A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

August 21, 2018

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, August 21, 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

Missions Pastor Art Eaton from The Fellowship Church gave the Invocation and Commissioner Sullivan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, indicated that there were no agenda updates.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of July 10, 2018 (Regular Meeting).

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Chris Bell, a Fruitland Park City Commissioner, thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for their partnership and support for the construction and development of the Lake Community Northwest Park.  He said that the park had been in the planning stages for a number of years and was in the County’s Parks and Recreational Trails Master Plan.  He stated that the park was endorsed by the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board and funding had been provided through the BCC.  He relayed that the funding had enabled two soccer fields to be built and that play was anticipated to begin on them this fall.  He also expressed that the residents of the city and the county were already trying to fill the park’s available timeslots.  He indicated concerns that while the park was going to be in a playing condition, there were still many factors that would have to be completed for the park to be completely usable including restrooms, sidewalks, players’ benches, crowd stands and fencing.  He commented that the city had an estimated cost of around $500,000 to complete the park, and he asked for a plan to be developed that would allow this project to be completed using the Infrastructure Sales Tax.  He also asked the BCC to consider helping to complete parks that were already under construction before committing to new facilities.

Mr. Nathan Focht, a resident of Lake County, voiced his concern over the new “bikes may use full lane” signs that were installed on Sugarloaf Mountain in the previous month. He described observed instances of cars being parked on both sides of the road next to houses, cyclists failing to use designated restroom facilities, spray painted comments on the road, large groups of cyclists standing on the road, groups of cyclists riding side by side and taking up an entire lane, and littering discarded water bottles and protein packs.  He said that cycling was growing in Lake County and that his neighborhood was increasingly overrun with these individuals.  He opined that Sugarloaf Mountain was often referred to as an attraction, though it was primarily a neighborhood.  He expressed that the residents continued to try and work with guests visiting the mountain, and that he spoke with Commissioner Parks and Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, about the signs.  He relayed that he was told that the Board approved the signs to increase bicycle safety, though he opined that this statement was inaccurate.  He relayed that his neighbor, a professional highway engineer, had sent an email to the Board stating that the signs do not change the existing laws, that they are not to be installed on any road with an existing shoulder, and that all bike laws still apply.  He said that many cyclists he spoke with believed that the signs changed the laws of the road in their favor, that cars would have to give cyclists respect, and that the signs would increase safety.  He also relayed that between 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on a recent Sunday morning, 82 bicycles passed him and that approximately 20 of them violated bicycle laws such as three-wide riding, crossing the double yellow line, and speeding.  He commented that one car aggressively crossed the double yellow line and passed the cyclists at a high rate of speed.  He noted that this was not a race weekend or special event where the issues increase exponentially, and that packs of riders can increase aggression on the road.  He said that ways to pave Sugarloaf Mountain Road were being investigated and opined that it had become a critical issue.  He stated that he drove a vehicle that was eight and a half feet wide, and the lanes there were only about nine and a half feet wide.  He mentioned that the edge on both sides of the road were crumbling and that even without bicycles, he had to drift over the yellow line to stay on the road; additionally, he said that he would not personally ride a bicycle on the right two feet of the road.  He opined that the signs were vague, unenforceable, and would heighten aggression between cars and bicycles.  He said that the Board should either prevent cyclists from using his neighborhood for recreation, or they should invest in the road and widen it to allow bikes to travel on the right side and for cars to safely maneuver around them.  He said that once that was in place, then deputies could be asked to patrol and enforce the laws for all citizens and ensure the cyclists’ safety.  He said that he also attempted to contact Mr. Fred Sommer, President of Sommer Sports, on social media about the issue, but did not receive a response.  He asked the BCC to take an active role in helping solve this issue.

Commr. Parks said that he appreciated the dialogue he had with Mr. Focht and opined that the BCC should take an active role with the City of Clermont to increase public awareness of cycling rules.  He expressed interest in involving the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) and he relayed that deputies would not stop a driver or issue a ticket if they cross a solid double yellow line to pass cyclists.

Mr. Focht clarified that multiple deputies informed him that he would be pulled over if he attempted to pass cyclists in this way.  He requested that this information be passed down to the Sheriff’s staff.

Commr. Parks recalled that public awareness efforts had been previously discussed and that it would have to be a joint effort, which could take many months to coordinate the different groups.  He agreed that widening and resurfacing the road would help with the issue, and he stated that the signs were placed on narrow roads where it is difficult to pass cyclists.  He explained that the signs attempted to warn drivers that cyclists may be in their lane.  He also said there were signs directing cyclists to use the proper restroom facilities. 

Commr. Campione relayed that the County was trying to have a closer restroom location to Sugarloaf Mountain, and she also expressed interest in adding trash cans there.  She noted that law enforcement could cooperate with the County and monitor those areas. 

Mr. Focht noted that the majority of cyclists he interacted with did not cause an issue, but there were a minority of cyclists that were causing problems.  He also noted that the conduct of some drivers toward cyclists could also be improved. 

Commr. Parks reiterated that as soon as possible, they should meet with an official from the City of Clermont, Mr. Focht, some cyclists, and possibly Mr. Sommer to help craft a public awareness effort to address the issue. 

Mr. Cole relayed that staff had been working with the City of Minneola and identified two potential locations for restroom facilities and trash cans.  He said that staff would continue that effort with the city and that potential road improvements would be at the September 11, 2018 BCC meeting as part of the Board’s annual consideration of funding for the road program. 

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Focht for articulating the issues well.

proclamation 2018-115 attendance awareness month

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-115 declaring September 2018 as Attendance Awareness Month.

Commr. Sullivan read and presented Proclamation 2018-115 to staff from the Lake County School District.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s 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 the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 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.

Lands Available List

Request to acknowledge receipt of property placed on the Lands Available List. Lake County has until October 30, 2018 to purchase property from the Lands Available List before it is available to the public.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Breeden said that she wanted to comment on Tab 27 and pull Tab 23 for discussion and a separate vote.  She stated that Tab 27 was regarding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) continuum of care program and would provide retroactive approval to apply for the grant.  She commented that she would also need to discuss it as part of the budget presentation under Tab 34, but said it should be approved immediately due to it being a retroactive approval.  She indicated that the Housing and Community Development Division would require additional staffing if the County accepted the grant and that she would discuss this later.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify if this grant would come to the County as opposed to the Central Florida Homeless Coalition.  She also said that this would give the BCC a chance to discuss other issues regarding the homeless family situation. 

Commr. Breeden clarified that the grant would go through that organization before ten vouchers were received by Lake County.  She reiterated that since approval was needed to apply for the grant, which had already been applied for, the BCC needed to retroactively approve it as part of the consent agenda. 

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 31, pulling Tab 23 for discussion, as follows:

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval to award contracts 18-0218A to Quintairos, Prieto, Wood, and Boyer P.A. (Orlando, FL) and 18-0218B to Fisher& Phillips L.L.P. (Orlando, FL) for the provision of labor and employment law services on an on-call basis. The expenditures for the previous year of service totaled $5,000.00, and can vary significantly each year based on circumstances involving the need for the contract services. The future fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. 

management and budget

Request approval to apply for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Local Solicitation, and authorization for the Chairman to execute any required grant documents. The FY 2018 grant allocation for Lake County is $32,519.00 (revenue/expenditure).

Request approval of seven resolutions, Resolution 2018-116 (Greater Groves Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU)), 117 (Greater Hills MSBU), 118 (Greater Pines MSBU). 119 (Picciola Island Subdivision), 120 (Sylvan Shores Subdivision), 121 (Valencia Terrace Subdivision) and 122 (Village Green Subdivision) providing for certification of the non-ad valorem assessment rolls for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2018. The total fiscal impact resulting from these MSBUs is $933,026.15 (revenue).

agency for economic prosperity

Visit Lake

Request approval of the second amendment to the agreement with Trifecta Fishing, LLC (The Woodlands, TX) for hosting the annual Bass Pro Shop's Big Bass Tour fishing events through fiscal year 2021. The total fiscal impact over three years is $60,000.00 (expenditure).

public safety and compliance

Code Enforcement

Request approval for the Procurement Office to issue Purchase Orders to Greenwood & Son Contracting (Grand Island) under Request for Quotations Q2018-00128-2 and Q2018-00129-2 to Clean Up and Demo various County-Owned Properties. The fiscal impact for fiscal year 2018 is $53,200.00 (expenditure).

Public Safety

Request approval to award a one-time purchase under Invitation to Bid 18-0705 for an Area RAE System for Hazardous Material Detection to All Safe Industries Incorporated (Louisville, KY), and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to complete all related contractual documentation as coordinated with the County Attorney's Office, and approval of all related budget transfers. The total fiscal impact is $113,106.00 (expenditure - 100% grant funded through the award by Sabal Trail Transmission Pipeline).

Request approval to purchase and implement the replacement of Public Safety network equipment to PC Solutions & Integration, Inc. (Miami, FL) under the State of Florida Contract #43220000-WSCA-14-ACS; authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute any supporting documentation, purchase orders or other actions as needed to support the equipment replacement; and authorization of any budget adjustments as needed. The fiscal impact is $103,970.18 (expenditure).

Request approval to change the sole source vendor for the purchase of Antivenin North American Coral Snake Injection medication from Pfizer, Inc. (New York, NY) to Cardinal Health 108, LLC (LaVergne, TN), and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documents. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time, but will be 100% funded with outside revenue.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERNAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Public Works

Request approval of Resolution 2018-123 providing for certification of the assessment roll for the paving, grading, curbing, and drainage of the Granville Avenue Special Assessment, located in Clermont. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Request approval of Resolution 2018-124 providing for certification of the assessment roll for the paving, grading, curbing, and drainage of the Firethorn Road Special Assessment, located in Eustis. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.

Request approval of Resolution 2018-125 providing for certification of the assessment roll for the paving, grading, curbing, and drainage of the Colley Drive Special Assessment, located in Tavares. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.

Request approval to accept public right of way and easement deeds that have been secured in conjunction with development, roadway, and stormwater projects. The fiscal impact is $1,076.50 (expenditure - recording fees). Commission Districts 2 and 5.

Request approval to award Contract 18-0923 for debris/waste roll-off containers to IES Sales and Service, LLC (Opa-locka, FL) for use by the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $24,901.00 (expenditure).

Request approval to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Tavares for the transfer of jurisdiction of David Walker Drive from Old Highway 441 to U.S. Highway 441, located within the city limits, from the County to the City. The estimated fiscal impact is $245,060.00 (expenditure). Commission District 3.

Request approval to utilize Carmanah solar traffic products, Iteris Video vehicle detection equipment, Wavetronics radar detection equipment, and Express Supply ITS ethernet switches for traffic signal standardization, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute purchase orders for related goods and services as needed. The annual fiscal impact is $75,000.00 (expenditure).

Request approval for the Chairman to execute Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreements for Collection of Storm Debris from Streets and Right-of-way with Eustis, Fruitland Park, Minneola and Howey-in-the-Hills; and authorization for the County Manager to send written notification to the Town of Montverde to terminate the existing Interlocal for Collection of Storm Debris from Streets and Right-of-Way. There is no fiscal impact. Commission Districts 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Request approval of Resolution 2018-126 supporting the addition of the right of way acquisition and construction phases to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Strategic Intermodal System Plan and the addition of the right of way acquisition phase to the FDOT Five Year Work Program for the SR 50 Realignment project in Groveland. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

Request approval to:

1. Accept the final plat for Florence Lake Ridge, located south of Clermont, off Oswalt Road, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Florence Lake Ridge final plat.

2. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Maintenance of Improvements with M3 Clermont, LLC. (Winter Park, FL).

3. Accept a maintenance bond of $75,599.50 for maintenance of improvements.

4. Execute Resolution 2018-127 accepting Florence Ridge Drive (County Road No. 0743); Harmony Ridge Way (County Road No. 0743A); and Melody Ridge Court (County Road No. 0743B) into the County Road Maintenance System.

5. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction and Maintenance of Sidewalk Improvements with M3 Clermont, LLC.

6. Accept a letter of credit for performance of $68,772.00 for performance of sidewalk construction.

7. Accept a letter of credit for maintenance of $6,252.00 for maintenance of sidewalk improvements.

The fiscal impact is $1,551.00 (revenue – final plat application fee).  Commission District 2.

Request approval of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement with the City of Groveland. The fiscal impact is $17,020.32 (revenue). Commission District 1.

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE

Community Services

Request approval of Resolution 2018-129 amending the Section 8 Fund to receive $231,380.00 in unanticipated revenue for fiscal year 2018 from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide rental assistance payments for Section 8 clients and to transfer $50,000.00 from Section 8 reserves to provide rental assistance payments for Section 8 clients. The fiscal impact is $231,380.00 (revenue).

Request approval for the County Manager to endorse all insurance claim checks on behalf of Lake County for State Housing Initiative Partnership properties. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval:

1.  To amend Agenda Item 6733 approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 22, 2018, to reflect that Willie Roshell and his wife, Diana Bailey, are to assume the Mortgage and note executed by Collin Roshell on December 8, 2017, recorded in O.R. Book 5039, Page 660, under the Lake County State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Demolition and Reconstruction Strategy.

2. Of an exception to the income categories limitation in the Local Housing Assistance Plan Demolition and Reconstruction Strategy for Willie Roshell and Diana Bailey.

3.  For the County Manager to execute any necessary assumption documents.

The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

Request retroactive approval to submit the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care program renewal to assist homeless families. The fiscal impact is $115,617.00 (100% grant funded).

Request approval for the Chairman to execute the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration program grant extension request. There is no fiscal impact.

Extension Services

Request approval of the University of Florida's recommendation that Megan Mann serve as the Interim Lake County Extension Services Director effective September 1, 2018. The fiscal impact to the County for 2019 is $10,296.00 (expenditure).

Parks and Trails

Request approval to file the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Lake May Reserve with the Clerk of the Court as required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Communities Trust Grant # 11-007-FF11; approval of Resolution 2018-130 amending the MSTU Parks Fund to receive $1,500,000.00 in unanticipated revenue for fiscal year 2018 from the FDEP Florida Communities Trust; and approval for the County Manager to execute any supporting documentation. The fiscal impact is $1,500,000.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100% grant funded). Commission District 4.

Request approval to award contracts resulting from RSQ 18-0005, to GAI Consultants, Inc. (Orlando, FL), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Orlando, FL), and S&ME, Inc. (Raleigh, NC) to provide on-call landscape architectural services. The estimated fiscal impact is $200,000.00 (expenditure).

Resolution 2018-128 truck restrictions on lake norris road

Commr. Breeden said that this tab was regarding a resolution for the restriction of the use of Lake Norris Road.  She stated that she had a recommendation for the resolution and that the County Attorney’s office found an error on the last whereas clause.  She clarified that the whereas clause should read as “The Board of County Commissioners of Lake County now desires to restrict truck traffic exceeding 10 tons,” as it mistakenly read “allow”.  She noted that she passed out her other recommendation to the Board and opined that the BCC should not specify each item that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) can perform in their land management activities.  She suggested that the resolution should state that the BCC is exempting the SJRWMD’s land management activities from the 10 ton weight limit restriction, but the removal of sand would continue to not be exempt from these restrictions.  She said there are times when the County has to perform land management on its properties and that they would not want another agency restricting that activity. 

Commr. Sullivan clarified that Commissioner Breeden wanted to amend Section 2 of the resolution.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Adam Lovejoy, Director of Government Affairs for the SJRWMD, thanked the County staff and Commissioners that met with his organization over the past few weeks to discuss this issue.  He commented that the SJRWMD was involved in 18 counties and had strong relationships with those communities.  He said that over the past few years in Lake County, his organization invested approximately $13 million through the SJRWMD’s cost share program which had helped fund projects and communities throughout the county.  He explained that eligible projects address at least one of the SJRWMD’s four core missions which are water quality, water supply, natural systems and flood protection.  He relayed that recently, the SJRWMD attended ribbon cutting ceremonies in the Cities of Clermont and Eustis for their projects, including the expansion of a water treatment plant.  He also said that while the Pine Meadows Conservation Area was not a cost share, it was still a partnership with the County.  He relayed that the SJRWMD’s amended agreement with the mitigation bank required the bank to obtain all of the necessary permits and permissions to access Lake Norris Road, so the conversation with the County regarding the use of that road would have had to occur.  He stated that the SJRWMD understood the important role of the County which is why it was codified in the agreement.  He thanked the BCC again for the positive discussions and their willingness to address unintended consequences of the endeavor. 

Ms. Marie Hart, a resident of Hart Ranch Road, opined that this agreement had been conducted without her knowledge and that she was unaware of the activity until weight limit tests were being conducted on her road.  She stated that the SJRWMD indicated they were going to beautify the park, though she opined that removing dirt from the site would not accomplish this.  She claimed that there were pieces of rusted metal in the ground and other issues that would have to be addressed to make the site more attractive.  She said that the issue with the dirt removal began several years prior when the SJRWMD granted permission to move it and that they had 10 years to move it through the mitigation bank.  She opined that the SJRWMD was not trying to bring this issue back for purposes of mitigation but that their main objective was profiting from the sale of the dirt. 

Mr. Cole clarified that the current topic was related only to land management activities conducted by the SJRWMD through Lake Norris Road. 

Mr. Scott Atkins, a resident of Lake Norris Road said that last week he visited the SJRWMD and he opined that they had little consideration for residents.  He said that the sand could be of significant financial benefit to the SJRWMD, and he agreed with Commissioner Breeden’s suggestion for the resolution.  He opined that the specification of “existing road maintenance” should remain in the resolution and that residents did not take issue with the SJRWMD allowing different types of trucks to enter the site for routine activities. 

Mr. Charles Lockwood, a resident of Lake County, asked to clarify who owned the site. 

Mr. Cole stated that the SJRWMD exclusively owned the property.

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

Commr. Campione said that her preference would be for the BCC to discuss the issue with the SJRWMD to determine which activities would occur on the property, such if the SJRWMD planned to build a road, and if they were solely for land management purposes.

Mr. Lovejoy said that the SJRWMD would continue discussions with the County, that the activity would only be for land management, and that the hardening of the existing road was to accommodate truck traffic and would have had ancillary benefits afterward for management of the property.  He stated that the SJRWMD managed over 400,000 acres of public land and that they had varying degrees of infrastructure within those lands, and noted that there was also infrastructure on the Pine Meadows Conservation Area which the County now owned and managed.  He commented that the SJRWMD wanted to comply with the earlier agreement which was to remove the sand and restore the wetlands there.  He opined that these activities would be good for the environment and the community.

Commr. Campione recalled that they started with the issue of the road impacts and the impacts on the wildlife and residents, and that the next question was how the land management activity would affect residents’ use of the conservation area, as many residents enjoyed using it and were concerned about possible restrictions.  She then commented that the County had been suddenly served with a lawsuit from the SJRWMD to preserve the district’s rights.  She said that if the County met with the SJRWMD, they could answer the question of if the property would remain available to residents or if there would be punitive restrictions due to the ongoing issue with the use of Hart Ranch and Lake Norris Roads.  She suggested that the parties could also hold a discussion with a mediator.

Mr. Lovejoy said that the SJRWMD wanted to inform the County that time was running out on the endeavor and that the current item represented significant progress for them.  He reiterated that the SJRWMD had positive discussions with County Commissioners and staff and he related that no punitive action would be performed by the SJRWMD.  He also said that there were no plans to restrict recreational activities on the site.

Commr. Campione stated that this was not an ordinary case when considering the SJRWMD’s relationship with the mitigation bank and that the BCC would need to determine specific information about how the property would be used, whether it would be restricted, and whether the BCC could implement specific safety measures to protect the residents that are affected by the utilization of those roads.

Commr. Breeden agreed with Commissioner Campione and stated that the current issue was only concerning the use of Lake Norris Road.  She said that the sand removal would still be restricted on that road.

Mr. Cole informed the Board that staff was targeting September 2018 to bring back the item of permit provisions.  He relayed that the County Attorney’s office was currently developing recommendations to be presented at that time. 

Commr. Sullivan said that the current issue was a resolution authorizing the use of Lake Norris Road as amended by Commissioner Breeden’s suggestion. 

Commr. Campione reiterated that she would vote in favor of the motion in good faith with the understanding that the SJRWMD would not use the resolution as an opportunity to embark on other activities.  She commented that this was strictly to address the types of land management activities that the SJRWMD had previously been conducting for that property.  She asked that the SJRWMD take back to their Board these requests: an opportunity for the County and the district to discuss these issues; for the district to not change residents’ access to the property; and to not build a new road until the other issues are discussed.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2018-128 authorizing the posting of “No Trucks Over 10 Tons Except By Exemption Only” signs on Lake Norris Road in the Eustis area, and modifying the restrictions adopted in Resolution 2018-75.

presentation – wolf branch innovation district

Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, said that the Wolf Branch Innovation District would be located in northeast Lake County, east of the existing downtown in the City of Mount Dora and near the new Wekiva Parkway.  He related that the current presentation would update the Board on the Wolf Branch Innovation District and the progress made on the interlocal agreement between the City of Mount Dora and Lake County to cost share consulting services toward the project area as part of their mutual interests in collaborating on the district’s economic development.  He said that the Wolf Branch Innovation District is approximately a 1,300 acre site located in the joint planning area of the City of Mount Dora and Lake County, and was identified as a strategic corridor for significant economic development that had been spurred by the completion of the Wekiva Parkway and the subsequent Wekiva Parkway Extension.  He said that the Wolf Branch Innovation District was located at the terminus of the Wekiva Park Extension, also known as State Road (S.R.) 453, and S.R. 46.  He commented that the district previously completed a master plan in 2012-2013 and a market analysis conducted by the Renaissance Planning Group, along with a Duke Energy Site Readiness Assessment conducted by McCallum Sweeney, which rendered an “A” grade for development.  He relayed that in 2017, the City of Mount Dora and Lake County came together to collaborate and proactively seek to maximize the potential of the area as the completion of key pieces of infrastructure was commencing.  He mentioned that in October 2017, the BCC approved a two year agreement with an option to extend an additional 12 months with the City of Mount Dora to hire Levey Consulting, LLC to provide strategic and implementation plans for the Wolf Branch Innovation District.  He stated that the outcome was a plan that focused on uses and infrastructure that would support a vibrant and impactful job generating mixed-use community that would potentially include office space, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, research and development, higher education, and complimentary retail and residential space.  He then introduced Dr. Richard Levey, Managing Director for Levey Consulting, to further discuss the project.

Dr. Levey said that he would provide an overview of his company’s accomplishments for the project over the past nine months.  He explained that he provided strategic advisory services to local governments and private sector development and that his career had specialization in large scale employment centers.  He said that his company’s involvement with the Wolf Branch Innovation District involved twelve tasks over three years and two major work products including a final strategy report and an implementation plan.  He displayed a schedule of the company’s activities, highlighting that they had just finished the first three fiscal quarters of the project and that summaries and findings from that time would be provided at the current meeting.  He listed these items as reasons why the Wolf Branch Innovation District would be important to the County: S.R. 453 would significantly reduce the friction of time when traveling between the City of Mount Dora and the Orlando area while also increasing the economic impact of that location; the area would be exposed to new and accelerated economic opportunities which would fit the BCC’s objective of increasing job creation and wages in the county; the coordination between the City of Mount Dora and the County had been very positive; and the Wolf Branch Innovation District would provide economic opportunities for future generations so that they would not have to leave the county for employment.  He showed a slide with the objectives of the final strategy report and the implementation plan, stating that the implementation plan was where the project was headed in the future.  He said that the Duke Energy study that rated the site as a high quality employment location did not consider market issues and instead focused on the fiscal proximity of the site, identifying clean energy, emerging technologies and life sciences as some of the potential industry sectors that could be based there.  He noted that the previously discussed conceptual master plan regarding 1,300 acres later evolved to a six square mile area encompassing that land.  He stated that the first study was a market study which projected the first vertical development to occur around the year 2022, and opined that while the study was conducted in the year 2013, it should still be accurate.  He then noted that the following developments had occurred in the five years since the market study had been conducted: home automation and web-based tools used to operate homes; streaming video services; drone technology as a mainstream commercial application; autonomous vehicles; 3D printing; and artificial intelligence.  He commented that these changes were meaningful and had significant implications for commercial real estate, and he then opined that the drivers of the innovation economy were scientists and engineers.  He also stated that from other studies of employment centers, the centers that thrive tend to co-locate around highly rated universities, and the Wolf Branch Innovation District was near a metropolitan area with access to this type of facility.  He added that access to labor and talent was critical and that reducing the friction of time with S.R. 453 would allow companies in the Wolf Branch Innovation District to access the talent pool in the City of Orlando.  He also said that technology and research and development companies are attracted to areas with a high quality of place and amenities.  He noted challenges for the Wolf Branch Innovation District with the site being large scale with fragmented ownership, regional competition, and changing technology and real estate.  He specified that for the district’s large scale, there could be up to six times the amount of land than what would be necessary for what the market study projected for employment uses.  He displayed a chart for the site’s fragmented ownership, noting that 10 of the 170 parcels were 25 acres or greater in size and that many of the smaller parcels were homestead.  He specified that this was land inside what was designated as the County’s regional category and that single ownership would make a significant difference when trying to create a place and accelerate economic activity; furthermore, the Wolf Branch Innovation District potentially had 172 land owners.  He discussed the challenge of regional competition, stating that there would be dozens of other places along the beltway that would encircle the City of Orlando that would also seek to attract firms and talent.  For the challenge of technology and real estate, he highlighted that some brick and mortar establishments had recently closed and that warehouse distribution had also changed dramatically by increasing in size, decreasing in number and utilizing robotics.  He noted that the traditional suburban office model was being replaced with a virtual model using a higher density of employees per square foot, with the availability of cell phones, laptop computers and WiFi leading to many residents not being tied to a specific office location in order to work.  He elaborated that a previous standard of three employees per thousand square feet in an office could now utilize six or eight employees in that same space due to many employees sharing space.  He opined that suburban speculative office buildings of around 200,000 square feet, or that have a single tenant or have at least 50 percent of their employees under a single tenant, were not likely to be utilized in the future.  He stated that he identified different approaches for the challenges, that the Wolf Branch Innovation District was long term and would evolve over time, that drawing large employers in the current market was a high risk for high reward, and that it was difficult to accelerate this type of development.  He detailed these eight findings from a draft strategy report: the community needs to protect its assets and while there would be significant competition around the beltway, the City of Mount Dora is unique and could be marketed as such; for the City of Mount Dora to stay creative and eclectic in order to attract technology based companies; to pursue both large employers and smaller or medium sized companies; to bring organizations together through common interests and needs, using the example of Lake-Sumter State College and Florida Hospital Waterman collaborating on personnel for technological training; that land supply matters; that the mix of land uses would be important to consider with many residential communities around Wolf Branch Innovation District that may be impacted by industry that is truck dependent; that character matters with regard to quality of place and what areas that employers are seeking, including the importance of the employment center and the character of the residential areas around in, which can be reinforced with design standards; and that knowledge is the engine of the innovation economy with data being its fuel, specifying that access to high quality broadband and telecommunications is a key driver of the current economy.  He noted that the city owned a public fiber optic network to connect its facilities and that his organization was exploring the opportunity to expand that and open up the access to commercial fiber optic services, which could help attract companies.  He also said that the City of Mount Dora developed a notion of the traditional City of Mount Dora lying west of County Road (C.R.) 441 with a new city surrounding the Wolf Branch Innovation District, which was being promoted and advanced in the implementation plan.  He also indicated that he would cooperate with the city and the County to develop common design guidelines and standards for the new city.  He listed these next steps for his organization: to finalize and deliver the final strategy report; to advance the implementation plan focusing on areas that were identified in the draft strategy report; and to continue to pursue recruitment efforts for both small and large companies.  He elaborated that a connection had been established with public and private schools in the city, along with a technology company, to create a collaboration that would build an education ecosystem in the City of Mount Dora where industry experts would help train children from a young age in order to cultivate a digital based economy.  He also said that his organization was beginning to discuss agricultural research with County and City staff and that the Wolf Branch Innovation District could produce research for growers.  He concluded by encouraging questions from the Board.

Commr. Campione asked about the acreage of the over designated employment center land uses. 

Mr. Levey reiterated that in the S.R 46 corridor from C.R. 441 to the edge of the joint planning area, there was an abundance of employment center land uses.  He opined that many properties there were not likely to be used for employment and that some of the areas that were challenging to access would become residential.  He said that for other areas, their character would have to be considered and that there were many small, homestead parcels south of S.R. 46.  He elaborated that it would have to be discussed if these areas would become regional offices in the future or of they would remain residential.  He said that some of the parcels were likely to have a mixed land use and he relayed that while he had identified the problem, he had not yet formulated solutions.

Commr. Campione noted that the presentation showed a road running through the north and south side of the Wolf Branch Innovation District and she inquired if the City of Mount Dora discussed being involved or partnering with infrastructure funding as it concerns the road network. 

Mr. Levey said that this discussion had been held and that once recommendations were developed for future land uses (FLU), the boundaries of the employment district could change and this would also change the internal roadway network. 

Commr. Campione asked about the design guidelines for the new city and how close his company was to determining them.  She indicated that the City of Mount Dora was currently considering some annexations and she asked if those guidelines were being incorporated into the annexation agreements.

Mr. Levey stated that the city was in the process of developing some interim guidelines.

Ms. Robin Hayes, Mount Dora City Manager, commented that recently, the City’s Planning and Zoning Board was considering some designs that they were presented.  She mentioned that they had used some of the guidelines developed by other Lake County communities and that a presentation for the final guidelines would be brought before the Mount Dora City Council within the following weeks. 

Commr. Campione asked how many annexations were pending for the city.

Ms. Hayes responded that approximately 300 acres were presented to the City’s Planning and Zoning Board and there was some final paperwork awaiting completion before they could be accepted and presented to the City Council in September 2018.  She added that the City had around 600 acres in applications to process.

Commr. Breeden inquired if all of the annexations would be residential or a combination.

Ms. Hayes confirmed that it would be a combination, though most of the annexations would be residential.  She said that the City would still present information about the annexations to the City’s Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council, and the BCC. 

Commr. Campione stated that she hoped that the City and the County would meet to discuss road congestion, construction, and densities, and she expressed concerns about exponential growth in currently unincorporated areas.  She suggested that they could potentially negotiate some modifications to the joint planning agreement to update it and address current issues. 

Ms. Hayes related that on the previous day, there was a meeting with City staff to discuss those issues.  She said that these items would likely be brought before the City Council and then to the BCC in the near future as part of a work session.

Commr. Parks appreciated the presentation’s eight findings and that it highlighted scientists and engineers as the drivers of the innovation economy.  He noted that economic development was no longer just about utilizing incentives to draw in large businesses and that many other factors would influence it.  He said that as the BCC discussed how to pay for more roads, sidewalks, trails, and preservation, it should be noted that the total value created by this endeavor would be billions of dollars.

Mr. Levey relayed that creating a fiscal analysis would be part of their implementation plan.  He also noted that with regard to the BCC’s upcoming presentation on mobility fees, he would advocate for designing a system where the impact fees generated in specialized employment centers could stay in those areas.  He elaborated that this would incentivize the larger land developers to build roads in exchange for credits. 

Commr. Sullivan clarified that the County currently had three impact fee districts where collected fees are reinvested in the district where they originated.

Mr. Levey stated that these specialized areas could be small, such as the approximate 2,000 acres at Wellness Way or the Wolf Branch Innovation District.  He commented that mixed use employment centers provide internal capture and allow citizens to live closer to where they work, though additional road capacity is necessary to accommodate this.  He also noted that east-west collector roads would be necessary to create a more robust grid of roads.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:31 a.m. for 14 minutes.

presentation – mobility fee analysis

Mr. Schneider presented the mobility fee workshop presentation to outline proposed mobility fee programs for discussion and identify key issues and options for implementation.  He said that on May 8, 2018, the BCC requested that a mobility fee be evaluated to as a potential replacement for the transportation impact fee and that Mr. Bill Oliver, with W.E. Oliver, P.E., LLC, was present at the meeting.  He commented that a team of staff also worked with himself and Mr. Oliver on this issue, including Mr. Matulka, Ms. Dorothy Keedy, Director for the Community Services Department, Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, and Ms. Jennifer Barker, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, and they would continue to do so if directed by the Board. 

Mr. Oliver said that at the May 8, 2018 workshop, there were several slides that defined mobility fees and outlined some of its features.  He defined a mobility fee as a one-time fee that is paid by new construction and redevelopment, but only to the extent that the redevelopment of a site generates additional travel.  He gave the example that if a 10,000 square foot office building is redeveloped to 15,000 square feet, the fee would be paid on the additional 5,000 square feet.  He explained that the fee is calculated based on the quantity of the infrastructure that it consumes, which is measured by the number of trips generated, the lengths of those trips, and some adjustment factors.  He specified that the travel generated is calculated by taking quantity of the number of new trips generated, multiplied by the trip length, and the percentage of new trips is then divided by two so that the land uses at each end of the trip share half of the responsibility for the trip.  He stated that development that generates more trips will generally have a higher fee and that longer trip lengths would also contribute to a higher fee; however, passive land uses would constitute a lower fee.  He mentioned that in most communities, a land use that generates trips also utilizes gasoline and a portion of gas taxes are put toward helping fund capital construction; furthermore, this can be credited back to reduce the fee.  He also mentioned that incentives occur when the County pays a portion of the mobility fee due to a worthwhile public purpose for that land use.  He said that the County’s transportation network is trying to serve a certain quantity of transportation, which is measured by vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle miles of capacity (VMC).  He displayed an example of a community with 300,000 VMC in which 200,000 VMT travel were occurring, leading to the network being approximately two-thirds full.  He further explained that if the community grows by an additional 100,000 VMT and an additional 100,000 VMC are also built, then the congestion measure increases to three-quarters full.  He said that if current levels of congestion are desired to be maintained into the future, the amount of capacity built must be greater than the amount of travel that grows.  He noted that this ratio is called the capacity addition ratio (CAR) and that if VMT is growing at a fast rate while VMC grows at a slower rate, then the CAR would be less than one and would lead to increased congestion.  He stated mobility fees are geographically stratified and that in working with County staff, they discussed defining districts that have different characters and strategies for providing mobility.  He added that these differences in character also provide a technical justification for assessing different fee rates in those areas.  He displayed a county map with some areas designated as low or no fee districts, including environmentally sensitive areas such as national forests, the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Green Swamp.  He commented that suburban areas in the county were growing and that corridors and connections needed to be established as a transportation network to provide the community with the desired level of service; as such, these areas would represent the highest fee district in Lake County.  He then explained that the constrained or core areas on the map had an established transportation system and there were few options to change the system due to constraints with lakes or roads having already been built out to their maximum configuration.  He indicated that the County’s long term transportation plan already began to indicate that there was more congestion in the constrained core areas and that as the county grows, it was expected that those areas would become further congested.  He said that for suburban areas, current indications also suggested that they would become more congested.  He noted that this plan was developed without a robust financial program and that the indicators may be changed if a financial program is utilized.  He stated that technical merits, such as trip lengths and an intended allowance of more congestion in those areas, would provide for the congested core areas paying a fee of about half of what would be charged in the suburban areas.  He explained that the fee is established in the district where it is charged and that the benefit districts are where the money can be spent.  He recalled discussions about having more flexibility in where money is collected and spent with the primary purpose being to utilize fees to fund construction more quickly.  He showed a map of the county with different benefit districts labeled, stating that if the County collected a fee in the northern suburban district A, they would be able to spend it both districts A and B; additionally, a fee collected in district B could be spent in the adjacent districts A, B or C.  He opined that homes built in the northern suburban district do not generate travel solely in that district and that a portion of the travel would include trips into other suburban districts.  He then stated that incentives are defined as the County paying all or a portion of the fee for uses that the County finds a public purpose for.  He relayed that after working with staff, these three possible areas for incentives were developed: helping to fund affordable housing to the extent of payment of 100 percent of their mobility fee; attracting high wage jobs and targeting land uses, which could be tied to the existing Economic Development Grant program at a 35 percent discount for those land uses; and locally owned businesses, though there was no current program to identify or qualify a land use as a locally owned business and to what extent they could be incentivized.  He elaborated that locally owned businesses could be given a 65 percent discount on mobility fees and that qualification could be performed at a later date.  He also said that a way to simplify processes was to tie incentive programs to existing County programs and that this would make the County’s complete growth management process more consistent with other elements of the process.  He related that when the fee is small, such as the current $500 single family fee in the north and central impact fee districts, incentive programs are less effective and that a larger fee would assist the County in assessing impacts and negotiating with developers.  He mentioned that in Sarasota County, there was a similar incentive program relative to their mobility fees to allow discounts for land uses that either create high paying jobs or invest significant capital into their county.  He gave the example of an approximate 30,000 square foot office building that would have had to pay roughly $116,000 in mobility fees but because of their investment in the Sarasota community, they were only required to pay about a $5,800 fee.

Commr. Sullivan asked how funding was generated to compensate for that difference in fees.

Mr. Oliver replied that the mobility fee program is governed by equal protection principles under the United States Constitution and that if the BCC wanted to provide an incentive to one land use while another land use was charged a full fee, then the County would be required to identify the funds necessary to make up for the difference.  He opined that it would not be fair to charge other growth for that purpose, so his analysis considered the issue and recommended that revenue generated for transportation infrastructure by growth or development that has existed for more than 25 years would be used to fund those incentives.  He specified that an assumption is made that a land use will generate its revenue for a 25 year period, after which the credits are awarded.  He also said that he commonly saw these types of funds used to provide incentives: gasoline tax; sales tax; property tax; or general fund revenues. He stated that it should not be revenue generated by the growth that is paying the mobility fee because that revenue should be credited back to the entity that is paying it.  He recalled it was previously discussed that a mobility fee should be goal oriented and that the size of the fee would depend on the goals set for the county’s mobility system.  He commented that different goals could be set for different areas of a community, such as a higher level of service for a suburban area when compared to a congested core area.  He displayed a graph showing data collected from major communities in the state to measure congestion in conjunction with population size, noting the larger Counties of Dade, Broward, Hillsborough and Palm Beach, and the smaller Counties of Seminole, Marion, Osceola, and Lake.  He pointed out that as the Lake County community grows, the road network would become more congested.  He noted a trend line on the graph showing typical developments for Florida communities with the level of congestion varying between them.  He highlighted that Lake County was currently just above the typical congestion level with the current population of around 320,000, and he asked where the County would want its level of congestion to be when the population would reach levels of approximately 500,000.  He said that this could be connected to the necessary revenue program, whether it comes from mobility fees or other revenue sources.  He said that based on traffic growth trends, fuel purchases, and the population projections of the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, he expected that travel on the county road system was growing at 42,000 VMT per year, which equates to four or five additional lane miles of road consumed per year.  He also noted that the CAR determined the graph’s curve trajectory and that a high CAR would generate a flat curve, while a lack of new capacity relative to growth would create a steeper curve.  He said that if the County decided to build 1.25 VMC for every additional VMT, then 52,500 VMC per year would be required.  He stated that Lake County was currently paying about $300 for each VMC, so that goal would require funding of approximately $15.8 million per year.  He also mentioned that the county had sidewalk needs of about 70 miles and that funding this at seven miles per year at a cost of around $330,000 per mile would equal approximately $2.3 million.  He explained that the level of service desired determines how much revenue is required, which then connects to how significant the fee should be.

Commr. Breeden asked how the $300 per VMC is determined.

Mr. Oliver replied that Lake County had widened two lane highways to become four lane divided highways at a cost of about $10 million per mile, and there was also a series of roads that the County issued credits to developers for.  He elaborated that developers have the ability to fund the construction of roads on clean land without utilities, so the roads can be constructed at an efficient price.  He said that the calculated figures included the roads’ capacity, their length and how many vehicles per day they can carry, and this was divided by the added capacity to reach that number. 

Commr. Campione noted that adding lanes does not always alleviate congestion and that constructing new roads would also add capacity.  She inquired if the right-of-way acquisition costs were factored into the cost for scenarios where developers provide land and build roads.

Mr. Oliver replied that this was considered in the cost.  He said that some communities focus more heavily on transit and that this creates a different cost per mile of capacity, while building roads in a rural area will generally have a lower cost.  He added that the construction of roads in urban areas will often yield a higher cost and that this can be addressed in a way that is consistent with the County’s mobility strategy.  He also said that there were other transportation system categories that the County may want to develop goals for including the construction of new bicycle lanes, the County’s safety program, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to help enhance the capacity and efficiency of road systems. 

Commr. Campione explained that an ITS coordinates stoplights and also helps determine where traffic is heaviest during the day, and she asked if impact fees could be used for ITS.

My. Oliver replied that they could be used for this purpose and that the state laws addressing mobility fees designate that their purpose is to mitigate the impacts of development.  He elaborated that if an ITS is part of increasing a transportation network’s efficiency and is a capital expense expected to last more than five years, then it should qualify.  He continued his presentation by stating that the second way to establish goals would be to consider current unfunded road needs.  He commented that the BCC could determine which roads would be improved and how long of a time window that this would occur over so that a funding need could be established.  He also stated that funding road projects over a five year window as opposed to a ten year window would substantially change the annual revenue need.  He then posed the question of how much of that revenue should be generated from the mobility fee and how much should come from other sources.  He displayed a graph showing congestion measures by year, noting a Florida trend line, a line for a combination of state and county road systems, and a line for county roads as a separate item.  He relayed that under the current impact fee program of $2,706 for a single family home in the south district and $500 in the north and central districts, the County was generating approximately $4.5 million per year.  He said that at this rate of funding, the county road system would increase from a congestion measure of 0.42 to 0.57.  He then presented alternative program A in which the south district’s fee would be adjusted for inflation by about 10 percent with the north and central district fees also being increased to match the new south district fee of $3,000 per single family home.  He commented that the County would then be generating about $6.9 million per year and while the county road system would still become more congested at a relatively high rate, it would not be as impactful as with the current fee.  He also noted that incentives would not be funded under this alternative because 100 percent of the revenue would be generated from mobility fees or the growth industry; therefore, none of that revenue would be eligible to fund incentives. 

Commr. Breeden asked to clarify if he was discussing current impact fees and fee districts instead of mobility fees.

Mr. Oliver responded that he wanted to relate his presentation to the current road impact fee program.  He said that in the suburban mobility fee district, the fee for a single family home would be $3,000 and in the constrained core area, the fee would only be $1,386.  He added that the environmentally sensitive areas would have a low fee or no fee. 

Commr. Campione asked if every citizen in a district was treated equally, could each district have a different fee, and Mr. Oliver confirmed this.  She also inquired about the boundaries of potential mobility fee districts.

Mr. Schneider noted that the maps were concepts and further detail could be provided at a later date.

Commr. Blake asked about the real impact of a small increase in the congestion measure and what would be noticeable for the average driver.

Mr. Oliver stated that this was an average countywide measure and that he would attempt to gain more information about this.

Commr. Parks commented that the BCC would have to be clear on its goals and that the friction of time would be important in determining citizens’ tolerance with regard to road congestion. 

Mr. Schneider indicated that the congestion measure was a countywide average and that congestion would vary between roads. 

Mr. Oliver opined that in Hillsborough County, there was dissatisfaction that could be related to its average congestion measure of 0.7.  He also commented that Seminole County had a measure of around 0.62 with considerable congestion. 

Commr. Parks said that according to federal studies, 3,700 hours per commuter per year of additional delay would exceed an average level of tolerance.  He asked if Mr. Oliver could quantify this figure into the curve.

Mr. Oliver mentioned that roads slowly become more congested over time and that residents will eventually realize that congestion has worsened.  He said that alternative program A charged about 37 percent of the maximum allowable amount, and he then displayed alternative program B which would charge 100 percent of the maximum mobility fee.  He specified that the single family fee would be $11,061 and would generate approximately $25 million per year, and that while he was not recommending to use this figure, it showed a significant positive effect on the County’s trajectory for congestion measure.  He also showed a graph with alternative program C that would attempt to fund incentives from another revenue source.  He elaborated that with approximately $6 million from other sources, the County could then charge about 73 percent of the maximum mobility fee to help mitigate an increase of the congestion measure.  He then showed alternative program D which would use a middle ground approach to combine different revenue sources and the mobility fee.  He explained that if the County generated around $4.2 million from other sources, they could charge 50 percent of the mobility fee and fund the incentive program.  He further specified that while congestion would still worsen, it would be at more moderate rate; additionally, developments that have existed for more than 25 years would only be paying for about 13 percent of the capital program.  He noted that the 50 percent fee difference between the suburban area and the core area was significant and could be lessened by increasing the boundaries of the core area and shifting some quality of service from one district to another.  He stated that to fund incentives, there must be revenues from sources that are not the growth, such as those that have been in Lake County for more than 25 years.  He relayed that many communities phase in proposed growth in revenue programs over multiple years to soften the burden on developers and make them aware of coming changes.  He concluded by indicating a need to collaborate with cities through interlocal agreements for collecting fees and stated that ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) should be considered to develop criteria for County incentive programs. 

Commr. Breeden asked about Sarasota County’s residential mobility fee.

Mr. Oliver responded that Sarasota County had three fee districts and three size categories, though he thought they were in the range of around $3,800.

Commr. Breeden said that the commercial fee is substantially higher, though they have an incentive program.

Mr. Schneider displayed a comparison for impact fees in surrounding counties, pointing out that Orange County had an alternate mobility area with a slightly lower fee than their other area. 

Mr. Oliver said that Seminole County had not modified their fee since around the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Mr. Schneider said that Seminole County conducted some bonding for roads early on and that they were paying them back with collected impact fees. 

Commr. Breeden inquired about alternative program A and why it did not fund incentives.

Mr. Oliver responded that all of the funding in the program was coming from mobility fees from new growth and that this growth should not be expected to fund incentives used to attract land uses to the county. 

Commr. Parks asked if there was case law on this topic.

Mr. Oliver replied that he did not believe there was any case law, though the practice with mobility fees was such that if a funding source was committed for transportation, then the new growth’s land use should be given a credit for the share of that revenue that they helped generate. 

Commr. Parks said that when the mobility fee is set low, it should solely be used for transportation.

Mr. Oliver commented that revenue from another source would be needed to fund incentives. 

Mr. Schneider recalled that the County’s impact fee categories were discussed at the previous meeting and that they could also be reevaluated with mobility fees.  He relayed that in Sarasota County, the initial fee prior to incentives was close to $116,000 for a 26,000 square foot office building and that in Lake County’s north and central districts, the current fee was about $13,000.  He said that Lake County had a single category and that recently, a proposed gas station in South Lake would have a fee of about $16,000.  He noted that commercial sites were currently paying fees equivalent to six single family homes and he opined that the categories should be reviewed to be fair to different users.  He suggested that the higher user should pay more for retail when compared to a local store that may only have a small number of trips per day.  He clarified that incentives do not have to be included in a mobility fee and are just an option.  He also suggested considering different stratification categories such as urban, suburban and rural uses, along with ITS and capital improvements such as parking garages and park and rides in congested areas.  He said that a mobility fee would allow the County to serve more areas as opposed to simply building more road lane miles and that while some areas may require those miles, other areas may not have space to build roads and would benefit more from other options. 

Commr. Breeden opined that she liked the mobility fee districts concept paired with the flexibility among the benefit districts, though she expressed concern with having specific project goals due to priorities shifting over time.

Mr. Schneider noted that the unfunded road projects list was conceptual to outline the necessary costs to build them.  He reiterated that the County had brought in $4.5 million on average per year and also had benefitted from legislative appropriations.  He said that if the legislative appropriation for Citrus Grove Road was added to the impact fee funding, there would be about $15 million, though legislative appropriations cannot always be assumed to be acquired.  He said that staff was moving forward with its Project Design and Environment (PD&E) studies and designs to help allow for funding from alternative sources such as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), who may offer a match.

Commr. Campione suggested that this topic be brought back at the September 11, 2018 BCC meeting to allow the Board a chance to consider the presented information.  She also suggested inviting the Home Builders Association of Lake-Sumter (HBA-LS) to receive their input.

Commr. Parks complimented the presentation and agreed that the BCC should be clear on its goals.  He indicated an interest in determining the level of congestion that would be tolerable to citizens and businesses to help clarify which roads the BCC would want to fund.  He said that a separate workshop could assist in developing this.

Commr. Campione recalled previous concerns that raising impact fees to help fund projects associated with the Wekiva Parkway and the Sorrento area would also affect the City of Tavares and other areas.  She expressed an interest in the possibility of creating another impact fee district around the Wekiva Parkway interchange, potentially from C.R. 441 east, and also creating districts for areas proposed to have little or no impact fees including the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Ocala National Forest area.  She said that this would have a working impact fee program in place for when the City of Mount Dora would begin processing annexations and issuing building permits and that collecting those fees would be a service to the east Lake County community. 

Commr. Sullivan opined that the BCC should have a separate workshop for this issue in the near future and that staff would coordinate the schedules of Mr. Oliver and the Board to accomplish this.

Mr. Cole asked if the workshop would be part of the Board’s regular agenda at an upcoming BCC meeting or if it should occur in a separate venue.

Commr. Sullivan suggested conducting the workshop at the Emergency Communications & Operations Center in the City of Tavares.  He said that the meeting would still be public and that it would allow the BCC to discuss the issue with everyone that is involved.  He said that a mobility fee could be evaluated along with changes to fee categories if a mobility fee is not used.

Commr. Breeden stated that interim solutions could also be evaluated.

Commr. Sullivan thanked Mr. Oliver for his presentation.  He then suggested to move Tab 34 to later in the agenda and that the BCC should now move forward with the rezoning agenda.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. McClendon displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes.  He said that there were three items currently before the Board and that staff would request that the Board accept the consent agenda as presented.  He also said that Tabs 2 and 3 would be open together during the regular agenda.

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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:

Tab 1.   

Rezoning Case # FLU-18-05-2

Hartwood Residential, LLC Future Land Use Amendment - Transmittal

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on 115.89 acres (Alternate keys 1663521, 3853084, and 1462428) from Wellness Way 1 to Urban Low Density.

 

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # FLU-18-09-4

LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower Small Scale Map Amendment - Adoption

The applicant seeks to change the future land use of property (9.98 +/- acres) from Conservation to Public Service Facility and Infrastructure to construct a cellular communication tower and stormwater management facility.

 

Tab 3.

Rezoning Case # RZ-18-06-4

LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower Rezoning

The applicant seeks to revise the zoning on 9.98 +/- acres property from Urban Residential (R-6) to Community Facility District (CFD) to accommodate cellular communication tower and stormwater management facility uses.

 

Mr. McClendon explained that the first case was #FLU-18-09-4 for a public safety communication tower to be located along S.R. 46, east of the Mount Plymouth Loop, west of C.R. 435, and in Commission District 4.  He relayed that the total tract size was approximately 19 gross acres, though the amended area would only be about 10 acres, and that the request was to amend a portion of the subject property from a Conservation FLU to a Public Service and Infrastructure FLU in order to construct a public safety tower and a stormwater management facility.  He displayed a map and specified that the current case was seeking to have the southern portion of the property remain as Conservation with the northern portion changing to Public Service and Infrastructure.  He stated that staff analysis had these findings: the Office of Public Safety Support was seeking to amend those ten acres to construct a public safety tower and a stormwater facility; the Comp Plan currently stated that the Public Service and Infrastructure designation is designed for public welfare through conservation, recreation or public facilities; the proposed communication tower was a joint project with the City of Apopka, which would be funding the roughly $400,000 tower; the request was consistent with the Comp Plan as identified in the staff report; the current zoning on the property was Urban Residential (R-6) which was inconsistent with a tower, though there was a joint rezoning request for the property; on July 30, 2018, there was a community meeting held at the East Lake Community Library involving surrounding property owners with 92 adjacent owners notified of the meeting and approximately 12 in attendance; adjacent property owners generally indicated they were in favor of the tower but not at this location; staff recommended approval of the request; prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing for the case, staff received about 16 non-repeat emails in opposition and one in support; and after the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the case with a vote of 4-2 on August 1, 2018, staff received an additional 19 emails in opposition and a petition against the project with 52 signatures.  He then stated that rezoning case #RZ-18-06-4, located in Commission District 4, involved approximately nine acres that would be rezoned from R-6 to Community Facility District (CFD).  He specified that this would be nine of the same acres affected by the FLU case, and he showed a map displaying the fall zone around the tower.  He noted these staff findings for the rezoning case: the tower would address a public safety service gap in the area; the guy wire tower would be approximately 350 feet in height; along with this rezoning request were two associated variances from the LDRs to allow both a residential setback of 253 feet for the tower in lieu of 1,320 feet and a tower separation setback of 2,269 feet in lieu of 5,000 feet; staff was supportive of both requests due them concerning public health, safety and welfare.  He also said that all other LDRs would be met, including the fall zone so that the tower would not fall on adjacent properties, and he specified that the stormwater management facility would be located closer to S.R. 46.  He remarked that the requested action before the BCC was to either uphold the Planning and Zoning Board decision to deny the cases, or accept staff’s recommendation to find the requests consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDRs and recommend approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. 

Commr. Breeden asked if any residents opposed the stormwater management facility.

Mr. McClendon indicated that residents were strictly opposed to the tower.

Commr. Campione asked about other properties that were considered, and she explained that the need for the public safety tower was strictly related to radio communication between dispatchers, law enforcement deputies, emergency medical services (EMS), fire departments, etc.  She also asked about another tower located near the proposed tower site and if this tower was for public safety.

Mr. Greg Holcomb, Director for the Office of Public Safety Support, confirmed that the tower would be designed as a public safety tower to accommodate both Lake County and the City of Apopka’s public safety equipment.  He added that the other tower near the site was a cell tower with five carriers on it, and that it was only approximately 250 feet and would not meet the height requirement of the proposed tower.  He elaborated that the existing tower would not support public safety equipment and that its age caused concerns.

Commr. Campione asked to define the size of the gap in coverage.

Mr. Holcomb responded that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for how signals can be sent and how far the distances can be must be met as the signal reaches the county border.  He added that this area was between two other sites and that with the growth occurring there, the area would require additional public safety support.  He relayed that at the meeting with citizens, there were some discussions with the Fire Chief, the City of Apopka and the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) about some existing coverage issues in that area, and the new tower would fill those gaps and provide for covering future growth with public safety services.

Commr. Campione inquired that if another site was found in the appropriate area, what would the cost be to the County when compared to the currently proposed site.  She noted that the County would not have to spend additional funds for the proposed site, though another site might require cost sharing or self-funding.

Mr. Holcomb remarked that when the interlocal agreement with the City of Apopka was brought before the BCC in March 2018, the city required a tower in that area and the County had already identified it as a long term area where a tower was needed.  He opined that it was a great partnership and that the County had a history of partnering with the City for public safety support.  He said that the City had exhausted their capabilities in Orange County and presented the tower to the County in an economic deal that would save the County likely in excess of around $500,000 after considering costs of development and constructing the tower.  He stated that the agreement would allow the county to utilize the tower at no cost and that the city would maintain the tower at their cost.  He related that in March 2018, some of the preliminary work and review was conducted on the property at the city’s cost.  He said that the County had a particular coverage zone that would benefit both the City of Apopka and Lake County, and that if the city had found land within Orange County, there would be no reason to partner with Lake County.  He added that a different Lake County parcel would have to be within that area and that while other sites were considered, the value to the city would diminish with sites further north.  He reiterated that the County owned this particular parcel which also allowed for accommodating the Public Works Department’s needs on S.R. 46. 

Commr. Parks asked if any of the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) right of way was considered as an alternative site and suggested that this could be at no cost to the County.

Mr. Holcomb stated that the City of Apopka was originally considering a CFX property in Orange County, though there were access issues that prevented their use.  He said that CFX property in Lake County was not considered and that he was unsure if there was a property within the desired area that would be conducive to both the county and the city. 

Commr. Breeden asked to clarify if the BCC already approved the agreement with the City of Apopka, which was pending the construction of the tower, and Mr. Holcomb confirmed this had occurred.  She also asked when an environmental study would be conducted for the site.  She also inquired if the County could expect any annual revenue from this project.

Mr. Holcomb replied that some studies had already been accomplished and that it was a requirement.  He explained that any time a tower is built, there are some National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria that must be followed for FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rulings.  He further stated that the land was found to be suitable for the proposed uses and that no issues were discovered.  He then indicated that there was the potential for a cell carrier to approach the County about using the tower, and he remarked that the agreement with the City of Apopka would yield a 50/50 split on funding for the County and the City.  He also said it was discussed at the meeting that the BCC could potentially filter those funds back into the surrounding area for improvements. 

Commr. Campione asked if co-location on a tower with a cell carrier would noticeably change the appearance of the tower.  She also inquired about how much revenue would be generated from a carrier co-locating on the tower.

Mr. Holcomb said that it would change the appearance with an additional bundle of antennas for each carrier, and these would likely be located around the 180 foot mark on the tower.  He stated that based on other leases in the county, revenue could range from $2,000 to $3,000 per month, which would then be evenly split with the City of Apopka. 

Commr. Campione asked about an image shown at the community meeting that helped ascertain the tower’s line of sight from different locations and whether tree mitigation money could be used to vegetate around the tower or rear property lines.

Mr. Holcomb said that staff met with the County Attorney and Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, to discuss this issue.  He noted that there were landscaping mitigation funds available and that Mr. Bonilla indicated he would help to accomplish this.  Mr. Holcomb then stated that there was a natural landscape that was discussed by citizens in the meetings that could be installed along S.R. 46, due to this road lacking the tree canopy that many nearby homes had.  He believed that landscaping would help mitigate the sightline from a vehicle on S.R. 46 and could also improve the area. 

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Martin Francis, a resident of Orange County, said that he owned property near the proposed tower site and that while he agreed with the County’s reasoning behind the tower, he expressed concerns about his property depreciating in value.  He also expressed concerns about cell carriers being placed on the tower and he suggested to let the City of Apopka construct a tower without the county’s assistance.

Mr. Jeff Albright, a resident of Lake County, relayed that many residents were complaining about the location of the tower rather than the tower itself.  He said that he had been in contact with another community member who was willing to allow approximately 10 acres of land they owned to be used for the tower construction in exchange for any revenue generated by the tower.  He noted that it would take additional time for this resident to consider the details of this endeavor, and he commented that this site would be adjacent to C.R. 453. 

Commr. Breeden asked if the resident’s property was in Orange or Lake County, and Mr. Albright confirmed that it was in Orange County.

Commr. Campione relayed that she had a brief phone conversation with this individual and asked for the property’s alternate key number, though she had not been contacted with this information. 

Mr. Albright said he was recently told that the resident was still interested and looking to move forward, though they did not know that the rezoning case would occur this soon.  He stated that the property owner was investigating how to make property available to the County and the associated benefits and consequences.  He asked for an extension of time to consider other locations for the tower.

Ms. Lynne Thornton, a resident of Mount Plymouth, distributed copies of the petition signed by residents who opposed the tower to the BCC.  She opined that the notification cards for the community meeting did not provide enough detail and lacked an accurate description of the proposed tower site.  She noted that only one person contacted did not sign the petition, and she expressed concern with the roughly 80 percent residential setback variance and the approximate 60 percent tower separation setback variance.  She said that the current R-6 zoning was incompatible with a tower and opined that there was not enough room on the parcel to house one.  She related that her property was located closest to the cell tower at about 350 feet from the tower itself and around 240 feet back from the closest guy wire.  She indicated concerns with being at this distance from the tower due to hazards, and she opined that nearby towers can cause an average of a 20 percent loss in nearby property values.  She opined that other County-owned properties could house the tower and that the difference in the loss of adjacent property values would be roughly equivalent to the additional cost to the County for another site.  She opined that mortgages can also be denied based on a property’s proximity to a tower and that insurance can be cancelled for the same reason.  She also said that most of the lots around the site would be able to see the structure from their backyards.

Ms. Frances Nipe, a resident of Mount Plymouth, expressed that an online survey of nearby residents indicated that 80 percent of respondents opposed the tower.  She opined that Lake Edwards was not the best location for a cell tower and she asked why the County neglected to choose a site that would not require significant variances.  She also opined that a tower site should be about 2,600 feet wide and roughly 5,000 feet from another tower.  She stated that the proposed site would require two variances of 80 percent and 60 percent reduced setbacks, and she relayed that the Planning and Zoning Board has expressed that they were unaware of the BCC ever approving an approximate 1,000 foot setback, particularly adjacent to residences.  She suggested selecting a site that would not impact the Town of Sorrento’s main street and village center, and she said that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) had been attempting to improve the aesthetics of Sorrento Avenue and that the standards were modeled after the City of Clermont’s.  She remarked that the City of Clermont limited cell tower heights to approximately 140 feet and she opined that Lake Edwards should remain a conservation area.  She expressed concerns that the tower would be harmful to migratory birds in the conservation area, and said that Lake Edwards could eventually become an important passive park within walking distance of the nearby village center.  She also said that Lake Edwards has an elevation of  around 55 feet and that surrounding land was higher with the west side being about 145 feet, and this would require the tower to be taller in order to compensate for this.  She asked the BCC to deny the request or to postpone it to allow for further investigation of potential sites.

Commr. Breeden asked if the proposed tower was similar in design to the tower located adjacent to the LCSO.  She also inquired if it would be straight and narrow if no cell carriers were added to it.  She also asked if it would be possible to rotate the guywires on the site so that they would not be as close to nearby properties.

Mr. Holcomb confirmed this, stating that it would be a guy wire tower with a small footprint and three guy anchors on the ground.  He said that there would still be four microwave dishes at about eight feet in width each.  He relayed that staff had attempted to bring the tower as close as possible to the retention pond and that the tower could not be rotated, as that would place a guy wire in the retention pond.  He said that the tower could be redesigned if necessary, but this would have to consider the retention pond.

Commr. Campione inquired that if cell carriers were not allowed on the tower, would staff have to reevaluate if the City of Apopka would agree to that as a condition. 

Mr. Holcomb stated that this was an option and there was no intention to market the tower for cellular coverage.  He said that the City would not take issue with neglecting to market the tower for cell carriers. 

Ms. Karen Moss, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, asked the BCC to postpone this case until more sites were investigated.  She opined that there was access to the CFX site from C.R. 437 and she said that a variance sign was only posted for the proposed tower a few weeks prior.  She also inquired that if the County was aware of this development for the previous three years, why were the neighbors only informed recently. 

Commr. Sullivan clarified that the rezoning case had begun in March 2018 and that it would have to occur before the tower could be built.

Commr. Breeden noted that the plan was dated 2015.

Mr. Holcomb commented that the year 2015 corresponded to the City of Apopka’s original plan when they were considering the Orange County site.  He further clarified that the date on the map for Lake Edwards was not changed from 2015.

Mr. Randall Fernandez, Deputy Chief for the Apopka Police Department, related that the City met with CFX about a number of properties and that there were issues such as ensuring that the property has the correct coverage and the correct footprint.  He said that this property was around the county line but it abutted a conservation site that could not be crossed, there was no easement from Lake County to access the property, and the highway would not allow routine access. 

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that the highway was close to the property but would not provide access.

Mr. Fernandez confirmed that and indicated that the City considered other nearby properties and City-owned properties.  He said there was due diligence on the Orange County side from the City and in Lake County with County staff.  He noted that there were many factors to consider when placing a tower and that there was ample time to determine that the proposed site would be appropriate. 

Ms. Moss asked why there was no access to the CFX site from C.R. 437 and also asked that the issue be postponed to consider other factors.

Mr. Fernandez stated that there was a piece of that property that abutted the highway and could not be accessed from that highway.  He relayed that CFX typically purchases property to install a road and not necessarily to allow access from elsewhere.  He commented that there was no access due to state mandates on the property from the C.R. 437 side, and he remarked that although there was an easement from the property into Lake County, CFX did not purchase the easement.  He stated that there were also restrictions on the property.  He reiterated that there had been due diligence in both Lake and Orange County to find the best property for both entities. 

Commr. Campione asked that if there had been access to the CFX property, would they have allowed the City of Apopka to utilize it at no charge.

Mr. Fernandez responded that the City would have had to purchase the property because there was no need for CFX to place a tower on it and it was surplus property.  He also reiterated that access would have to be created if the City was able to purchase it.  He said that the City began cooperating with the County to find a mutually beneficial and fiscally responsible site.

Commr. Campione stated that just because one government entity owns property does not necessarily mean that they would allow another entity to use it at no cost.

Commr. Parks stated that he had been a CFX Board member and that the organization engaged in friendly intergovernmental coordination. 

Ms. Moss relayed that Ms. Catherine Hanson, a former Lake County Commissioner, had talked to Ms. Jennifer Sullivan, a Florida State Representative from Lake County, who said that County staff should contact her to discuss the property.

Mr. Steve Bolduc, a resident of Lake County, asked why the tower could not be located further east near the S.R. 429 exit on S.R. 46 due to available land in that area.  He relayed that he attended the community meeting about the issue and received a map with two circles indicating where the tower would have to be located to service the targeted area, and he inquired where the tower was located that the proposed tower would be communicating with.  He said that the closest tower was located at 1100 Rock Springs Road in the City of Apopka and that the only other 350 foot tower west of Mt. Plymouth would be in Zellwood.  He displayed a map showing that the closest 300 foot communication tower in the City of Apopka was located just north of the city center, which was directly south of Mt. Plymouth.  He stated that Lake County owned approximately 200 acres of land on the east side of S.R. 429 and he opined that the County had planned to purchase additional land near S.R. 46 and Camp Challenge.  He remarked that there was a park project at the Neighborhood Lakes Reserve and that the tower could potentially be placed near the project. 

Mr. Albright asked how long there was a gap in safety for the area and what was the County’s plan to research the issue before the City of Apopka approached them about the tower. 

Mr. Holcomb replied that placing a tower in that location was included in the County’s five year plan for funding and that if the tower was built in Orange County instead, there would be no reason for the City of Apopka to offer the County any concessions.  He also said that Lake County would have still required a tower at that location.  He commented that infrastructure would be installed to communicate with a tower in the City of Apopka and that the proposed project would cost about $2.7 million.  He clarified that the two circles on Mr. Bolduc’s map represented coverage areas for Lake County and the City of Apopka, with the proposed tower site being within the circles’ overlapping area. 

Commr. Campione asked if there were other service gaps in Lake County that were considered in the five year plan.

Mr. Holcomb responded that there were several service gaps and that when considering the growth in areas such as the City of Minneola and along S.R. 50, the County identified about five towers in high growth areas to address public safety.

Commr. Campione inquired that if the CFX site would be appropriate for the City of Apopka to construct a tower and that if it was hypothetically in a zone that would help Lake County, would the County benefit from the tower or would the County’s own infrastructure have to be placed on the tower.

Mr. Holcomb said that the County would have to place infrastructure on the City of Apopka’s tower and that the proposed site would have both entities’ infrastructure.  He elaborated that the tower would initially use the City’s equipment because they would fund it, though the County would later request funding for its own infrastructure.  He also confirmed that the City of Apopka utilizing the CFX site for their own use would not solve the county’s gap in service.

Commr. Sullivan said that the County just went out to bid for a new radio system to stay current with technology, and he stated that technology had not been able to change the logistics of where towers must be placed. 

Mr. Holcomb commented that towers are based on physics and that while a tower may cover open land, developed land with increased densities requires closer infrastructure. 

Commr. Campione requested a picture of how the tower would appear.

Mr. Holcomb displayed a picture of the tower’s design and described it as a guy wire tower with four microwave dishes with antennas located at the top.  He said that if a cell carrier was added to the tower, their infrastructure would reside below or around the fourth lowest microwave dish.  He explained that cellular infrastructure typically resides around 120 to 160 feet, and he indicated that there were 106 towers in Lake County with 18 of them used for public safety and the rest used for cellular services.  He noted that cellular towers are generally closer in density and that this allows them to be lower in height. 

Commr. Blake disclosed that he met with Ms. Nipe, Ms. Thornton and Ms. Moss on the previous day, along with receiving some emails about the matter, and he asked if the tower would encumber future zoning options for the neighboring properties.

Mr. McClendon responded that potential zoning for adjacent residences would not be affected by the tower site.

Commr. Blake brought up the citizens’ concerns about the notices for the proposed rezoning, and he mentioned that they were not required to be sent out.  He clarified that the legal notices placed in the newspaper had an accurate description and a map of the tower’s proposed location.  He asked if the tower’s potential effect on property values was known.  He opined that he would not want a local government to benefit from a reduction on residents’ property values unless it was necessary. 

Mr. Holcomb expressed that staff researched the issue and found examples.  He displayed an image of a cell tower site in the City of Leesburg and relayed that the values of six parcels directly adjacent to the tower were analyzed.  He explained that this tower was constructed in the year 2015 and that after considering the property values two years prior to and after the construction of the tower, parcels lost value in 2013 and 2014 with no tower on the site.  He also noted an increase in value for each of the six parcels in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, and he communicated that this tower was around 250 feet in height, though there were no tree canopies on the parcels to obstruct the tower’s visibility.  He displayed an image with another example, stating that this tower was in the City of Winter Garden in Lake County and on the border of Orange County.  He further explained that this was a broadcast site consisting of five towers with some of them reaching heights of approximately 400 feet, which would be taller than the proposed tower.  He said that another five year analysis was conducted for property values on adjacent parcels and that from the year 2013 to the year 2017, no significant effect on value was observed. 

Commr. Blake asked to confirm that this data was from the Lake County Property Appraiser.

Mr. Holcomb confirmed that it was from the Property Appraiser’s tax assessment.

Commr. Breeden asked when this group of towers was constructed.

Mr. Holcomb replied that construction began near the year 2002 and that the first residential parcel there was also developed around that time. 

Commr. Campione expressed concerns about the marketability of houses located adjacent to towers.  She said that towers were located near the main streets of other towns and that some towers were located adjacent to high value residences.  She hoped that improvements would be made to the streetscape of the Town of Sorrento’s main street and that businesses would develop there, and she opined that the proposed tower would not affect this.  She voiced her concern for the neighbors of the proposed tower and if its impact could be mitigated with trees, such as a 50 foot wide swathe of heavily planted trees behind the property boundaries. 

Commr. Breeden asked if the tower could be reengineered so that the guy wires would be further from the adjacent homes.

Mr. Holcomb replied that staff would consider this suggestion.

Commr. Campione opined that having less infrastructure on the tower would lessen its impact and she indicated concerns with hosting carriers on it.  She expressed interest in utilizing the land of a property owner near Haas Road, and she suggested allowing 30 days to further investigate the CFX parcel and the resident’s parcels. 

Commr. Parks desired for all of the alternatives to be vetted, including the CFX land.  He also voiced support for a 30 day delay.

Commr. Campione asked if Commissioner Parks could investigate land owned by CFX and she said that any potential cooperation with the property owner who was offering their land must materialize in the near future. 

Commr. Breeden opined that for the property owner that was seeking income for the use of their land, that the frontend income should come to the County and then income would go to the property owner.

Commr. Campione said that she considered it to be similar to a lease situation and that having multiple cell carriers on the tower would generate income for them.

Mr. Holcomb stated that both the CFX site and the property on Haas Road were located in Orange County, and using either of these sites would negate the County’s agreement with the City of Apopka.  He noted that the City had previously expressed an interest in purchasing property for the tower and that they were uninterested in a lease. 

Commr. Sullivan opined that communication technology was changing drastically and that the towers may not retain their value.

Mr. John Moss, a citizen of Mt. Plymouth, asked the County to not partner with the City of Apopka and also inquired if any of the land for the current 18 public safety towers was owned by the County.

Mr. Holcomb replied that most of the land was leased or shared. He related that for the Seminole Forest tower that services the Town of Sorrento to the north, the County was partnering with the Florida Forestry Service at a cost of $300 per year. 

Mr. Moss suggested that the partnership with the City of Apopka be abandoned and that the County should build a nineteenth tower themselves.  She also recommended postponing the case to consider additional locations.

Mr. Holcomb said that the tower would have to be in the same general location.

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

Commr. Parks suggested that other properties would be investigated, though there was an opportunity for cost savings with the City of Apopka.

Mr. Holcomb remarked that the County had a law enforcement and fire rescue partnership with the City of Apopka and that this would become more critical as the population of both areas continues to grow.  He noted that even excluding the cost savings, sharing sites and resources was still suitable for the public safety response. 

Commr. Breeden mentioned that delaying this case would also be delaying the provision of public safety infrastructure.

Commr. Sullivan summarized that these three options had been presented: delay the case; request to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board’s denial; or accept staff’s recommendation to approve the case.  He opined that the greater public good would be to partner with the City of Apopka and move forward with the tower.  He said that he had attended the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA meetings and that it was a great community, and he did not see a concern for the devaluation of property.  He stated that this would enhance the public safety offered in the area and would be a good way to meet the area’s needs as it continues to grow. 

Commr. Campione opined that this was a challenging case when considering both the critical needs of public safety responders and the residents’ comments.  She noted that this case was spurred by a law enforcement officer responding to a call within the service gap who lost their life due to the inability to communicate with dispatchers or other officers.  She stated that there were already numerous visual impacts from infrastructure and that towers were a commonly observed structure.  She also agreed with Commissioner Blake’s thought that a small number of residents should not have to bear the burden for a public service.  She said that there was no guarantee that the tower would only have positive impact; however, many other homes coexist with towers and other large infrastructure.  She suggested a 30 day delay to explore further options with CFX and other potential properties, but that the BCC would have to move forward with the tower location if no other options were viable at that time. 

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, clarified that the September 25, 2018 BCC meeting would have a rezoning agenda. 

Commr. Parks said that he would immediately begin work to determine if the CFX site could be a viable location.

Commr. Breeden asked if the City of Apopka would accept a 30 day delay.

Mr. Fernandez replied that they wanted to cooperate with the Lake County community.  He also indicated concerns with funding and if using the CFX property or private property would be a purchase, and said that these factors were unknown and not tied to the current agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board postponed Tab 2, Rezoning Case # FLU-18-09-4, LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower Small Scale Map Amendment – Adoption, and Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-18-06-4, LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower Rezoning, to the September 25, 2018 BCC meeting.

Commr. Sullivan voted no.

Ordinance 2018-36 parking prohibited in specific places

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 15-6, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED “PARKING PROHIBITED IN SPECIFIC PLACES”; MOVING RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING IN SPACES RESERVED FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED INDIVIDUALS FROM SECTION 15-7 TO SECTION 15-6; AMENDING AND RETITLING SECTION 15-7 TO BE ENTITLED “MAXIMUM RATES FOR TOWING SERVICES AND STORAGE”; ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM TOWING RATES; AMENDING SECTION 15-8 ENTITLED “REMOVING AND IMPOUNDING OF ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES” TO PROHIBIT ABANDONED OR UNATTENDED VEHICLES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Garrett Paquette, with Car Store Towing, said that the maximum towing rate would define the rate structure difference of private property when compared to public property and to help them provide services to keep roads open.  He noted that he supported the ordinance as written and that he had the support of other towing companies.  He commented that the ordinance was necessary per the Florida Statutes and that it would set the maximum towing rates rather than the minimum.  He opined that most towers would not charge the maximum amount, though the ordinance would still protect the motoring public in the county.  He thanked the Board for their work on this ordinance.

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 by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-36 amending Section 15-6, Lake County Code, entitled “Parking prohibited in specific places;” moving restrictions on parking in spaces reserved for physically disabled individuals from Section 15-7 to Section 15-6; amending and retitling Section 15-7 to be entitled “Maximum Rates for Towing Services and Storage” establishing maximum towing rates; and amending Section 15-8 entitled “Removing and Impounding Illegally Parked Vehicles” to prohibit abandoned or unattended vehicles on public property.

Commr. Breeden was not present for the vote.

ordinance 2018-37 signage standards

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 SECTION 15.02.06 TO REMOVE THE PROVISION PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING DIGITAL OR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE (LED) SIGNS FROM CHANGING SIGN COPY MORE THAN ONCE IN A TWENTY-FOUR HOUR PERIOD; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-37 amending Section 15.02.06 of the Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, entitled "Signage Standards," to remove the provision prohibiting pre-existing digital or light-emitting diode signs from changing sign copy more than once in a 24-hour period.

public hearing – american eagle delaware holding company

Ms. Marsh stated that the American Eagle Delaware Holding Company was purchasing a portfolio of assisted living facilities across the country.  She noted that one of the facilities was located in the City of Leesburg and that in order to receive their tax-exempt bonds, the company was required to have the jurisdiction hold a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) hearing.  She related that the County would not be issuing the bonds and would not pay any issuance fees; rather, the company would be performing this.  She remarked that the hearing would allow the public to comment on the matter before tax-exempt bonds are granted by a private issuer.

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 unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2018-131 for the issuance of the Senior Living Revenue Bonds (American Eagle Portfolio Project), Series 2018 in the principle amount of  $275,000,000, for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.

public hearing – fiscal year 2019 infrastructure sales tax plan

Ms. Barker presented the fiscal year (FY) 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax project plan.  She displayed a slide showing the projected revenue for the next five years with an estimated total of approximately $88 million.  She noted that the current public hearing would focus on the FY 2019 project plan and commented that the estimated revenue for FY 2019 was about $16.5 million.  She detailed revenue projections for these categories in FY 2019: $4.14 million for quality of life; $4.9 million for public works; $5.41 million for public safety; $350,000 for debt service; and $2.42 million for other infrastructure projects with a total estimated funding amount of approximately $17.22 million including roughly $720,000 that was being carried forward from FY 2018 for unfinished projects.  She listed these FY 2019 public safety projects: Sheriff vehicles and equipment; Lake EMS capital; fire station replacements; fire station renovations; fire apparatus, vehicles and equipment; and a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system, with public safety radio replacements being funded in later years.  She then listed these quality of life projects for FY 2019; East Lake Community Park phase 1; North Lake Community Park; Northwest Lake Community Park; Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural Reserve (PEAR) Park; South Lake and Hancock Trails; Lake Idamere Park; South Lake Regional Park; Ferndale Preserve; and various other land and trail improvements.  She noted that the Minneola recreation partnership was added to the project list following the previous BCC meeting, but was currently unfunded.  She outlined these projects for public works with FY 2019 funding: road resurfacing and improvements; intersection improvements; sidewalks; Max Hooks Road improvements and utilities; the landfill cell closure; purchase of land adjacent to the landfill; and solid waste capital equipment.  She said that for other public infrastructure projects in FY 2019, there were vehicle purchases, information technology (IT) improvements, capital building renovations, funding the purchase of the Lake County Tax Collector building and courthouse renovations.  She stated that the final category was the County’s debt service for FY 2019 at approximately $350,000, and this would represent the first payment associated with the financing of the new Lake County Animal Shelter and the purchase of new public safety radios. 

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Infrastructure Sales Tax Project Plan.

public hearing – ordinance for definition of a kennel

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; CHAPTER II; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF A KENNEL; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Marsh clarified that this was the first public hearing for this ordinance and that if it was approved at the current meeting, it would return for adoption at the next BCC meeting.

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. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved an ordinance amending Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, Chapter II, amending the definition of a "Kennel."

Commr. Parks was not present for the vote.

presentation – fiscal year 2019 proposed budget

Ms. Barker presented the FY 2019 proposed budget update which would include the new Office of EMS.  She said that the Property Appraiser certified the property values for FY 2019 on July 1, 2018 and that there was a 10.1 percent increase for the countywide millage including the General Fund, the ambulance municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) and the public lands-voted debt.  She also noted that the stormwater, roads and parks MSTU had an 8 percent increase and the fire rescue MSTU had an 8.01 percent increase.  She recalled that on July 10, 2018, the BCC approved a maximum millage rate of 5.118 for the general fund, and the presented budget totaled $383,772,205 with an operating budget of $304,460,132.  She stated that the July 10, 2018 approved budget would fully fund the Judicial Support, the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, the Property Appraiser, the Supervisor of Elections, the Medical Examiner and the Tax Collector.  She specified that the Tax Collector’s budget was based on the FY 2018 adopted budget and that their FY 2019 adopted budget had since been received by the County.  She added that the July 10, 2018 approved budget included an additional $3 million to the Sheriff over the FY 2018 adopted budget, an additional $380,384 for the Sheriff’s in-house support, and approximately $500,000 was added to the reserves.  She reviewed these changes which had been made to the County departments and offices budget since the July 10, 2018 BCC meeting: incorporated performance based raises for employees of up to three percent per employee; updated fund balance and revenue projections; updated the Infrastructure Sales Tax project plan with the debt service for the animal shelter and public safety radios; added the Office of EMS; and other miscellaneous changes and corrections.  She noted that the budget was still a working document and would not be final until the public hearing on September 25, 2018. 

Mr. Cole clarified that the performance based raises were to be funded with the savings that was realized on the County side of the budget.

Ms. Barker then listed these changes to the Constitutional Offices budget since the July 10, 2018 BCC meeting: adjustments to the salaries for the Supervisor of Elections; updated the Sheriff’s budget to reflect revised contract amounts for services that he provides throughout the community, such as dispatch or police services; and the Tax Collector’s requested budget was incorporated after being submitted on July 31, 2018.  She stated that the updated FY 2019 proposed budget total was $408,021,012 which was an increase of $24,248,807 over the July 10, 2018 proposed budget, and she noted that 86 percent of the increase was due to the County adding the Office of EMS into the budget at a total of nearly $21 million.  She said that the remaining increase could be attributed to the County re-budgeting some capital projects that would not be completed in the current year so that their funding could be carried forward into the next year.  She remarked that the reserve balance was currently about $9.4 million, which was 7.32 percent of the operating budget.  She explained that the Board policy provided for a reserve balance goal of seven to twelve percent of the operating budget and currently, the reserves had $416,114 in excess of the Board policy minimum.  She said that the Office of EMS would become part of the Public Safety and Compliance offices and that the director for the Office of EMS would report directly to Mr. John Molenda, Assistant County Manager.  She indicated that within the Office of EMS would be the EMS administration and the field operations portion, and that the current emergency dispatch and logistics functions would be incorporated into the Office of Public Safety Support under Mr. Holcomb’s direction.  She stated that the Office of EMS, emergency dispatch and logistics were funded through the ambulance MSTU, charges for services and other miscellaneous items such as interest earnings.  She said that the current FY 2019 projected revenue from all sources was approximately $20.8 million and that the current proposed FY 2019 budget for the Office of EMS included these items: $14.6 million for personal services; $4.9 million for operating expenses; approximately $768,000 for capital outlay; and $500,000 in reserves for operations, for a total of about $20.8 million.  She noted that the reserve amount of $500,000 reflected the savings that the County generated through efficiencies identified during the transition process.  She concluded that for the next steps, there would be the first budget public hearing on September 11, 2018 at 5:05 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, and the final budget hearing would occur on September 25, 2018 at 5:05 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room.

Commr. Breeden recommended adding a position that would likely be funded by the approximate $519,000 that would be placed into reserves.  She said that the BCC received an email from Ms. Barbara Wheeler, Executive Director for the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, which indicated concerns that the County would not apply for continuum of care vouchers for the homeless population.  She said that the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition provides Lake, Hernando, Citrus and Sumter Counties with continuum of care services for providing vouchers to homeless individuals and families.  She indicated that if the vouchers were not applied for, Mid Florida Homeless Coalition would lose them for the entire region.  She relayed that the Housing and Community Development Division previously had six full time Section 8 case managers, though they currently only had two.  She elaborated that those two staff were managing 475 Section 8 vouchers that come directly to Lake County, and an additional 100 vouchers there were obtained from other areas when residents bring the vouchers with them as they move to the county.  She specified that this equated to roughly 290 cases per staff member and that the continuum of care vouchers require additional case management and staff due to originating from HUD.  She stated that she would support adding an additional position for a case manager qualified as a program associate and the full cost would be $49,211. 

Commr. Campione asked to clarify if the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition would lose vouchers for the entire region.  She also asked to clarify if these particular vouchers would come to the County and if the new position would serve as a case manager for administering the vouchers. 

Commr. Breeden confirmed that this would be the case and that the new position would help lighten the burden on the other case managers. 

Commr. Campione said that the vouchers could be used for military veterans, elderly individuals, children that have aged out of foster care, and that the vouchers would only be available to these individuals for a limited period of time. 

Ms. Keedy clarified that chronically homeless individuals chosen by the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition would receive the vouchers.  She explained that these individuals often have mental illnesses and co-occurring drug or alcohol abuse issues, and there are additional requirements from the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition to manage them.  She relayed that these individuals often miss their appointments, which would require staff to find them and bring them to the appointments, and that this was unique when compared to other voucher programs.

Commr. Campione said that the voucher program was for a maximum of one year, came through the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, and was intended to help individuals find employment and permanent housing.  She stated that this worked with the housing first model which helps individuals gain access to permanent housing as a solution to homelessness.  She commented that the vouchers would be for Lake County residents and that there were chronic homeless in many cities, particularly the Cities of Leesburg and Eustis.  She expressed her support for the vouchers as another tool to address homelessness.

Commr. Breeden suggested to make a formal request to the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition indicating that the County expects the vouchers to be used for Lake County residents. 

Commr. Sullivan clarified that the vouchers would be specific to Lake County.

Commr. Campione mentioned that Lake County did not affect the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition’s program with other counties, though without these vouchers, there would be no funding to address the chronically homeless in Lake County.  She summarized that the money would be received from HUD and that the County would require staff to administer it. 

Commr. Breeden reiterated that the current case managers were heavily burdened and that the new staff would not solely be managing the new voucher cases. 

Commr. Parks asked that since there were constraints on the General Fund, could the cities help provide funding, or could the position be on a year-by-year basis with the cities helping to fund it in the first year. 

Ms. Keedy replied that it would depend on if the cities were approached and willing to assist with the position. 

Commr. Campione suggested that the cities could also assist with developing a community emergency shelter.

Commr. Breeden opined that the County should withdraw the grant request if the position is not funded because the current staff could not take on the additional burden.

Commr. Parks asked if any other state grants had been considered.

Ms. Keedy responded that staff had not considered other grants and that this item was applied for within a limited period of time, which was why retroactive approval was granted.

Commr. Campione said that this was a rare opportunity to tap into federal funding.  She stated that another possibility was obtaining Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to help with a shelter and shelter operations, or to partner with a not for profit organization or with LifeStream Behavioral Center for a homeless shelter.  She clarified that these vouchers were to be utilized for helping the chronic homeless access permanent housing, while a shelter would provide an immediate emergency need before helping them access social services.  She noted that these vouchers represent one of those social services and that these factors are intertwined. 

Commr. Sullivan summarized that homelessness was an issue in the county and that efforts have been made to relieve it.  He said that the vouchers would be a program that would assist at least 10 individuals with receiving a continuum of care.  He opined that this would be part of the County’s larger strategy to identify homelessness and move those individuals into permanent housing and that this should be conducted by utilizing available state and federal programs, though the appropriate personnel must be available to administer it.  He opined that the County should have this personnel and use this program.

Commr. Campione said that if the County could administer the vouchers, then the County should take the lead on moving forward with discussions about how to develop a communitywide shelter by utilizing city partnerships.

Commr. Blake asked if the County had received this grant before and what the success rate was.

Ms. Keedy replied that the grant had been received before and that the success rate was low.  She said that ten vouchers had been previously received and that only six of them were used currently.

Commr. Blake recalled that Mr. Jon Cherry, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of LifeStream Behavioral Center, indicated that some drug addiction patients must undergo rehabilitation programs up to nine times before positive results are yielded.  He expressed concern about drawing resources from another program that would have a higher rate of success to allocate it to a case worker for a program with a lower chance for success. 

Commr. Campione clarified that the hired case worker would also be assisting with other cases, and opined that four or five voucher recipients out of ten being successful would represent a positive outcome.

Commr. Breeden stated that the case manager for the vouchers would work closely with LifeStream Behavioral Center.

Ms. Keedy confirmed that LifeStream was a partner for these cases and would help provide services. 

Commr. Sullivan noted a majority consensus to hire an additional case worker and said that the position could be added to the budget and brought back for approval.

Mr. Cole indicated that staff needed to understand that the BCC’s consensus was to add the position to the budget that would be considered at the September 11, 2018 public hearing.  He said that no vote would be required at the current time.

Commr. Parks requested that the position be added to the budget, but that due to the budget constraints on the General Fund, he wanted to consider some options with the cities and gather more information before the September 11, 2018 public hearing.

Commr. Campione suggested discussing the issue with the LCSO and other law enforcement personnel because they were also having to help address the issue of homelessness.

Commr. Breeden noted that Ms. Keedy had provided her with information that could be shared with the other Commissioners. 

Ms. Keedy indicated that additional information could be provided by her department.

Mr. Cole said that staff would add the approximate $49,000 for the case manager position and benefits to the proposed budget from the $416,114 that the BCC currently had in excess of the Board policy for reserves.

regular agenda

strategy evaluation & update of 1992 solid waste master plan

Ms. Mary Hamilton, Environmental Services Manager, presented the solid waste potential long term strategies.  She said that the current hauler contracts began in October 2014 and would expire in September 2021.  She added that the BCC had an option for a three year renewal and that the haulers would have until September 2019 to notify the County if they do not choose to renew; furthermore, the County would have until March 2021 to notify the haulers if no renewal would be requested.  She said that the disposal contract was a separate agreement that the County had with Heart of Florida Environmental and Waste Connections.  She commented that the disposal contract had a similar timeframe as the hauler contracts, though the County would have until the final year to notify the companies if it would not be disposing at those locations.  She said that at the March 2018 BCC strategies workshop, some of the long term concepts that were identified included other outside disposal options, the expansion of the landfill, and opening the County’s 19 acre cell.  She also mentioned that additional diversification options included recycling and landfill privatization.  She specified that for exploring other outside disposal options, one consideration would be negotiating a tipping fee for possible disposal at Covanta Lake again, though this could not occur before October 2021 due to a contract with Heart of Florida Environmental.  She remarked that with Covanta Lake’s current rate of $42 per ton, it would not be cost effective when compared to the rate of $19 per ton with Heart of Florida Environmental.  She displayed a map showing a potential purchase of a property near the county landfill and relayed that this item would return at a later date for the BCC’s consideration.  She then mentioned another strategy of evaluating a landfill expansion and she showed a map of the current landfill, noting cell 3B was in the southern portion but was currently unused.  She added that the six acre cell 3A in the northeastern area of the property was funded for closure.  She remarked that the area between these cells could serve as disposal areas if these requirements were met: purchasing the additional adjacent property to the west; moving the stormwater facilities to the purchased parcel; and conducting additional grading.  She elaborated on the option for opening the 19 acre cell to the south of the current property, reiterating that this could not occur before October 2021, which is when the County’s hauler and disposal contracts would be expiring.  She relayed that an estimated $900,000 would be required to bring the cell into compliance, to obtain the needed equipment, and to hire staff to operate it, though there would also be an anticipated $1 million savings that would no longer be paid to Heart of Florida Environmental.  She also noted that some additional revenue could be generated from residential and small business customers, and the County would have to reevaluate the tipping fee of $27.50 to ensure that it would be competitive in the market and generate the required revenue.  She said that another option would be to issue a request for proposal (RFP) to privatize the landfill operations completely with the options to have a private entity purchase or lease the property, and to have convenience centers and household hazardous waste potentially be included with the transaction.  She stated that recycling was currently a challenge and that in 2013 and 2014, China was the largest market for the United States to send recyclable materials to.  She elaborated that China later indicated that much of the waste was contaminated and that they were experiencing an environmental problem, so they recently ceased the acceptance of many materials.  She commented that local haulers had ample recyclable materials and that the County granted approval for them to take those materials to Covanta Lake in 2016 with at least two haulers currently taking materials there.  She added that another challenge was the long term care situation, and she displayed a slide listing the County’s facilities that were currently in long term care, noting Central Landfill phase 3 which would have to be closed shortly.  She noted that these facilities were generally 20 or 30 year ventures and that even if the County sold or did not utilize them, they were still obligations that would have to be funded and managed.  She showed a list of items that would be managed under long term care, including mowing, water quality monitoring, stabilization reports, leachate collection to be inspected and managed, and landfill gas migration.  She added that these items were funded by a transfer through the normal solid waste 4200 fund to the 4220 fund, and the long term care reserves would be depleted in FY 2020.  She said that another challenge was the landfill phase 3A closure, and that a five year closure permit was issued in the year 2016 and the cell would need to be closed by 2021.  She said that the closure funds had been budgeted in sales tax and that the long term care obligations would be a 30 year window after the cell is closed.  She remarked that the Solid Waste Master Plan had not been updated since the year 1992, usually covers a 20 year planning period, is recommended to be updated every five years to address issues such as those with the China market, and considers diversification.  She displayed a list of elements that a Solid Waste Master Plan would include and would be proposed to be updated in the County’s plan, and she requested approval for S2Li Consulting to evaluate the potential long term strategies and update the Solid Waste Master Plan.  She elaborated that the project would be implemented in the FY 2019 budget, was in the sales tax fund, and was not to exceed $195,000.  She encouraged Board questions and direction on items that should not be evaluated or items that should be added for consideration. 

Commr. Campione opined that for the Covanta Lake rate, the consultant should consider the possibility of reworking the hauling.  She stated that the presented rate was based on current hauling practices and perhaps a different rate could be negotiated.  She also opined that the landfill should not be expanded, though she supported purchasing land adjacent to the landfill so that it would be a future option.  She expressed concerns about how citizens of the City of Tavares would respond to the land being used as a landfill for residential waste due to pollution.  She also mentioned concerns about long term care for the landfill, though she reiterated that having the adjacent land available would be beneficial.  She said that the parcel could have other uses, such as for a fairground, and that prudently planning improvements would enable this type of use.

Commr. Parks asked how long a 19 acre landfill would last at current levels of demand.

Ms. Hamilton replied that based on current volumes of waste, it would last for 15 or 16 years. 

Commr. Parks suggested considering Covanta Lake’s services, though the presented rate was similar to the rate a few years prior.  He asked that for the Chinese policy change, if staff could investigate how other countries responded to it.  He said that this was an economic issue and that if there was a resurgence in the use of recycled materials in the United States, it could affect the use of the landfill.

Ms. Hamilton relayed that the consultant would have information to provide the BCC on this matter.

Commr. Breeden opined that the waste should be burned at Covanta Lake rather than placed in an ocean and that all options were worth considering.

Commr. Parks pointed out that there are also environmental issues with mercury in incinerators.  He stated that the only way to reduce the problem was to reduce the stream of waste being disposed of. 

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved authorizing S2Li Consulting to evaluate the long-term strategies and update the 1992 Solid Waste Master Plan.

approval of transit development plan

Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Richard Dreyer, with Tindale Oliver, would be presenting this item.  He said that in March 2018, the BCC asked staff to conduct an analysis of the County’s transit operations, and staff issued a competitive procurement in summer 2018 to identify an appropriate consultant. He elaborated that on September 25, 2018, staff would request the BCC’s authorization to hire a consultant to conduct the analysis with FY 2019 funding.  He said that this analysis was not directly related to the current Transit Development Plan (TDP) item on the agenda today, though the timing of the TDP would be beneficial as its components could be used as the foundation for the operational analysis that staff would be conducting.  He commented that staff procured Tindale Oliver in March 2018 to update the TDP, which is required by FDOT every five years as a condition of receiving state funding, and the County can also use this to leverage for federal funding.  He reiterated that Mr. Dreyer would provide the overview of the TDP and then staff would return in September 2018 for the operational analysis. 

Mr. Dreyer stated that a TDP is not an operating budget that the County would be committing itself to, but is rather a planning document with estimates and assumptions about revenues and expenses.  He said that each year, the County should prepare a progress report to explain why needs and requirements are not met or why the budget was being changed.  He also added that a TDP is not a capital investment program (CIP) that requires purchasing a certain number of items.  He explained that a TDP is a strategic plan that considers the County’s current status, how the County would want to change over 10 years, and the strategies to achieve this.  He specified that a TDP would evaluate these items: demographics; travel behavior; current transit services; how the public views and uses the system; the priorities of residents, the County and the cities; the full transit needs if funding was not limited; and cost-feasible implementation plans.  He reiterated that a TDP was an FDOT requirement to receive their funding and that the block grants were a substantial portion of the County’s budget.  He then stated that a TDP would incorporate best practices from both a state and national perspective, and that TDPs reflect the community’s vision for transit and identifies funding needs with FDOT by requiring an unfunded needs lists to pursue grants.  He remarked that TDPs are collaborative and that there would be cooperation with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and other agencies for job access and to consider the plans, policies and goals of the community.  He also said that a TDP would help set the County’s investment over the next 10 years, though the TDP would be a five year plan to be updated at the end of each plan.  He explained that one of the first steps in developing a TDP is considering baseline conditions in order to determine how to reach goals.  He elaborated that the following items would be considered: current and future populations; the densities of where the population is building at; employment; activity centers such as jobs, medical services, education and retail services; land use and where higher densities would occur; local and regional plans to integrate policies and goals that are important to the communities; traffic flow and patterns; and all of the technology and services that are available.  He stated that the County currently had a transportation system with seven routes generally from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. from Monday through Friday.  He specified that the County charged $1.00 for its regular fare and that there were some passes available to provide a discounted rate.  He displayed a route map, noting central and southern areas of service, and he commented that the existing system had experienced growth of about 30 percent over the past six or seven years which represented steady growth when compared to a recent national trend of decreases.  He expressed that the public outreach for this process was extensive and utilized discussion groups with representatives of job access, education and workforce development.  He elaborated that the outreach also included riders and that his organization conducted interviews with stakeholders and transportation operators, surveys of riders conducted both on and off the buses for at least 568 people, and additional citizens were contacted through social media and email blasts.  He highlighted that feedback from the onboard survey included that over 50 percent of the riders were using the transportation for employment purposes, which he opined was a high percentage in the context of a suburban system.  He added that about a fourth of the riders were using the transportation to go shopping or run errands, and the remainder of riders were accessing different services such as education and medical.  He noted that if transit was not available, the most common answer from citizens was that they would try to find a ride with someone else, though about 31 percent responded that they would not have been able to make the trip.  He relayed that when asking residents about their top three requested improvements, nearly three quarters of the respondents requested either weekend service, later evening service for more job access, or adding more frequency to buses picking up riders.  He said that for public surveys conducted online and at various events, respondents were asked how many of them used the system, with 46 percent indicating that they had not and 12 percent stating they were unaware of the system.  He also remarked that respondents were asked about their most important requested improvements and that while some mentioned weekend hours and greater frequency, a considerable amount suggested to expand the service to different areas.  He suggested that some of the respondents that indicated they did not use the system likely lived in an area that lacked service from the system.  He remarked that his office also conducted a situation appraisal to consider the current environments of policy, work, travel, and the factors that influence both the residents’ mobility and the ability for the transit system to grow and serve the mobility need.  He explained that part of this process was reviewing local policy goals and plans and that 25 plans were reviewed including city Comp Plans, long range plans and vision plans from the community or the County.  He elaborated that this was done to ensure consistency and to develop goals and meet the mobility needs of the community.  He reported that population growth was considered and that the county could expect an estimated 51 percent growth in population over the next 20 or 25 years.  He said that the County should review how to meet these needs and that some cities could experience a population growth of up to 75 percent.  He noted changing diversity within the county with a 146 percent increase from 2010 to 2016 in individuals identifying as Hispanic or Latino for a percentage of 13.8 in 2016.  He also noted that there were currently more households earning less than $10,000 per year and that a significant number of residents were earning less than $50,000; additionally, Lake County’s proportion of households below the poverty level was higher than the state as a whole with a change from 9.6 percent to 13.5 percent between 2010 and 2016.  He commented that his organization utilized many available tools and resources to analyze this information, and that FDOT requires the use of the Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool (TBEST) which is a ridership estimation tool that helps prioritize services.  He relayed that his organization also considered the County’s market share and that the transit orientation index considers populations that traditionally use transit, such as low income, senior citizens and those with low rates of car ownership.  He explained that the density threshold assessment considers areas or populations that would have more propensity to choose the use of transit over their own vehicles if the transit was a premium service or provided a better option for travel time.  He stated that this analysis came together in the form of a needs plan that was unrestricted with regard to funding. He displayed a map of the northern half of the County’s service which included an extension of Route 1A into Marion County with a possible future connection to the Suntrain in the City of Ocala.  He pointed out that the map also included an express route from the City of Leesburg to the City of Clermont on U.S. 27 to help residents’ access to employment.  He also highlighted a proposed flex service in The Villages as a test for additional services, and he noted that when fixed routes are used, complimentary paratransit service must also be provided to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.  He clarified that the flex route and the express route would not require paratransit due to meeting those needs already.  He said that the most commonly used routes, including Route 1, 1A, 2 and 3, should consider increasing frequencies from the current 60 minutes to 30 minutes, along with extending hours from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.to allow for residents to get home from work after closing restaurants or performing similar tasks.  He stated that the frequency on Route 4 to the City of Umatilla would also double its frequency from every two hours to one hour, but not necessarily extending the evening services for the route.  He remarked that Saturday service was considered for these routes at a reduced timeframe, such as from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to test the service and determine if it is warranted.  He showed a map of the southern service and express route to the City of Clermont, reiterating that this route would have few stops to meet the needs of choice riders identified in the density threshold assessment.  He detailed the flex service in The Villages as having different potential shapes, but should service the major attractors such as large retail stores, a medical center or a library, with four or five timed stops on a circulator route.  He mentioned that between those stops, residents could call in and request to be picked up if they are within the service area, and he reiterated that paratransit would not be required with this service.  He opined that this service would be successful in The Villages due to the number of residents there who have retired or do not wish to drive, and that flex service was considered a best practice.  He identified capital infrastructure needs such as sidewalks, more park and ride lots for individuals using the express route, and bus stop improvements.  He then stated that technology and policy improvements could be in the form of enhancing the mobile application’s RouteShout with additional features and providing WiFi on buses.  He said that if funding was not a consideration, about $6.8 million in additional capital needs over the next 10 years would be required and about $4.2 million per year would be required for annual operating costs; however, the needs plan must be considered to prioritize routes and services to apply anticipated revenues.  He said that an evaluation process was conducted to consider alternatives based on public support, public input, stakeholder input, policies, market analysis and connections, with weights assigned to the needs.  He relayed that if funding was available, adding Saturday service would be one of the highest priorities based on the evaluation, and further priorities would be adding more frequent service, adding express service on U.S. 27, and adding flex service, in that order.  He clarified that there was insufficient funding to add each of these services and that the County would be unable to expand services without new local revenues.  He said that it was recommended for the County to maintain its current system and to consider the proposed needs as new funding becomes available.  He suggested to perform a comprehensive operational analysis (COA) to find efficiencies in current operations, to conduct a TDP update by September 1, 2023, and replace all current vehicles.  He elaborated that there was currently insufficient revenue to replace the vehicles without obtaining discretionary grants or additional funding, and he recommended seeking federal Section 5339 grant funds for bus replacements and facility enhancements.  He stated that this would be a 10 year plan requiring about $84 million of operating revenues with approximately 58 percent originating from the federal government, around 20 percent from state funding, and about 15 percent from the General Fund, among other funding sources including fares and fuel reimbursement.  He indicated that the County would locally generate about 22 percent of the revenues needed to operate the system at around $18.3 million over a 10 year period, assuming a three percent annual inflation factor for both revenue and costs.  He said that when adding operating and capital costs over the next 10 years, capital expenditures would be about 13 percent of the budget.  He noted that spikes in the capital expenditures would result from using the federal Section 5339 grants to fund bus replacements.  He mentioned that the state was no longer allowing the leveraging of some funds to soft match funding for example, and while this would not negatively impact the County’s current operations, there would be less future opportunities if new funding was not obtained.  He concluded by listing these next steps: this presentation would be given to the Lake-Sumter MPO on the following day for their information; any comments from the BCC would be addressed; and a final cost feasible plan would be submitted to FDOT by September 1, 2018 to meet their requirements for the block grant.

Commr. Parks asked if Four Corners was considered, as he had received many questions from residents if there would be any connection between Four Corners and the Cities of Clermont and Leesburg.

Mr. Dreyer suggested that some of the residents who would use that route did not respond to the surveys, and he recommended the express route between the Cities of Clermont and Leesburg to help citizens’ access to employment.  He noted that Lynx operated a route near Four Corners and he did not recommend this route at the current time for the county because it was not likely to be cost feasible.  He recommended to continue the consideration of this route as growth continues in the Four Corners area, and he noted that many surveyed individuals requested a route to Lynx that would connect to the City of Orlando.

Commr. Parks stated that this could change in three or four years when considering the development of Wellness Way.

Mr. Dreyer said that these plans are fluid and can be changed on an annual basis.

Commr. Sullivan said that the inconvenience of driving a car when compared to utilizing a bus could help improve ridership.

Mr. Dreyer stated that premium services which can compete in travel time would likely be significantly utilized.  He said that Lynx’s LYMMO service in downtown Orlando operates in its own right of way, representing the bus rapid transit allocation which could be used by the county.  He commented that circulators could be used with alleys and parking lots to help reduce travel times when compared to cars.

Commr. Parks asked if the plan could be changed after performance audits are conducted. 

Mr. Dreyer replied that an annual progress report is provided annually to FDOT and that a major update would not normally occur for five years, though this could happen earlier if there was enough change in the community to warrant it. 

Mr. Cole indicated that the BCC can amend any aspect of the operational analysis.  He said that staff intended to conduct a thorough analysis of current operations including those that could be performed differently. 

Commr. Campione asked if the County had received any previous grants for the additional costs required to support expanded programs.  She also opined that flex service was intriguing and would be embraced by retirees, and said that the County could consider applying for grants to support this.  

Mr. Dreyer replied that the County could pursue state service development funds and receive funding for three years to pay for 50 percent of the operating cost or to purchase the bus.  He stated that local funds could also be used and that successful flex service would save ADA paratransit costs, which could allow some flexibility to shift local funding. 

Commr. Campione expressed that paratransit trips were a challenge for the county because the population was spread out.  She said that some trips had been recently timed such that riders in the same general area could picked up by transit, and she remarked that some of the paratransit needs were in rural areas.

Mr. Dreyer stated that flex service was created to help test an area and meet some of the paratransit need without having to offer a full service.  He noted that the number of deviations per hour can be limited and that citizens can call in and request service on the same day if it is available.

Commr. Campione asked about providing flex service in certain locations on certain days and if the County was selling transit passes or if there was only a fare charge per trip. She also inquired if some riders would use transit to travel to work, but then use another form of transportation if they leave at a later hour.

Mr. Dreyer responded that staging could be considered in this way.  He said that service that does not fit the definition of fixed route would likely be considered as demand responsive transport or paratransit and that ADA requirements would not have to be met with a separate service.  He commented that there was a three dollar daily pass for unlimited rides, a 10 ride pass for eight dollars, and a 30 day pass for unlimited use, which many workers were likely to utilize.  He confirmed that some riders use transit to reach employment and suggested considering evening transit service to accommodate residents that are unable to use transit after work.  He stated that this was common for medical areas where employees work until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Transit Development Plan as prepared by Tindale Oliver and the Lake County Transit Division staff.

reports

county manager

letter to city of minneola

Mr. Cole recalled that at the July 24, 2018 BCC meeting, Mr. Pat Kelley, Mayor of Minneola, discussed the Hills of Minneola development and invited the Board to attend the City of Minneola’s August 8, 2018 workshop with the City’s Planning and Zoning Board.  He relayed that a number of the Commissioners were able to attend, along with himself and other staff, and that Mr. Kelley expressed interest in partnering with the County to develop land to be designated as a park within the Hills of Minneola development.  He stated that in an effort to further explore that partnership, he drafted a letter from the Chairman to Mr. Kelley and was seeking support or further direction.   

Commr. Campione said that she liked the idea of asking about tapping into the City’s parks and recreation impact fees to assist with design and construction, but she opined that the County should not ask in the letter about identifying annual funding.  She inquired if the City of Groveland was asked about annual funding for the South Lake Regional Park.

Commr. Parks said that the option was kept open.

Commr. Breeden opined that the County could not afford to operate the park on an ongoing basis and that a partnership with the City would be beneficial.  She said that the South Lake Regional Park was outside the City of Groveland and that it was being programmed as part of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan as one of the key regional parks.  She stated that there was currently no regional park in South Lake and that the park in the City of Minneola would be in addition to that.

Commr. Parks indicated that the phasing of the South Lake Regional Park could change if there was an availability in the City of Minneola.

Commr. Breeden expressed that a city growing as quickly as Minneola should not expect the County to fully fund the park. 

Commr. Campione said that she considered it to be a donation of land and that the property would be free to the County.

Commr. Breeden clarified that the City did not want to donate the land to the County and that the City could potentially take back the property.

Commr. Campione commented that this park could serve as a part of a South Lake regional park system and that all options should be under consideration.  She said that if ballfields could be constructed more quickly in the City of Minneola, a combination of parks could be utilized.  She expressed concerns with the current wording of the letter, as it suggested that the County would only consider a partnership if the City participated in funding the operational costs. She stated that there were needs for residents in South Lake and unincorporated areas and that she did not want to distinguish between county and city residents. 

Commr. Blake expressed that he would only consider the partnership if the City helped fund the operational costs of the park.

Commr. Breeden said that there was no regional park in the City of Leesburg and that if the County was providing all of the operational funding for each of the parks in the incorporated areas in South Lake, North Lake cities would question why the County was not operating their parks. 

Commr. Campione stated that the City of Leesburg had access to ballfields and that she had not heard those concerns.

Commr. Sullivan recalled that earlier this morning, Mr. Bell from the City of Fruitland Park recommended completing the parks that were under construction before starting new ventures.  He said that the Infrastructure Sales Tax project plan provides cities one third of the revenue and that 55 percent of the county’s population was in the municipalities.  He expressed concerns about the County overextending itself operationally and stated that the South Lake Regional Park had been postponed in the past due to a lack of operational funding and city partnerships. 

Commr. Parks opined that the South Lake Regional Park was overdue and that the City of Minneola park was flexible and could meet an immediate need.  He noted that a new park could extend the South Lake Regional Park timetable, though he opined that this would be acceptable if the immediate need was met.  He agreed that the sentence in the letter should be reworded such that the City of Minneola would not be forced to provide funding for the park, though he expressed a desire to pursue cost sharing. 

Commr. Campione said that the letter could be softened by proposing that the County would welcome the opportunity to partner with them on some of the operating costs and ask if the City would consider it.  She noted that she did not want to lose a chance for a partnership with the City, and she stated that there could be challenges with truck traffic at the South Lake Regional Park with attempting to move too quickly on that property.  She also noted challenges with removing sand from the South Lake Regional Park property and that there had been discussions about a partnership with a developer for a nearby road, though this was not currently in place.  She opined that the City of Minneola park could be a viable option and the City should not be forced to pay operating costs.

Commr. Breeden opined that the City would not have to pay for all of the operating costs, but the park should be a partnership due to a lack of County funds.  She stated that she would not mind softening the letter, though she would not be in favor of moving forward if the City would not contribute anything.

Commr. Blake noted that the current letter wording was merely asking for information about the City potentially funding the park.

Mr. Cole suggested that the second sentence in the paragraph would read “We look forward to the opportunity to have financial partnership on the project.” 

Commr. Breeden expressed support for this modification because the County did not currently know the operational cost and it would be difficult for the City to identify adequate funding.

Commr. Parks also supported the language, and he suggested asking if there was an opportunity to use Tourism Development Tax (TDT) money due to the site being located close to Florida’s Turnpike. 

Commr. Campione suggested deleting the request for the Minneola City Council to identify funding and to distinguish that the County had not yet identified either capital or operational funding for the park.  She also suggested a proposal for the City to consider cost sharing for developing the park’s design. 

Commr. Sullivan said that the letter would indicate the County was not committing any funding but would consider all options. 

Mr. Cole summarized this revised draft language for the paragraph: “The related cost of developing the master plan and the actual development and operation of the park will be important considerations for the Council and County.  The Board of County Commissioners, on July 24, 2018 added the project to the County’s five year Infrastructure Sales Tax plan but had not yet identified the relating funding or operational funding.”  He further indicated that some deletions would be made, followed by: “For the purposes of developing the design, would the Council consider contributing or entering into a financial partnership with the County.”, deleting the sentence concerning impact fees.  He noted that this was draft language and could be updated further.  He said that this would reference the partnership as a potential option.

Commr. Campione suggested that Mr. Cole should meet with the Minneola City Manager about the issue to discuss a partnership for both capital and operational expenses.

recognition of ms. kelly lafollette

Mr. Cole relayed that this would be the last BCC meeting for Ms. Kelly LaFollette, Director for the Office of Communications.  He thanked her for all that she had done for the county over nearly 20 years and expressed that she had been great as a director and in her previous positions. 

Commr. Sullivan thanked Ms. LaFollette for her service for the county residents.  He also mentioned that she had helped provide input for several major County decisions.

Commr. Breeden said that Ms. LaFollette would be greatly missed and that the BCC wished her well.  She remarked that Ms. LaFollette set high standards for the County going forward.

Commr. Campione commented that Ms. LaFollette left a good mark on the county and its government.

labor day

Mr. Cole relayed that all of the County offices would be closed on September 3, 2018 in observance of Labor Day.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

recognition of ms. kelly lafollette

Commr. Parks offered Ms. LaFollette his best wishes.

upcoming transportation summit

Commr. Parks said that on October 12, 2018, there would be a transportation summit to consider how the region was progressing and to explore new transportation technology, such as autonomous vehicles and toll roads. 

upcoming homelessness forum

Commr. Parks stated that on September 27, 2018, there was another homelessness forum being planned that would focus on set aside housing.  He said that more information would be provided at a later date.

Commr. Campione commented that the County was open to developing another forum in October 2018.

awareness plan for cycling

Commr. Parks indicated that he would work on an awareness plan for cycling that was discussed as part of a citizen comment.

commissioner breeden – district 3

hickory point beach fieldhouse groundbreaking

Commr. Breeden said it was great that all of the Commissioners attended the groundbreaking for the Hickory Point Beach Athletics Center on August 16, 2018.  She thanked both the Chairman for representing the BCC and the staff for holding such a successful event, highlighting the efforts of the Agency for Economic Prosperity and the Offices of Communications and Facilities Management.  She commented that the venue included restrooms, meeting rooms, locker rooms and was being funded by (TDT) dollars at approximately $1.8 million.  She said that it was a great partnership with the Lake County Water Authority and USA Volleyball and she expected to see many more tournaments shortly, as the facility would be completed within six months.  She noted that the ribbon cutting was already scheduled for the morning of February 23, 2019, which would also be the opening day for the 2019 volleyball season. 

arlington ridge noise study

Commr. Breeden recalled that several months prior, the BCC discussed conducting a noise study at the Arlington Ridge community regarding the nearby GI Shavings wood shavings plant.  She said that the County released a solicitation and received two bids for the study which were considerably above the dollar amount that was set.  She stated that there was currently a nuisance lawsuit between the Arlington Ridge Homeowners’ Association (HOA) and GI Shavings, and opined that it would likely be best to wait to take action until it is resolved.

connecting west orange trail to magnolia park

Commr. Breeden relayed that Mr. Joe Dunn, Acting President of the Friends of Lake Apopka restoration group, approached her at the request of the Orange County BCC and discussed a project they were promoting which would connect the West Orange Trail to Magnolia Park.  She said that this would fill a gap on the east side of the Lake Apopka Loop Trail, and that the Friends of Lake Apopka asked the BCC to approve a resolution for MetroPlan Orlando in support of making the design of that phase a 2019 priority.  She noted that they provided wording for the resolution and the item could be brought back at a future BCC meeting.  She said that Mr. Dunn indicated he would cooperate with the BCC to help in advocating for completing Lake County’s trail gap on the west side of the Lake Apopka Loop Trail. 

Commr. Campione expressed support for completing this gap.

Commr. Breeden stated that the County would first have to move the project through the Lake-Sumter MPO.  She commented that she had met with Mr. Schneider and Mr. Bonilla and that there was some necessary work to be completed with the developers in the City of Minneola and Sugarloaf Mountain to obtain approval for the trail to extend through those areas.

Commr. Campione asked that when MetroPlan Orlando designates a project as a priority, would this also affect the County.  She expressed interest in helping with the West Orange Trail so that help could then be received for the Wekiva Trail. 

Commr. Breeden clarified that MetroPlan Orlando had a program in which approximately 150 riders were expected for the second annual ride around the Lake Apopka Loop Trail on November 11, 2018.  She suggested that in future years MetroPlan Orlando should also have an add-on ride through downtown Clermont to the end of Lake County’s trail.   She said that the area on both sides of the trail were hazardous for riders and that developing a great trail could potentially relieve pressure on the roadways.

Commr. Campione recapped that the Orange County BCC came to the Lake-Sumter MPO and stated that they supported the trail, and Lake County would be showing their support.

commissioner campione – VICE CHAIRMAN AND district 4

sylvan point drainage issues

Commr. Campione said that later that night, she was attending a Sylvan Point community meeting in the City of Tavares about drainage issues.  She said it was a difficult situation and was compounded by the water table of Lake Gertrude being so high.  She commented that some of the water patterns appeared to have been changed through new construction and changes made to culverts, and would be challenging to solve.  She relayed that the County was trying to work with residents and noted that it was an older neighborhood.  She said that the road there continued to have standing water and was often impassable, and nearby lawns were saturated with water.  She also expressed concerns about septic tanks in the area, and she noted that a study had been discussed to investigate the issue.  She commented that Ms. Marsh, Mr. Schneider, and Ms. Lori Koontz, Road Operations Division Manager, along with the Public Works Department, had worked to get permission forms signed by residents to allow access to their property for the purpose of finding solutions. 

Commr. Sullivan commented that he was concerned about the water levels being the highest since 1998, noting email concerns about culverts.  He said the Public Works Department, the Lake County Water Authority, and the SJRWMD had been cooperative on this topic, though he expected further issues.  He said that most of the county’s infrastructure, including culverts and dams, were built using 1950s technology and that an infrastructure study should likely be conducted in the future. 

grant for improvements at lake may reserve

Commr. Campione stated that on the following day, she would be going to the City of Tallahassee to accept a $1.5 million grant for capital improvements at Lake May Reserve.

removing materials from agricultural sites

Commr. Campione commented that there was a loophole in the state statute that provides if someone is engaging in agricultural activity and they want to remove sand, dirt, or other materials from their property, they are allowed to perform this as part of their agricultural plan.  She said that a fish farm was approved on S.R. 44 and would be excavating significant amounts of sand, dirt, clay, etc., and opined that they were engaging in mining activities without oversight.  She relayed that a similar case was occurring on C.R. 437 with a future blueberry farm on a site that was currently performing mining activities; furthermore, this case came before the BCC in 2013 and was denied due to nearby residents and a lack of road improvements that had since been addressed.  She said there was mining occurring there with materials being taken to the Wekiva Parkway, and that there was no recourse due to state law stating that as long as the end result is an agricultural activity, then they can perform any action to prepare for that.  She suggested that the BCC consider this issue and discuss it with their legislative delegation, as it was causing impacts to the county’s roads and residents.

Commr. Breeden suggested discussing the issue with the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), and said that other counties may be experiencing similar occurrences. 

Commr. Campione proposed sending emails to other County Managers or County Attorneys to determine if similar issues were occurring elsewhere.  She commented that significant road projects such as the I-4 Ultimate Project and Wekiva Parkway were occurring nearby, and there was a high demand for those materials. 

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

emails regarding non-county maintained dirt roads

Commr. Blake said that he had recently received a high volume of emails from concerned residents on non-county maintained dirt roads and that Ms. Koontz had been helpful in ensuring that emergency vehicles can pass them. 

city of umatilla bus stop and sidewalks

Commr. Blake commented that about two months prior to the current date, he met with five pastors from the City of Umatilla about some issues they were having.  He relayed that one issue for them was that the bus stop for the transit system was on the opposite side of S.R. 19.  He recalled that he then discussed the issue with Ms. Keedy.  He said that an attempt would be made to move the bus stop to a safer location on the other side of S.R. 19, and that there were also concerns about the sidewalks connecting parts of that neighborhood to Ballpark Road.  He mentioned that he and Mr. Schneider met with the pastors to discuss possible solutions for the sidewalks such that the main arteries could connect to the bus stop on S.R. 19. 

commissioner sullivan – chairman and district 1

agreement for cost share of medical examiner services

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Citrus County, Hernando County, Lake County, Marion County, Seminole County, and Sumter County for cost share of Medical Examiner services and related matters. 

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.

 

 

 

_________________________________

timothy i. sullivan, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK