD); a communication tower use; and Neighborhood Commercial Uses, on designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Tracts.
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2018-31
Rezoning Case # RZ-17-26-2
Bella Collina PUD Amendment
Amend Bella Collina PUD Ordinance No. 2014-48 to include: a decrease in the maximum allowable density by reducing the total from 868 to 866 single-family dwelling units; convert two residential lots to allow for a free-standing restaurant and bar adjacent to the existing 100 unit lodge/hotel; dock and boathouse location criteria in accordance with a permit issued by the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD); a communication tower use; and Neighborhood Commercial uses, as specified in the amended PUD ordinance, on designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC) tracts.
Tab 6.
Rezoning Case # CP-18-03
Revision to Rural Transition Future Land Use Category - Adoption
Amend Lake County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy I-1.4.5 Rural Transition Future Land Use Category, to remove the fourth density option for residential development which allows residential development at a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per net acre with fourteen development conditions.
rezoning tabs 1 & 2 - bella collina
Mr. McClendon stated that Tabs 1 and 2 were part of the same case and that Rezoning Case #FLU-17-12-2 was the Bella Collina Future Land Use (FLU) amendment. He explained that currently, Bella Collina was approved for 868 dwelling units and the applicant was proposing to eliminate two of those dwelling units and convert them into a restaurant and bar located adjacent to the existing lodge on site. He elaborated that the applicant also wanted to modify the boathouse and dock requirements to be in accordance with the permit issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), add a communication tower use on the southwest side of the property, and allow Neighborhood Commercial (NC) uses on NC tracts within Bella Collina. He said the rezoning request went along with this case and was accomplishing the same goal by codifying the FLU amendment through a simple Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment. He relayed that staff analysis found the PUD amendment to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and the rest of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and the NC uses were consistent with the underlying policies in the Comp Plan. He said that staff asked the Board to accept their recommendation as presented.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jonathan Huels, attorney with Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. and representing the applicant, thanked staff and agreed with their recommendation. He presented the outline of the approximate 1,900 acre property that is bisected by County Road (C.R.) 455. He said the requested action would tweak the overall project, which had previously been approved in the early 2000s. He displayed the PUD request for a change in use to add a utility tract for the cell tower and relocate an NC tract. He said the current application was originally submitted in early November 2017 and a number of public hearings had occurred following the state review process. He elaborated that in March 2018, both the Planning and Zoning Board and the BCC recommended transmittal to the state, and none of the reviewing agencies provided comments. He said that on July 7, 2018, the case went before the Planning and Zoning Board which recommended approval, and the current meeting was the final action in the review process. He requested that the BCC approve both the Comp Plan amendment and the PUD amendment. He stated that a resident of Bella Collina who had a history with the owner was currently present to speak on the issue, and he opined some lawsuits had been filed and there were some orders against the resident. He elaborated that the resident had been ordered to remove what was found to be liable and slanderous materials from the internet, and that the resident had been found in contempt of those orders and was accruing a daily fine as a result. He requested an opportunity to respond if there were any actionable merits presented toward the requested action.
Commr. Campione asked if he represented the owner of the property and if there was additional ownership interest other than the owner that he was representing.
Mr. Huels confirmed that he was representing the owner and that there was no additional ownership interest.
Mr. Juravin said he was at the current meeting to voice his opinion about the proposed amendment to the Bella Collina Comp Plan. He opined that for the past 16 years, Bella Collina had experienced a turbulent history, noting that only nine percent of the 868 lots contained occupied homes and less than 50 families could call Bella Collina their first home. He opined that the original developer of Bella Collina was accused of defrauding purchasers of Bella Collina lots, which resulted in abandonment of the project. He said that the current developer, DCS Investment Holdings (DCS), assumed control in 2012 and since that time, similar accusations had followed. He opined that Bella Collina had experienced over 500 lawsuits related to property owners that were displeased with the management of the community and the adjoining country club. He opined that these and other illegal practices had resulted in numerous lawsuits by which Bella Collina homeowners had sought to assert their rights. He opined that the requested application was submitted in part on behalf of the Bella Collina POA, and that the BCC may not have been aware that the organization was currently controlled by DCS in violation of a court order entered into on June 26, 2018. He elaborated that a judge found that August 29, 2005 was the applicable turnover date whereby the developer should have turned over control of the POA to Bella Collina residents; however, the judge’s order was ignored. He said that DCS continued to control the POA; therefore, he opined that the application submitted by the developer controlled POA should be considered illegal and void. He felt that Bella Collina residents should direct the community’s future rather than the developer. He opined that in current litigation between homeowners and DCS, the point was raised that from the year 2012 through the present, there were false documents with the Florida Department of State (FDOS), the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement, and the Lake County Clerk of Courts, representing that they were an authorized representative of the POA. He also expressed concerns with potential conflicts of interests with individuals on the POA board who benefit DCS. He opined that because the developer continued to maintain control over the POA, DCS approved the current application but this did not indicate that the residents desired the requested changes. He further opined that a convicted felon was an important figure in controlling many aspects of Bella Collina, that this individual presented himself as the de-facto manager of the POA, and that they had ownership interests in DCS. He opined that he and other residents of Bella Collina had been intimidated for questioning the actions of the POA and he claimed that the developer had extorted over 500 homeowners into selling their land to DCS for a marginal price. He concluded that the BCC should be wary of rewarding the management of Bella Collina with the requested approval, and expressed concerns about the future communication tower being tampered with. He requested that the BCC deny the amendment or postpone it until the nature of the POA’s support of the amendment could be determined.
Mr. Huels opined that the previous discussion was inappropriate for the current forum. He said that it did not speak to the merits of the requested action with regard to the consistency and compatibility for the review of the Comp Plan amendment and rezoning.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks stated that this case was in his district and opined that Bella Collina had a positive outlook. He said that he saw many good things happening there for economic development, including the requested action, and he clarified that the action would be reducing the number of dwelling units to support the freestanding restaurant and bar next to a hotel under construction. He opined that the hotel would bring significant positive economic impact to the county and that the management of Bella Collina was producing good results.
Commr. Campione stated that the requested action met the criteria and was consistent and compatible with the County’s Comp Plan.
Mr. McClendon informed the BCC that Tabs 1 and 2 were open simultaneously.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case FLU-17-12-2, Bella Collina – Future Land Use Map Amendment – Adoption, and Tab 2, Rezoning Case RZ-17-26-2, Bella Collina PUD Amendment.
rezoning tab 6 – revision to rural transition flu category
Mr. McClendon said Tab 6 was case CP-18-03 and included a simple text deletion from the Comp Plan. He stated that this started with Ordinance 2015-11, which allowed a fourth development alternative within the rural transition FLU category, along with 14 development criteria. He relayed that while that ordinance was effective, two cases had attempted to utilize the fourth alternative, and both cases had been denied by the BCC. He explained that when the second case was denied in January 2018, the BCC asked staff to reevaluate the fourth development option and remove it from the Comp Plan. He indicated that staff was proud of the fourth alternative on paper, but it did not work as intended in practice.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing several land owners in rural transition, reiterated that staff developed the fourth alternative with 14 stringent environmental and planning requirements in order to obtain a higher density in rural transition. He stated that the owners he represented would like the opportunity to examine changes that could be applied to the fourth alternative to allow a higher density along with the restrictions. He relayed that he understood that planners preferred higher density with larger instances of open space, and that this did not always work when placed in the center of a rural area. He opined the two cases that were denied had significant community opposition and questions from both the planning and community perspective, and he felt that this did not mean that the fourth alternative was unable to be utilized correctly. He said that his clients, as stakeholders, would like the opportunity to work with staff and perhaps examine an amendment to the fourth alternative without eliminating it entirely. He related that his clients would appreciate if the item could be postponed for 30 or 45 days to allow time to work with staff.
Commr. Campione asked who he was representing.
Mr. Crawford replied that he was representing several owners, and among them was the group who brought Sorrento Pines to the BCC for the first time and were denied. He relayed that they would like an opportunity to bring back an amended version of that development that would consider the concerns of the neighbors and the BCC. He also disclosed that he was representing two additional owners in South Lake who had concerns.
Commr. Parks asked that, if there was a continuance for 30 days, what action would be proposed.
Mr. Crawford replied that his clients would like to meet with the Office of Planning and Zoning as stakeholders and propose some options to bring the fourth alternative more in line with the BCC’s discussion at the public hearings for the two denied cases.
Commr. Parks asked if Mr. Crawford would present specific development scenarios for the previous Sorrento Pines site in the Town of Sorrento, or if this was generally speaking for all of the county. He said that on that site, there was considerable public input about the density. He stated that for a countywide approach, he was open to considering another model that may work.
Mr. Crawford responded that he was thinking generally, but proposed using the site in the Town of Sorrento as a test and coming back with an option less dense than the second alternative and incorporating some of the fourth alternative criteria. He added that he did not have a revised plan for Sorrento Pines and that the developer was reevaluating their request. He reiterated that the Sorrento Pines project being inappropriate for that location did not mean that the fourth alternative was a poor planning tool, and he opined that the fourth alternative was a great tool that could grant flexibility for environmental preservation.
Commr. Campione stated that rural transition generally concerns significantly rural locations and it becomes difficult to visualize having more units per dwelling acre because when 50 percent open space is utilized the lot sizes become very small. She opined that the fourth alternative did not seem to fit any of the locations where it was proposed, and said she did not see it working in the future unless the alternative was changed.
Mr. Crawford replied that a lesser version that retains the environmental restrictions could be appropriate. He noted that a significant amount of rural transition was adjacent to urban low or city boundaries, and the two denied cases were in rural areas.
Commr. Campione opined that developers, lawyers and planners often consider the land uses and seek the highest density, and this led to choosing the fourth alternative because it allowed two dwelling units per acre if 50 percent open space was provided. She opined that those plans are not original or special, and the developers assume that they will be approved because they fit one of the County’s allowed land uses.
Mr. Crawford stated that the BCC is not required to approve a high density plan. He relayed that the development community was aware of this and did not want to spend a significant amount of funding for planning, engineering, etc., only to be denied by the BCC.
Commr. Breeden related that after receiving an email from Mr. Crawford on the previous day, she spoke with Mr. McClendon and asked if his office had discussed any options.
Mr. McClendon said that if the proposed ordinance was adopted, staff would ideally like to see a PUD land use where each specific project or parcel would tailor its own development program, including open space, densities, intensities and impervious surface ratio (ISR). He stated that the development program would be locked into the Comp Plan itself to enable the testing of consistency and compatibility within that specific PUD land use. He commented that moving forward, this is what staff would be proposing to developers trying to use a two dwelling units per acre alternative and would allow the tailoring of each development to the surrounding areas, whereas the fourth alternative could be used anywhere in the county if developers met the 14 criteria.
Commr. Parks asked if the PUD would have performance criteria instead of a density requirement and recommended that the criteria and rezoning should be included together.
Mr. McClendon responded that it would have density and performance criteria in conjunction with a PUD rezoning.
Commr. Campione inquired about how long it would take to develop a PUD land use.
Mr. McClendon replied that the policies had been written and staff was waiting for the first test case to come in. He elaborated that the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) was comfortable with the policies and that Lake County was not the first entity to develop them. He specified that many municipalities around the county use a similar method.
Commr. Campione stated that her perspective was influenced by the Wekiva Parkway Interchange, the attention that area was receiving, and not wanting development to happen too quickly and at excessive densities that are not compatible with surrounding areas. She expressed her interest in a PUD zoning that the County could use as a way to tailor proposed communities so they will be accepted in their areas.
Mr. Crawford agreed that it was a good idea, but opined that if the fourth alternative was repealed at the current meeting, there would not be any possible options higher than one dwelling unit per acre unless the PUD land use was adopted. He said one of his proposals in rural transition was for a farming community that would use a high density but instead of traditional open space, a community farm would be utilized that the residents would own as a co-op. He commented that this idea would require a greater density and the PUD land use would accomplish this, though he reiterated that he felt there was no reason to eliminate the fourth alternative.
Commr. Parks asked if the BCC could repeal the fourth alternative and adopt the PUD land use simultaneously, and if this could be done in 30 days.
Mr. McClendon stated that staff could have the policies in place but would not be adopting a PUD land use without an actual project to consider. He relayed that applicants seemed to be excited about the PUD land use, but it had not been utilized yet.
Mr. Crawford asked that since there are changes to the land use plan that must be made to allow a PUD land use, could the County enact that as a land use plan amendment and repeal the fourth alternative as a part of that amendment. He then stated that the first application received would have the framework in place to apply for a PUD land use.
Mr. McClendon responded that DEO would have to be contacted to ensure they would be comfortable with that. He said there was a certain timeframe staff would have to meet as part of adopting the removal of the fourth alternative and they were under state statute guidelines for that timing.
Mr. Crawford said that the timeframe was six months from when the report was received from DEO and opined that sixty days would be ample time to develop a land use plan amendment.
Commr. Campione asked how much time had passed within that six months.
Mr. McClendon replied that almost two months remained.
Commr. Campione suggested having a provision in the fourth alternative that would clarify that it may be denied by the BCC. She also suggested a density less than two units per acre, as developers were generally asking for the highest density possible.
Mr. Crawford said it was a natural trend for developers who have good planning and legal representation to propose a more moderate approach. He stated that a maximum density approach in a rural area would probably not be accepted, as evidenced by the Board’s denial of two previous cases that attempted to use the fourth alternative.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Sullivan said based on the work being done with the PUD land use, that the proposed ordinance could be postponed for 30 or 60 days to be brought back along with the PUD proposal.
Commr. Campione commented that the PUD land use would be a separate land use that a developer would have to apply for, such as being rezoned from rural transition to PUD land use.
Mr. McClendon added that within the Comp Plan, there would be an additional development table with the rezoning case being brought forward and the development program containing densities and open space. He said it would be tailored for the Comp Plan and would require the PUD rezoning to codify it.
Commr. Campione indicated that she would be open to postponing the case for 30 days.
Commr. Parks and Commissioner Breeden proposed postponements of 45 and 60 days, respectively.
Mr. McClendon relayed that 60 days would give his office more flexibility to meet DEO’s standards and ensure they would allow development of the PUD land use without an actual project.
Ms. Marsh stated that if the BCC was going to postpone the case, she would prefer it to come back at either the second BCC meeting in August 2018 or the second meeting in September 2018, rather than 30 or 60 days, as that would not line up with the BCC’s meeting dates.
Commr. Campione proposed bringing the item back at the second BCC meeting in September 2018. She added that if an applicant wanted to use the fourth alternative in the meantime, it should be clear that a density less than two dwelling units per acre would be a way to strike a balance.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board postponed Tab 6 until the second BCC meeting in September 2018.
regular agenda
City of MINNEOLA PRESENTATION
Commr. Sullivan said that since members of the audience were in attendance for a presentation, the BCC should move to Tab 29.
Commr. Parks stated that Mr. Pat Kelley, Mayor of Minneola, and Mr. Mark Johnson, Minneola City Manager, were in attendance. He asked Mr. Kelley to present some recent happenings in the City of Minneola.
Mr. Kelley said that the City of Minneola was moving rapidly with its growth in South Lake. He commented that when he assumed his position 10 years prior, the city was on the brink of filing bankruptcy and was drawing approximately 10 percent from its reserves each year to balance its budget. He said that he then came into office and hired Mr. Johnson to halt the economic decline, and since then, the city had not acquired any more debt, had started presenting balanced budgets, and was the only Lake County city in the current year that was applying a rollback rate for taxes. He indicated that over the past eight years, the city had prepared itself for future growth, but had also realized a need for assistance. He said the city had great relationships with the county with roads, infrastructure, and the Minneola Athletic Complex, and he wanted to continue those relationships to keep the city’s costs down. He related that the city recently passed a resolution to cease annexation until the year 2022. He said that if an annexation request is made to the city, they need to provide positive input, such as the Ardmore Reserve developer extending Fosgate Road. He elaborated that the purchase of the reserve also allowed for the Minneola Athletic Complex, which enabled partnerships with the county. He summarized a letter from the city asking the county to slow the pace at which the county approves developments within the city’s radius, though he clarified that the city would support projects with a positive impact on the community. He relayed that the city had approximately 7,000 homes preapproved and that he did not want to create additional burden. He then displayed a map showing the Hills of Minneola development, opining that it was the city’s hotbed and that the city was seeking guidance and partnerships with the county. He relayed that when a new development is proposed in the City of Minneola and before undergoing planning and zoning, the City hosts workshops with the City’s Planning and Zoning Department, the City Council, the developers and the stakeholders. He then indicated that there would be a workshop for the Hills of Minneola project on August 8, 2018 and the County was invited to attend. He pointed out a light industrial and commercial piece of land on the map, and he requested that a road be constructed from Sullivan Road to Citrus Grove Road to help support it. He said that the city had a great piece of property off of Florida’s Turnpike and the County could use its staff and connections to help the city develop it with businesses and jobs. He noted another piece of land on the map as being Lake Minneola High School and said the city was promoting its education opportunities to attract residents and create economic growth. He stated later that day, the city was hosting its first educational summit with Ms. Diane Kornegay, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, Mr. Bill Mathias, Chairman of the Lake County School Board, and Sheriff Peyton Grinnell to discuss the new school year, the Superintendent’s vision, and the School Board’s plan to handle growth, school safety, and to acknowledge the family that donated the land for Lake Minneola High School. He pointed out a piece of the map that had been zoned and approved to be an apartment complex, and another nearby piece that was currently owned by Hanover Land Company and would have homes under construction after Ardmore Reserve was completed. He then drew attention to a piece of land that would be a shopping center with a grocery store, and other land that was zoned as a town center. He highlighted land that would be used for medical purposes, another area that would be a school site granted to the city, and additional residential areas. He pointed out a piece of land that citizens from the Town of Montverde had accepted development on, and opined that another piece of land with 65 acres for a park would be of interest to the county. He mentioned that the City of Mineola did not have a parks department and that the developer had agreed to grade out the 65 acres for a park and grant it to the City of Minneola. He said that the city was looking for partnerships with outside organizations and that the park was scheduled to begin construction in January 2019. He noted residential and industrial areas that the City would want to partner with the County on and that the City also had industrial property on U.S. 27 that could be used for businesses seeking a lower price. He elaborated that on north U.S. 27, the City was in the process of laying sewer lines down to Old Minneola, and that ground was broken on this project about a month prior. He stated the City was laying pipes through Old Minneola out to U.S. 27 and that they were reaching out to each citizen that the sewer line passes, though the City was not forcing any citizens to connect to it. He elaborated that if citizens choose to connect to the line, the City could cover 66 percent of the cost and the remaining 33 percent would be financed by the City at zero percent interest for the next seven years for citizens and five percent interest for businesses. He said that the City had enough developments in its pipeline to last another five years and that they were seeking input from the County.
Commr. Sullivan stated that the City of Minneola should cooperate with the Office of Elevate Lake to try and bring industry to the city.
Mr. Kelley added that the Hills of Minneola development would give the county considerable exposure from Florida’s Turnpike.
Commr. Breeden asked where the new library would be built.
Mr. Kelley replied that the library would be part of the city’s two phase Old Minneola project. He explained that the first part of the grant was to rehabilitate the existing community center into a library, and that the City recently implemented a process called Council Cares where the City would be providing free tutoring lessons to students and residents of the city, which would also be funded by the grant. He commented that the library piece was next to the City’s Public Works Department and that the city was building a new $3 million fire department there. He said the Public Works Department was being moved and that the new library would be a showcase piece seen from U.S. 27 to draw people there. He clarified that the first part of the grant would be to obtain the library building, and the rest would be funded by the City’s community redevelopment agency funds in two or three years after the library is completed. He added that a small park would be used near the library to attract children, that the City wanted to move its post office nearby, and that the area would be connected with trails. He highlighted a neighborhood on the map in which the City asked the developer to remove any restrictions for golf carts due to new generations enjoying that method of travel. He said the city would have a trail and six foot sidewalk from this area to Fosgate Road so children and families can utilize bicycles. He reiterated the city’s focus on education and indicated that the approximate 1,700 nearby homes could use the library.
Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Kelley for the presentation and stated that he appreciated the City’s willingness to cooperate with the County. He said that he was interested in the park because the County has an economy of scale that can serve in a more cost efficient manner for parks and recreation. He stated an intent to attend the August 8, 2018 Hills of Minneola workshop and invited the other Commissioners to also attend. He agreed with Commissioner Sullivan’s suggestion about involving the Office of Elevate Lake due to the City of Minneola’s infrastructure already being in place.
Mr. Kelley reiterated that the developer wanted to begin construction of the park as soon as January 2019, so the City could streamline the process. He added that one stipulation of the agreement was when the park would be designed, it would need to be usable during the day to allow school children access; additionally, the developer would install a tunnel underneath Grassy Lake Road to the park so that children would not be required to cross the road. He said the City was giving the County an opportunity to create a master plan for a park, rather than requesting specific features, and he commended the Office of Parks and Trails.
Mr. Kelley also said that the City was looking for a partnership with Trailhead Park and that the park would be redone. He elaborated that the park sits on the Coast-to-Coast Trail and that the City was going to spend approximately $750,000 to enhance it with a splash pad, a skateboard park and a lift station. He asked the County to assist with funding or staffing to help plan these enhancements, and said that the skateboard park would draw citizens to the City of Minneola.
Commr. Parks expressed that he wanted to have discussions as soon as possible and stated an interest in addressing the Trailhead Park enhancements as the County also addresses the new park. He then mentioned that renaming Fosgate Road had been previously discussed.
Mr. Kelley said that there was a Fosgate Road extension and also Fosgate Road in the Town of Montverde. He expressed concerns that 911 calls for Fosgate Road would not indicate which side of the road they were on, so the City wanted to rename it. He then stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had already approved a road construction project on Fosgate Road and would begin construction within the following six months, and the project would connect Hancock Road to U.S. 27. He said that Minneola Elementary Charter School, which is in the city itself, had purchased another piece of property and would begin teaching kindergarten through eighth grade, which would have an entrance off of Fosgate Road.
Commr. Campione asked if staff could advertise the workshop so that more than one Commissioner could attend.
Mr. Cole stated that staff would advertise the meeting.
Commr. Parks invited Commissioners and staff to attend, including Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, and Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity.
Commr. Campione thanked Mr. Kelley for attending and asked him to return to keep the BCC informed as projects begin to materialize. She also noted that Sullivan Road could be connected to Citrus Grove Road to help facilitate the light industrial research area. She said that the Agency for Economic Prosperity could examine the area and help create an innovative way to develop the required infrastructure.
Mr. Kelley noted that the City had great partners for the retail portion of the Hills of Minneola, though he opined that the County may be able to assist more effectively with the light industrial land. He also advocated for repairing C.R. 561A.
Commr. Campione said that since the City would consider annexing developments that would create positive outcomes, a wish list could be developed that would outline those impacts.
Mr. Kelley said that the moratorium on annexation was primarily for residential developments and that the City would be in favor of annexing commercial developments on U.S. 27. He said that the City was trying to make Minneola a home for families who commute and for the amenities there to be used primarily by residents. He said that if the City limited the amount of homes, property values would rise and this would increase their tax rolls without adding more burden on the services. He also expressed interest in partnering with the County for the new library.
ordinance 2018-29 parking of vessels & recreational vehicles
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, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; AMENDING CHAPTER II “DEFINITIONS”; AMENDING SECTION 3.06.00 TO DELETE REFERENCES TO “BOAT” AND ADD REFERENCES TO “VESSEL”; AMENDING SECTION 3.06.03, PERMITTING PARKING, TO CLARIFY THE PARKING OF VESSELS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Commr. Sullivan said this would be an ordinance to define parking of boats in order to tailor the policy for communities. He stated that this issue originated in a previous BCC meeting in the Bassville Park area.
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. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-29 amending Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, Lake County Code, Section 3.06.00 to define “vessel,” strike the word “boat,” and amending Section 3.06.03 entitled “Permitted Parking” to clarify the regulations for parking of vessels and recreational vehicles within residential zoning districts.
Commr. Blake was not present for the vote.
city of minneola agreement for new library
Mr. George Taylor, Director for the Office of Library Services, presented the library impact fee awards. He said that library impact fees are important to libraries for assisting in growth-related capital improvements, that they are collected not only in municipalities but also in unincorporated areas, and residential construction generates this fund in the amount of $191 per single-family unit, $146 per multi-family unit, and $152 per mobile home unit. He stated that County policy LCC-63 determines the parameters involved in the award of the fees, and such parameters include this information: what the process should be; the deadline date; a specific requirement for the public hearing; and the eligibility criteria. He added that policy LCC-63 also provides for a set of criteria for ranking the requests as outlined in a chart displaying various ranking criteria. He commented that for 2018 impact fee funding, these five applications were submitted for library impact fees: the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills requested $500,000 for new construction; the City of Minneola requested $500,000 for new construction; the City of Fruitland Park requested $350,000 for furniture and also $50,000 for an opening day collection; and the City of Umatilla requested $39,822 for furniture. He explained that a review process was followed to make the determination, including these steps: being reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office for eligibility; being reviewed by member library directors for ranking, though not for their own projects; recommendations being made from County staff to the Library Advisory Board; and the Library Advisory Board would vote, but not for their own projects. He reviewed the recommended award for the Minneola Schoolhouse Library to receive $500,000 for the construction of a new library building.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a Tavares resident who writes a blog about local government issues, noted that there was not significant discussion about the design criteria for the library building. He opined that shifts in the usage of libraries should be a factor in the Board’s discussion. He asked if the BCC would be funding a traditional library with physical books, as he opined that he was aware of a school library that primarily used electronic textbooks.
Commr. Breeden said that since the cities are cooperative members, the BCC does not tell them how to design their libraries. She added that if the BCC was requesting funding for one of its branches, they would place more emphasis on design criteria.
Mr. Cole commented that there is a specific application process that the County reviews and that the City of Minneola’s application was outstanding and impressive to staff.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to award and execute an agreement with the City of Minneola for $500,000 in Library Impact Fees for the construction of a new library.
capital financing loan for new animal shelter & safety radios
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented the request for approval of the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan with Citizens First Bank for a new animal shelter and the purchase of public safety emergency network radios. She recapped that PFM Financial Advisors (PFM) distributed a request for proposals (RFP) to local, regional and national financial institutions to identify the lending institution that could provide the County with a tax-exempt, fixed rate bank loan. She added that the County received 13 proposals by the June 1, 2018 submittal deadline, and based on PFM’s review in coordination with bond council, it was determined that Citizens First Bank provided the best combination of interest rate and terms most favorable to the County. She said that on July 10, 2018, Mr. Jay Glover, Managing Director with PFM Financial Advisors, provided the results of the capital financing procurement process, and that following Board approval, the Chairman executed the commitment letter to Citizens First Bank pending Board action at the current public hearing.
Mr. Tom Giblin, with Nabors, Gilbin & Nickerson, P.A., said that the public hearing was to approve the projects and the security for the loan.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barker noted that there were three requested actions for these items: approval of the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan, for an amount not to exceed $20,185,000, with Citizens Fist Bank for a new animal shelter and purchase of public safety radios; approval of Resolution 2018-107; and approval for the Chairman to execute all closing documents. She noted that staff anticipated the closing to occur on or before August 15, 2018.
Commr. Campione commented that the radios were the largest part of the expenditure.
Commr. Blake noted that he was only in favor of financing the public safety radios.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved: the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan, for an amount not to exceed $20,185,000, with Citizens First Bank for a new animal shelter and purchase of Public Safety Emergency Network Radios and related accessories; Resolution 2018-107; and for the Chairman to execute all closing documents.
Commr. Blake voted no.
Mr. Cole stated that earlier on the agenda under the consent agenda, the BCC approved interlocal agreements with all of the cities for the public safety radios. He added that staff worked hard to develop those agreements and that the County had great partnerships with the cities. He remarked that pending the closing of the loan, staff would be proceeding immediately with the purchase of the public safety radios for the County, the Sheriff, the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and the cities. He related that on the current day, he would issue a notice to proceed to the architect for the new animal shelter, pending the closing of the loan.
sign ordinance workshop
Mr. McClendon presented the sign ordinance workshop and said that this item stemmed from a U.S. Supreme Court decision which limited content based sign restrictions. He commented that the BCC approved the county’s new sign ordinance in March 2017 which removed the content based items in the LDR; therefore, the county’s code was now consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He elaborated that the March 2017 sign ordinance included these provisions: prohibited pole signs; deleted and amended all references to content based items: temporary signs became non-permanent signs, including political, incidental, non-commercial, and real estate signs; included a new definition of temporary signs to allow a maximum of two signs for 90 calendar days each; and temporary signs can be a maximum of six feet in height and thirty-two square feet of copy area, cannot be electric or illuminated, and do not require permits.
Commr. Breeden asked to clarify that pole signs were prohibited in the county right-of-way, and Mr. McClendon confirmed that no signs were permitted in the right-of-way.
Mr. McClendon continued his presentation, indicating that there had been two previous workshops that included the BCC discussing these items: exempting all temporary signs; proposing a restriction to expand the 90 calendar day limit for temporary signs; allowing a single temporary sign up to 16 square feet in size; ensuring that no permit would be necessary to display a temporary sign; allowing more temporary signs based on acreage or road frontage; requiring permission from property owners to place temporary signs on a parcel; and expanding the list of temporary sign materials. He relayed that after those discussions, staff prepared two ordinances with only a minor difference between them. He elaborated that the proposed ordinances would remove temporary signs from the LDRs and they would now be treated as non-permanent signs. He said that non-permanent signs consisting of canvas, fabric, paper, plywood, etc. would be exempt if they met these criteria: signs between three and sixteen square feet would be allowed by right on a parcel; there would be no limit to signs less than three square feet in size, though those types of signs could not be placed on a vacant property without an associated temporary vendor permit or development permit; signs would have to be set back a minimum of 20 feet, as requested by the Public Works Department; signs could not exceed six feet in height; and no electric or illuminated signs would be allowed. He said that signs not composed of the listed materials would be prohibited, and that discussions with the Office of Code Enforcement encouraged no calendar day restrictions. He elaborated that by having a calendar day restriction in the code, it would be challenging for staff to enforce the issue. He then said that the proposed ordinance would carry forward the provision that no permit would be required for non-permanent signs. He displayed a slide with the two proposed ordinances, noting that one was based on road frontage and the other was based on acreage. He explained that for option one, if a citizen had a single acre lot with multiple road frontages, the number of frontages would determine how many signs between three and sixteen square feet would be allowed, provided they meet separation distances. He added that for option two, the citizen would be limited to a single sign of that size. He said that staff analysis included these findings: the two proposed ordinances would address issues discussed previously; any code enforcement action for signs would be reactive rather than proactive; the ordinances would be enforceable through not having to track calendar days, and geographic information systems (GIS) would be available to determine whether a parcel could support multiple signs; and the proposed ordinances would be consistent and compliant with the LDRs and the Comp Plan. He asked for direction on which ordinance to move forward with for the Planning and Zoning Board.
Commr. Parks opined that he liked option two, and he asked if there was a way to ease the difficulty of permitting permanent directional signs.
Mr. McClendon replied that signs internal to a project could not be considered directional signs due to content based issues, as they would have to be read to determine their purpose.
Commr. Campione asked how a sign placed outside a home under construction would be affected by the proposed ordinances.
Mr. McClendon responded that it would be allowed and no permit would be required.
Commr. Blake asked to clarify the sizes of allowed signs.
Mr. McClendon stated that it would include signs between three and sixteen square feet.
Commr. Blake suggested that another option would be to not limit signs in any way. He felt that in many cases, common sense would lead to citizens spacing their signs out so that they are not distracting.
Commr. Breeden noted that any signs not constructed of the materials listed would be prohibited, but allowing “other light materials” would be too broad. She commented that signs less than three square feet would not be allowed on vacant property unless associated with a temporary vendor permit, and she asked if a single sign could be used if it was larger.
Mr. McClendon replied that paper and plastic would be considered light materials. He also said that one or more signs of three square feet or greater would be allowed on vacant property depending on how much acreage was present.
Commr. Breeden asked if there could be a provision for signs with an obvious end date, such as those for garage sales and if there were rules on repeated garage sales being consider a commercial business.
Ms. Marsh replied that per the U.S. Supreme Court case, if one must read a sign to determine if it fits the code, then it is content based and cannot be regulated in such a way. She said that the sign code must be neutral in terms of size, location and number. She clarified that signs of the allowed size could be left up for any amount of time regardless of the content.
Commr. Parks asked if cities address the garage sale issue with a time limit.
Commr. Campione opined that cities required citizens to pay in order to keep their garage sale sign up, though this may no longer apply under the U.S. Supreme Court case.
Commr. Blake said that the City of Fruitland Park limits garage sale signs to a limited amount of time and that a limited number of garage sales are allowed.
Commr. Breeden asked if other entities’ ordinances had found a way to address garage sales.
Mr. McClendon replied that the only ordinance he had seen with a time frame associated with it allowed temporary signs for 90 days before an election and 10 days afterward. He elaborated that temporary signs were prohibited outside of that time frame.
Commr. Campione noted that this ordinance only referenced the date of elections, but did not limit signs to campaign signs.
Commr. Sullivan summarized that staff required direction on the proposed ordinance options.
Commr. Campione suggested that the BCC should consider option two.
Mr. McClendon said it was believed that option one would lead to more signs and option two would lead to fewer signs. He accepted the BCC’s direction for option two and relayed that he would bring the ordinance before the Planning and Zoning Board.
Commr. Sullivan said there could be more discussions on the issue and that there would be a public hearing when it was brought back to the BCC.
reports
commissioners reports
commissioner campione – VICE CHAIRMAN AND district 4
public safety tower meeting in sorrento
Commr. Campione said that on July 31, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. at the East Lake County Library, there would be a public meeting to discuss potential public safety tower sites in the Sorrento/Mt. Plymouth area. She added that the meeting was in response to citizens who had spoken on the issue at a Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and staff had been asked to reevaluate alternatives and options and to present these at the meeting for community feedback and discussion.
award for Mr. c.a. vossberg
Commr. Campione stated that Mr. C.A. Vossberg, President and General Manager of the Electron Machine Corporation, received a prestigious award. She elaborated that the Florida Advanced Technological Education Center was a premier organization for manufacturing and advanced technical education, best practices and resources supporting the high performance skilled workplace and workforce for Florida’s manufacturing sectors. She continued, stating that Lake Technical College was proud to announce that Mr. Vossberg was awarded the 2018 Florida Advanced Technological Education Center (FLATE) Distinguished Manufacturing Partner Service Award at their 2018 conference and this award recognizes a key individual for outstanding contributions for the outreach, education and training of today’s advanced manufacturing workforce. She elaborated that Lake Technical College was proud to nominate Mr. Vossberg due to his dedication to Lake Technical College’s Center for Advanced Manufacturing from vision to buildout, and that Mr. Vossberg had also spoken on behalf of manufacturing education alongside the governor. She said not to be overlooked was Mr. Vossberg’s consistent support of Lake Technical College’s teachers and students, whether as a committed board member or through field trips for students and teachers throughout the county, and Mr. Vossberg’s enthusiasm for a commitment to career opportunities in manufacturing was steadfast. She then asked if the BCC could take action to bring recognition to Mr. Vossberg, such as a resolution.
commissioner sullivan – chairman and district 1
help america vote act grant for supervisor of elections
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board retroactively approved for the Chairman to execute any necessary agreements or documents related to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) grant for the Supervisor of Elections, and approved Resolution 2018-108.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:33 p.m.
_________________________________
timothy i. sullivan, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK