A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

September 25, 2018

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 25, 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, Deputy Clerk, Board Support.

INVOCATION and pledge

Mr. David Hopkins from Benton House of Clermont gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) remove Tab 48 to be brought back at a later date. He also said that since the agenda had been originally published, staff added Tab 51 as an amendment to the County’s agreement with the City of Apopka under the consent agenda for the Office of Public Safety Support.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 7, 2018 (Regular Meeting) and August 8, 2018 (Special Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Scott Ales said that he represented a significant number of Lake County citizens and he then provided 71 petitions from residents objecting to a proposed development in the East Crooked Lake area. He stated that an application had been submitted to the City of Eustis for development on a parcel on East Crooked Lake and that there was a request to increase the parcel’s zoning from one dwelling unit per acre to five units per acre. He said that many citizens were concerned about the increase being inconsistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), and the citizens hired an attorney to assist with the issue. He relayed that the citizens had expended and raised thousands of dollars and they shared the findings with County staff, who offered correspondence with the citizens. He elaborated that Commissioner Campione had presented a letter to the Eustis City Commission which was discussed by the City Commission but not read into the record. He said that on September 20, 2018, the Eustis City Commission delayed the process for a few weeks to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General (AG). He commented that the citizens wanted to preserve the area, that there were only a few parcels left there, and that the citizens wanted to see the LDRs and the Comp Plan carried out. He opined that five dwelling units per acre would not be compatible with the area around the lake and that the residents there did not purchase their properties with the expectation of this type of development.

Commr. Campione asked about the consequences if the AG’s opinion was contrary to the residents’ position.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, replied that it could serve as persuasive law which a judge could consider if the annexation was challenged legally.

Commr. Campione also asked if the judge could interpret other case law differently than the AG, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this. Commissioner Campione commented that the Comp Plan stated that the County was required to provide input on annexation ordinances which are adopted by cities. She expressed that it was uncommon for unincorporated residents to voice concerns about an annexation and that the BCC generally approves annexations; however, the Comp Plan indicates that if the BCC is aware of a situation where an enclave is potentially being created, then they have an obligation to object. She asked if the BCC would provide input on the situation if the City of Eustis proceeded with the annexation and the BCC viewed it as contrary to the Florida Statutes.

Ms. Marsh responded that the BCC could weigh in on the issue at the point when the City of Eustis proceeds with it. She said that the County would want to attend the hearing and present their position at that time to preserve their rights in the event that an appeal to the Circuit Court was desired.

Commr. Campione said that this was also a Comp Plan issue because the property was designated by the City of Eustis as an area that would be appropriate to remain at one dwelling unit per one acre. She reiterated that when the City previously enacted the Joint Planning Area (JPA) and when they adopted their own Comp Plan Future Land Use (FLU) map, they recognized the East Crooked Lake area as a specific property that should remain as one dwelling unit per acre. She opined that it would be in the interest of both city and unincorporated residents that the BCC attempt to persuade the City to consider leaving the area’s zoning of one unit per acre intact. She opined that this would benefit the long term sustainability of the area’s tax base, and she asked the Board to take a position on the annexation pending the AG’s opinion. She commented that the area was unique from the standpoints of its people, the effect that it has on the lake, and the view from around the lake.

Mr. Brian Mitnik, a resident of Orange County, said that he grew up on East Crooked Lake, that he recently saw a piece of property there for sale, and that he wanted to help other residents enjoy that land. He opined that some information presented at a neighborhood community meeting was incorrect and that developers did not ask for five dwelling units per acre on the property. He said that some residents on the lake were already living on parcels which were less than an acre in size, and he opined that the County should not impose a restriction. He stated that he would like to relocate to the area and that the benefits enjoyed by current residents on the lake were not being afforded to potential new residents. He suggested that turning down the development would hurt the City of Eustis and Lake County and that future growth would not be stopped. He desired the same opportunity to develop land there as previous developers in the area had experienced.

Commr. Campione welcomed the Mayor of Eustis to the meeting and clarified that this issue was not an agenda item and that the Board was unable to vote on it at the current time. She reiterated that the issue was raised under public comment and her request would be that the BCC should revisit it in the future. She remarked that the City of Eustis would have the options of Suburban Residential zoning for five units per acre, or Rural Residential zoning for one unit per acre. She said that there was room between these zonings and that depending on who developed the land, the zoning could be different from that of the adjacent lots.

Commr. Sullivan confirmed that the BCC was unable to take action on the item because it was not on the current agenda.

Mr. Robert Morin, Mayor of Eustis, opined that the City would not take an action that would harm the city or its residents. He commented that the Eustis City Commission became involved in the discussion about the East Crooked Lake area, but decided to delay the matter in order to obtain the AG’s opinion. He related that he was primarily interested in building a base for the city to accommodate a larger perspective with a wider variety of families living within it. He said that the City still had questions about the development and that preemptive action from the County would not be effective. He asked for the opportunity for the City to make those decisions and to determine the best course of action for residents around the lake and current city residents. He said that he would like the opportunity to comment further on the matter if it is brought back at future BCC meetings, and reiterated that the City was waiting on the AG’s opinion to determine if the development would have continuity with the area.

Commr. Sullivan reiterated that this issue was not currently an agenda item. He then informed the audience that Rezoning Case Tab 9 #FLU-18-12-4, Ch. Johnson FLUC – Transmittal, had been withdrawn from the BCC’s consideration at this time.

Commr. Campione asked for the proposed East Crooked Lake development to be placed on an upcoming agenda and said that the City and residents would be notified in advance. She noted that the City would be the entity making the decision and she hoped that they would utilize land use tools which are available to ensure consistency and protect property owners. She also expressed interest in working with the City on this issue.

Mr. Morin replied that action should take place after the City is informed of their options by the AG’s Office.

Proclamations 2018-132 and 2018-134

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-132 declaring October 2018 as Florida Native Plant Month, and Proclamation 2018-134 declaring October 1 – 5, 2018 as National 4-H Week.

Commr. Parks read and presented Proclamation 2018-132 to Ms. Lavon Silvernell and Ms. Susan Knapp, members of the Florida Native Plant Society. He then thanked Lake County students for sending letters of appreciation to the BCC for honoring native plants.

Ms. Silvernell said that in addition to native plants, it was also important to preserve natural systems which the plants help to create including the Wekiva Forest and the Green Swamp. She said that the Florida Native Plant Society’s efforts also concerned science, open space, corridors, connectivity, the recharging of water, and creating ecotourism as a draw for the county.

Ms. Knapp remarked that this organization’s mission had always been to conserve, to protect, and to restore native plants and their native plant communities. She recognized a group of 4-H students in attendance and she commented that the organization had helped to conserve plants by performing plant rescues. She elaborated that the society would be collecting and preserving plant seeds for future generations to observe the plants and that construction was causing these seeds to disappear. She stated that in conservation, the society obtains plants before they are terminated and that in preservation, they obtain pieces of pristine land which can be conserved for future generations. She expressed gratitude that the Florida Forever program had been funded more than in the previous year and that the state had recognized efforts to protect the environment. She then said that restoration involves taking plants from areas which are about to be bulldozed and placing them in parks to preserve them.

Commr. Sullivan then read and presented Proclamation 2018-134 to children from the Florida 4-H program.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

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

City of Mount Dora Ordinance 2018-10

Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2018-10 from the City of Mount Dora approving the voluntary annexation of approximately 1.27 acres of land generally located south of State Road 44 and on the west side of Britt Road (4901 Britt Road), Mount Dora, in accordance with the voluntary annexation provisions of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes.

City of Groveland Ordinance 2018-08-20

Request to acknowledge receipt from the City of Groveland Ordinance No. 2018-08-20, Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Boykin/SECO) to the City of Groveland’s Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes.

City of Minneola Ordinance 2017-09

Request to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 2017-09 of the City Council of the City of Minneola providing for a textual amendment of to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to create Policy 1-2.11.4 entitled “Dailey Mixed Use Commercial Development” and providing for a Comprehensive Plan amendment amending the land use designation from “Urban Low Density” on the Lake County Comprehensive Plan to “Dailey Mixed Use Commercial Development” on the Future Land Use Map of the City of Minneola’s Comprehensive Plan, for 26.5 acres of property generally located east of US Highway 27 and South of Citrus Grove Road.

Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report of June 30, 2018

Request to acknowledge receipt of Lake County’s Semi-Annual Investment Report of June 30, 2018.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Blake requested to pull Tab 5 for a separate vote.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 6 through 44 and Tab 51, pulling Tab 5 for discussion, as follows:

management and budget

Request approval of a budget transfer in the amount of $177,900.00 for the Supervisor of Elections' Help America Vote Act Fiscal Year 2018/2019 Grant to reallocate the funds to the appropriate accounts. There is no additional fiscal impact.

human resources and risk management

Request approval of Lake County Policy LCC-99 entitled "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Hybrid Entity Designation," which establishes a policy that provides for the County to be designated as an entity that conducts health care and non-health care functions and to identify those functions with a health care component pursuant to federal law.

Request approval to retitle Lake County Policy LCC-95 to "Privacy Policy Statement for Group Health Plan for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Compliance." There is no fiscal impact.

economic prosperity

Elevate Lake

Request approval to apply for and accept a Public Infrastructure Grant through the 2018-2019 Florida Job Growth Grant Fund for design and engineering of the Round Lake Road Expansion in the Wolf Branch Innovation District; authorization for the Chairman to execute all related documentation; and approval for the Chairman to send a letter of support for the City of Clermont’s grant funding application for utilities in Wellness Way. The fiscal impact is up to $2,500,000.00 (revenue). Commission Districts 1, 2 and 4.

Visit Lake

Request approval of the first amendment to the lease agreement with the Lake County Water Authority for the volleyball facility at the Hickory Point Stormwater Retention Area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE

Public Safety

Request approval of an agreement with Susan's Landing Homeowners Association, Inc., located in Clermont, for a Utility Easement to connect Lake County Fire Station 109 to the Association's sewer system. The fiscal impact is $9,697.56 (expenditure of $1,650.00 for a one-time hook-in fee, $3,000.00 for Association fees, and $5,047.56 for annual costs). Commission District 2.

Request approval of award of RFP EMS 17-00001 to Motorola Solutions, Inc. to purchase and implement the replacement of the Lake County Fire and Medical Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system; recognition of the first 5 years of Maintenance and Support Terms and Pricing post warranty and acceptance; authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute any supporting documentation, purchase orders or other actions as needed; and authorization of any budget adjustments as needed. The fiscal year 2019 impact is $1,487,125.00, and the fiscal impact for maintenance over the following five years is $1,067,864.00 (expenditures).

Request approval of a Second Addendum to the Collective Bargaining Agreement October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2018, with the Professional Fire Fighters of Lake County, IAFF Local 3990, which will make the necessary changes to Article 26 (Paramedic Field Training Officers) to assist with the training of new paramedics. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute a LIFEPAK Service Agreement, and associated First Amendment with Physio Control Inc. (Redmond, WA) for the annual maintenance and inspections of 63 LIFEPAK units. The fiscal impact is $95,866.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of Assignments of the following Lease Agreements to Lake County related to the transition of Lake Emergency Medical Services (LEMS) into the County organization:

1. Lease Agreement between LEMS and Phyllis B. Cross for Commercial Lease Space.

2. Lease Agreement between LEMS and Plaza Truck & RV Center for Commercial Lease Space.

3. Lease Agreement between LEMS and Moore Properties for Commercial Lease Space

The estimated fiscal impact is $144,000.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of the reassignment of various vendor agreements from Lake Emergency Medical Services (LEMS) to the Lake County Board of County Commissioners as LEMS transitions into the County organization. The fiscal impact is allocated within the new Office of Emergency Medical Services fiscal year 2019 budget.

Request approval of the reassignment of various Interlocal Agreements from Lake Emergency Medical Services (LEMS) to the Lake County Board of County Commissioners as LEMS transitions into the County organization effective October 1, 2018. The fiscal impact is allocated within the new Office of Emergency Medical Services fiscal year 2019 budget.

Request approval of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Business Associate Agreement with the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller to comply with the Privacy, Security Role and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval and authorization for the Chairman to execute a ProCare Service Agreement with Stryker (Portage, MI) for the annual maintenance and inspections of 37 Power PRO XT and 26 Power-Load stretchers for the Office of Emergency Medical Services. The fiscal impact is $50,558.90 (expenditure).

Request approval of a First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Apopka for a Shared Public Service Radio Communications Facilities. There is no fiscal impact.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERNAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Procurement Services

Request approval to declare items as surplus and remove them from the County's official fixed asset inventory system records, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute any required title documents. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.

Public Works

Request approval of Resolution 2018-149 to advertise a Public Hearing to vacate portions of alleyways in the Plats of Paxton and Sommerville, on the Map of Sorrento. The fiscal impact is $2,295.00 (revenue - vacation application fee). Commission District 4.

Request approval to award a contract to Trademark Metals Recycling, LLC (Ocala, FL) under Request for Quotation Q2019-00003 for the recycling of scrap metal and white goods and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.  The estimated annual fiscal impact is $47,700.00 (revenue).

Request approval to release a letter of credit of $64,591.34 associated with Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53168 issued to construct a commercial driveway apron and a turn lane on County Road 44 for Cobb Commerce Park, located in Eustis. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.

Request approval to release a performance bond of $88,911.89 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #8253 and Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53159 issued to construct a turn lane and driveway for a Wawa convenience store on Morningside Drive, located in Mount Dora. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.

Request approval to:

1. Release a performance bond of $866,290.14 posted for the completion of infrastructure improvements for the Serenoa Village 2 Phase 1A2 final plat, located in the Four Corners area.
2. Execute a Developer’s Agreement for Construction of Sidewalk Improvements with VK Avalon Groves, LLC. (Tampa).
3. Accept a performance bond of $99,275.00 for performance of sidewalk construction.

There is no fiscal impact.  Commission District 1.

Request approval for the Chairman to execute Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreements for Collection of Storm Debris from Streets and Right-of-Way with Groveland, Lady Lake and Umatilla; and authorization for the County Manager to notify the cities of Clermont and Tavares of the termination of the existing Interlocal Agreements for the Collection of Storm Debris from Streets and Right-of-Way. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval to:

1. Accept the final plat for Lake Minneola Landing, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Lake Minneola Landing final plat, located between Clermont and Minneola.
2. Execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements with KB Home Orlando LLC (Orlando, FL).
3. Accept a performance bond of $561,985.86.
4. Execute a Subordination of Easement Agreement with Duke Energy Florida, LLC, relating to the Lake Minneola Landing subdivision.

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

Request approval to:

1. Accept the final plat for Sawgrass Bay Phase 4B1, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Sawgrass Bay Phase 4B1 final plat, located near Clermont.
2. Execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements with KB Home Orlando LLC (Orlando, FL).
3. Accept a performance bond of $907,269.13.
4. Execute a Temporary Easement Agreement with KB Home Orlando LLC. 
5. Accept a performance bond of $8,401.80 related to the construction of a cul-de-sac within the temporary easement.

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

Request approval to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Waste Tire Amnesty Day. The fiscal impact is up to $25,000.00 (revenue/expenditure).

Request approval:

1. Of the proposed naming of Grandview Lake.
2. To authorize the Chairman to execute the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, Geographic Name Proposal Recommendation Form

There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 3.

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE

Community Services

Request approval for the Chairman to execute the contract with the Florida Department of Health for operation of the Lake County Health Department. The contract is effective October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019. The fiscal impact is $321,312.00 (expenditure).

Request approval for the Chairman to approve the funding request for the Lake County School Board Choice, Charter and Community Education Driver's Education Program - Behind the Wheel Training for fiscal year 2019. The fiscal impact is $139,556.00 (expenditure - 100% funded by the Traffic Education Trust Fund).

Request approval of the distribution of Byrne Grant funds among local jurisdictions applying for funding; approval for submission of application for the Lake County Sheriff's Office for "Emergency Response Initiative;" and approval for the Chairman to execute any grant documents, including letters of support, application, certificate of acceptance, EEO certifications and subsequent grant documents. The grant funding will be appropriated as part of the Sheriff's fiscal year 2019 budget. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of the First Amendment to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Partnership Agreement between Lake County and the City of Tavares For Nature Park Restroom Project to increase CDBG funding from $75,000.00 to $117,734.00 and to extend the term through September 30, 2018. The additional fiscal impact is $42,734.00 (expenditure - 100% grant funded). Commission District 3.

Request approval of a contract with the University of Central Florida School for Urban and Regional Planning to conduct a Master Plan Study of the designated commercial nodes within the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area; and authorization for the Chairman to execute the contract after it has been approved by the County Attorney. The fiscal impact is $30,000.00 (expenditure - TIF funds). Commission District 4.

Request approval to provide free LakeXpress bus rides on November 1, 2018, as part of Florida Department of Transportation Mobility Week. The estimated fiscal impact is $600.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of the Interlocal Agreement with the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Local Transportation Disadvantaged Program Administrative Support. The fiscal impact is $26,296.00 (expenditure - 100% grant funded).

Request approval to award Contract 18-0219 to Neel-Schaffer, Inc. (Sanford, FL) for an operational analysis of the Lake County public transit functions. The fiscal impact is $96,800.00 (expenditure - 100% grant funded).

Request approval for the Chairman to execute the agreement with We Care of Lake County, Inc. for operation of the Lake County We Care program effective October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019. The fiscal impact is $116,975.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of fiscal year 2019 funding for LifeStream Behavioral Center, Inc. The fiscal impact is $1,073,987.00 (expenditure).

Request approval to accept the Housing and Urban Development, Permanent Supportive Housing Renewal Grant (Continuum of Care) applied for in August 2017 to assist homeless families. The fiscal impact is $97,857.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100% grant funded).

Request approval to transfer funds from Transit Reserves to pay for paratransit trips and repair and maintenance. The fiscal impact is $230,000.00 (expenditure).

Library Services

Request approval of a two-year extension for the design of the Cagan Crossings Community Library second floor build-out. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

Parks and Trails

Request approval to terminate Contract 18-0205 for mass grading at South Lake Regional Park, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to complete all associated implementing documentation. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

Request approval to award Contract 18-0207 to Oelrich Construction (Jonesville, FL) for Construction Manager Services in support of full build-out and mass grading of the South Lake Regional Park. The immediate fiscal impact for pre-construction services is $53,000.00 (expenditure). The current estimated total Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the project is $19,295,315.00 (expenditure). Commission District 1.

resolution 2018-148 adoption of fiscal year 2019 fee schedules

Commr. Blake stated that he would not be voting in favor of this tab due to a campaign promise.

Commr. Campione stated that this item included the County’s building services fees and that staff met with the Homebuilders Association of Lake-Sumter (HBA-LS) and members of the building industry. She added that staff received concurrence that the fees were appropriate.

Mr. Cole said that these fees were all County fees, with building services fees being a part of that.

Commr. Breeden noted that there were some fee reductions.

Mr. Cole specified that there was some streamlining of fees, some reductions of fees, some increases of other fees, and some housekeeping to clarify the fees and the fee schedules.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2018-148 adopting the fee schedules for fiscal year 2019.

Commr. Blake voted no.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He said that on September 5, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the consent agenda and that staff would ask that the BCC accept this recommendation and approve the consent agenda as presented.

Commr. Sullivan noted that a citizen wished to speak on two of those items on the consent agenda.

Ms. Marsh suggested that the BCC move those two items from the consent agenda to the regular agenda so that staff could present them.

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. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1, 2, and 4 through 7, pulling Tabs 3 and 8 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2018-40

Rezoning Case # CUP#97/6/2-5

James & Shirley Orem CUP Revocation

Voluntary Revocation of the CUP to allow for a mobile home temporarily for the care of the infirm on approximately 5.82 acres of Ranchette District zoned property located on Louise Road, west of CR 439 in the Umatilla area. The current property owner provided communication of their desire to not continue the conditional use.

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # CP-18-14

Protection of Shorelines CP - Transmittal

Amend Lake County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy III-2.2.7, entitled Protection of Shorelines, to include the ordinary high water line and establish criteria for new plats and site plans abutting natural water bodies and wetland areas, and to allow development approved prior to March 2, 1993 to continue development with the existing established wetland setback; and amend Lake County Comprehensive Plan Policy III-2.5.12, Wetland Dedication, to require the fifty (50) foot upland buffer to be included in the common area tract with the wetlands.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2018-41

Rezoning Case # RZ-18-09-1

Cagans PUD - East

Amend Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 2017-23, affecting 242 +/- acres, to eliminate the phasing schedule and add multi-family as a permitted use.

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2018-42

Rezoning Case # FLU-18-13-4

Doug Corp FLU – Adoption Small Scale Map Amendment

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Regional Office to Rural Transition on 5.7 acres, a portion of Alternate Key Number 3635345, in order to construct a single family dwelling unit.

Tab 6. Ordinance No. 2018-43

Rezoning Case # FLU-17-10-2

Vista Grande FLU - Adoption

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category (FLUC) on approximately 25.06 +/- acres (Alternate Key Nos. 2873728, 3778275, and 1029503) from Rural Transition FLUC to Urban Low FLUC.

Tab 7. Ordinance No. 2018-44

Rezoning Case # RZ-17-25-2

Vista Grande Rezoning

Rezone 25.06 +/- acres from Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a single-family development.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 3.

Rezoning Case # CP-18-16

PUD CP Amendment - Transmittal

Amend Table Flue 2 – Future Land Use Categories Table to include a Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Category; establish Objective I-7.14, entitled ‘Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Series;’ and establish Policy I-7.14.1 through Policy I-7.14.4.

Tab 8. Ordinance No. 2018-45

Rezoning Case # CP-18-03

4th Alternative CP - Adoption

Amend Lake County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy I-1.4.5, Rural Transition Future Land Use Category, to remove the fourth density option for residential development which allows residential development at a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per net acre with fourteen development conditions.

Tab 10. Ordinance No. 2018-46

Rezoning Case # CUP-18-01-5

Slip Tech CUP

Approve the conditional use for a construction equipment storage and maintenance facility in Agriculture zoning district.

Tab 11. Ordinance No. 2018-47

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 12. Ordinance No. 2018-48

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.

PUD CP amendment – transmittal & 4^th alternative cp - adoption

Mr. McClendon explained that Tab 3, Rezoning Case #CP-18-16, was for a Comp Plan amendment. He relayed that the 2030 Comp Plan which was adopted on September 22, 2011, established 19 FLU categories within the county including Urban Low, Urban Medium, Rural, Rural Transition, etc. He elaborated that since this adoption in 2011, five new site specific land uses had been created for properties such as Bella Collina, Cagans Crossing, Summer Bay, and the South Lake Regional Park. He said that the proposed amendment would be providing an alternative solution to the site specific land uses by combining them into a generic PUD land use. He commented that the goal was to be able to give staff the ability to determine compatibility and consistency with the Comp Plan and surrounding land uses. He gave the example of the Extreme Groves Investments, LLC property from a few years prior which requested an FLU change from Rural, which allows one dwelling unit per five acres, to Urban Low, which allows up to four units per acre. He specified that this project was only going to develop at 1.85 dwelling units per acre; however, when the request was brought before the BCC, they determined that the specific land use of four units per acre would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. He said that this amendment would give the Board a way to lock in a development program at the Comp Plan stage as opposed to waiting for the adoption phase and a subsequent rezoning. He remarked that any site using this land use would still have to meet all of the Comp Plan requirements and that there were nine criteria that the County based any request on. He specified that each of these criteria would have to be met for staff to find consistency and recommend approval, and he commented that staff believed this would solve an issue that the Board had repeatedly experienced. He said that staff’s recommendation was for the Board to approve the amendment.

Commr. Campione commented that developers who may not want the highest density of a Comp Plan designation still have to ask for it in order to rezone a property. She said that adjoining residents often voice their concerns about the highest density, and this amendment would allow staff to ascertain a development’s density when creating a Comp Plan PUD. She also said that it could reduce uncertainty among residents and she voiced her support for the change.

Mr. McClendon replied that density, as well as open space, impervious surface ratio (ISR), etc., could also be determined earlier.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tim Green, President of Green Consulting Group, said that he was a registered landscape architect and certified planner and had been practicing in Lake County for many years. He said that he had asked for the agenda item concerning the Comp Plan’s fourth alternative for development to be pulled and this item started as a site specific project. He explained that the fourth alternative changed from an applicant driven land use amendment to a countywide land use amendment due to staff believing that it could be applicable to other areas within the county. He indicated concerns with the proposed PUD land use draft language stating “each PUD shall ensure adjacent land use compatibility,” opining that this language would be subjective. He also expressed concerns about having previously received letters of opposition from residents who were not adjacent to past subject properties and areas with only a few residents living there. He opined that there were not enough standards for review in the proposed land use and that applicants would not incur the costs and effort necessary to bring an application before the BCC under this process. He then asked if the language “criteria shall apply to all PUDs” would include all PUD land uses or all existing PUDs, noting that it would set new criteria. He opined that several developments such as The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks, which would be considered incompatible with adjacent land uses, were currently existing in Lake County without issue. He also opined that the PUD land use should have more standards for review and that it would currently be based on opinion.

Commr. Parks asked if Mr. Green would agree that the PUD land use would be a positive step. He stated that it would be partially based on opinion, though if the category did not exist, a project could be misunderstood by the public before the process begins.

Mr. Green agreed that setting this standard at the Comp Plan phase instead of waiting until zoning would have a positive impact. He said that in the past, site specific land uses were not preferred to general countywide land uses, though site specific policies later began to be accepted in the cities and the county; however, he still opined that the proposed land use should have more criteria to ensure compatibility.

Commr. Campione noted the example of The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks and said that it could have been considered compatible due to clustering the lots internally to create large areas of open space to abut adjacent agricultural land uses. She commented that compatibility can have different forms through different lot sizes and staggering densities so that larger lots are adjacent to adjoining larger lots. She suggested that some of these ideas could be mentioned in the ordinance, though she noted that it was sometimes necessary to review a proposed development and adjacent land uses to determine compatibility.

Mr. Green opined that some of those criteria to ensure compatibility should be in the ordinance, such as more open space and larger buffers. He also remarked that some previous letters of opposition for a past development had only considered density and did not take into consideration other factors which would help ensure compatibility.

Commr. Parks suggested that the County could continue to develop the land use, with additional compatibility criteria to be added to the ordinance through an amendment. He also remarked that this land use could benefit both applicants and the public because more specific information about proposed developments would be provided.

Mr. Green asked if the land use would affect all PUDs in the county or if it would be a new PUD Comp Plan.

Mr. McClendon explained that it would only apply to new specific sites utilizing this land use. He stated that staff could clarify this in the draft ordinance when it was brought back for adoption.

Mr. Green then commented on Tab 8, Rezoning Case #CP-18-03, 4th Alternative CP – Adoption, stating that the fourth alternative began as a site specific land use amendment for a single property. He explained that staff from the University of Florida helped draft the 14 criteria for this site which were thought to be appropriate for use throughout the county; therefore, County staff used them to develop a fourth alternative for all Rural Transition developments. He then noted that the staff report indicated that developments attempting to utilize the fourth alternative were denied twice by the BCC, though he was only aware of one denial.

Commr. Campione clarified that the second case was on County Road (C.R.) 437.

Mr. Green stated that this case was withdrawn and was not heard by the BCC. He indicated concerns for future projects and said that in the Comp Plan there was only one category which allowed two dwelling units per acre, which had only been used in the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area. He said that Rural Transition, which allowed a transition between urban and rural uses, allowed two dwelling units per acre under these four criteria: one dwelling unit per acre with no open space; one unit per three acres with 35 percent open space; one unit per acre with 50 percent open space; and two units per acre with 50 percent open space and 14 other criteria. He commented that the other alternatives had little criteria to be addressed and would have to be a Conservation subdivision with open space for one unit per three acres and one unit per acre. He expressed a concern that when Rural Transition is adjacent to rural land uses, the density could possibly move from one unit per five acres to two units per acre. He stated that if Rural Transition is adjacent to Urban, which was four units per acre, there would be a limit of one unit per acre, which would also represent a significant difference in density. He opined that two dwelling units per acre was a land use that could be used, even if it had not been utilized correctly in the past, and that the County should allow a transition between four units per acre and one unit per acre. He noted that one of the 14 criteria was for water and sewer currently available within a mile of the site, which could push these developments toward cities. He opined that eliminating the fourth alternative could lead to more cases where citizens voice discontent and applicants ask cities to annex property.

Commr. Breeden asked if the desired density could be obtained through the PUD land use.

Mr. Green said that it possibly could be obtained. He said that he was unsure how the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) would review these cases, as they had discussed being able to review a plan or amendment to ensure predicable outcomes. He stated that having a plan with a density of one unit per acre utilizing a PUD for a density of two units per acre was not predictable and there could be uncertainty with how such a development could affect factors such as infrastructure and parks; additionally, the PUD land use being open ended could also increase uncertainty.

Commr. Campione commented that an issue with the fourth alternative at two units per acre with 50 percent open space becomes four units per acre on the developable area, which then creates incompatibility with adjacent properties.

Mr. Green said that The Park at Wolf Branch Oaks was two units per acres.

Commr. Campione clarified that those lots were a half acre in size and were relatively large, unlike those which were proposed for the previous case attempting to utilize the fourth alternative.

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. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # CP-18-16, PUD CP Amendment - Transmittal, and Tab 8, Rezoning Case # CP-18-03, 4^th Alternative CP - Adoption.

SlipTech CUP

Mr. McClendon reiterated that Tab 9, Rezoning Case #FLU-18-12-4, Ch. Johnson FLUC – Transmittal, had been withdrawn. He said that Tab 10, Rezoning Case #CUP-18-01-5, Sliptech CUP, was located along C.R. 44A, just north of the intersection of Grassy Hill Lane and C.R. 44A, was located in Commission District 5, was approximately 10 acres in size, and the request before the Board was for a CUP of a construction equipment storage and maintenance facility within an Agricultural zoning district. He reiterated that the current zoning designation for the property was Agricultural and that the FLU was the Wekiva Receiving Area A-1-20. He then displayed aerial photographs of the property from 2006 and 2017. He stated that the property was located within the Wekiva River Protection Area, which was established in 1988 by the state legislature, and that the CUP application was a result of code enforcement action; however, the 2030 Comp Plan had policies that prohibited industrial uses within the Wekiva River Protection Area and the Wekiva Receiving Area A-1-20 FLU designation. He relayed that the 1991 Comp Plan also stated that industrial uses would be prohibited within the Wekiva River Protection Area, though the 1991 Comp Plan was not effective until 1993. He said that the property owner purchased the property in 1991 and that the applicant stated that the property had been used for construction equipment storage and as a maintenance facility since they had owned the property. He highlighted that truck yards were allowed within the Agriculture zoning district with a CUP if they would be utilized for citrus and produce transportation operations. He said that the owner was asserting that the company had maintained a business tax license on the property since 1991 and that the Sliptech name had first been used in 2010. He remarked that the applicant had also stated that several vehicular maintenance activities were occurring on site including oil changes, fluid replacements, battery changes, etc. He mentioned that the site currently contained mini sked steers, mini track-hoes, cement curb molding-forming machines, trucks, utility service trucks, and mini cement-stucco mixers. He said that staff viewed this use as an industrial use since 2006 and that based on Comp Plan policies which prohibited industrial uses within the area, staff was recommending denial of the case. He mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that no action was necessary, that they believed the applicant had been in operation since 1991, and that the operation did not constitute industrial uses. He said that the BCC could deny the CUP based on the Comp Plan policies as outlined in the staff report, or approve the CUP ordinance to pertain only to the current applicant.

Commr. Parks asked about the second option for the BCC.

Mr. McClendon clarified that one of the revised conditions that staff proposed was that the CUP would only apply to the current owner of the land and that if they sold the property, the CUP would become void.

Commr. Campione asked if the reason for this was that the owner began the business on the property prior to the Comp Plan being enacted and that they would be grandfathered in.

Mr. McClendon confirmed this.

Commr. Parks said that if the property was not grandfathered in, the BCC would have to change the ordinance language to allow the use throughout the Wekiva River Protection Area.

Mr. McClendon responded that this way forward would be to amend the Comp Plan to allow industrial use within the Wekiva River Protection Area and he did not believe that DEO would accept this change.

Ms. Marsh added that based on the evidence presented on the current meeting, the revised ordinance would represent the BCC finding that this was a non-conforming use in effect before the Wekiva River Protection Act Comp Plan amendment. She asked the BCC to add this to the record if they would find that this was accurate.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. John Trubenbach, owner of Sliptech, LLC, said that he had been on the property since 1991. He explained that code enforcement had visited his property numerous times and suggested actions such as installing a privacy fence. He stated that recently, a previous employee reported the company to different agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and he refuted claims that he was engaging in acts such as oil dumping. He also relayed that he recently had his water tested and that it was found to be of an acceptable quality. He remarked that a subsequent letter from code enforcement indicated that he would need to obtain a CUP. He then recalled that he met with Mr. Steve Greene, Chief Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning, who suggested the uses to list on the CUP application. He listed other industrial businesses within a few miles of the property, and he said that he seldom parked a significant number of vehicles there.

Mr. Bill Adams, an associate of Mr. Trubenbach, said that he had known the applicant for 30 years and had not witnessed any improper behavior. He stated that Mr. Trubenbach had a good relationship with his neighbors and that he installed a self-funded concrete road near his property.

Mr. James Casner, an associate of Mr. Trubenbach, said that he also had known the applicant for about 30 years. He commented that in the early 1990s, he subcontracted work with Mr. Trubenbach and that his father had lived on the property since that time.

Mr. James Walmer, an employee of Sliptech, stated that his father had been a co-worker of Mr. Trubenbach’s since around 1989. He said that the company’s name at that time was Quality Concrete and that he could personally recall his father working for the company in 1993.

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

Commr. Campione disclosed that she had several conversations with Mr. Trubenbach during this process. She then confirmed that the discussions that she had with him were consistent with the information presented to the Planning and Zoning Board which indicated that he had been on the property before the Wekiva River Protection Act was enacted in the county.

Commr. Parks said it seemed that the business had existed for a significant period of time and was active before the Wekiva River Protection Act was in effect. He asked about the second option for a CUP with a non-conforming use and if it could be ensured that management practices would be in place to help protect the water quality there.

Mr. Trubenbach responded that he hunted deer on the property, that he kept the property clean, and that he did not store a significant amount of equipment there. He noted that when the company performed oil changes, they used a large steel drum to contain the oil and that another company was contracted to extract and move it. He reiterated that he was drinking the water there and that he was preserving its quality.

Commr. Campione asked if it would be acceptable for the CUP to be linked to him.

Mr. Trubenbach responded that he would like for the CUP to also apply to his wife, as she was currently helping to manage the business.

Mr. McClendon noted that the condition was phrased to specify “the owner”, and that Mr. Trubenbach and wife were both considered the owners.

Commr. Blake opined that the situation was not having a negative impact on the Wekiva River Protection Area and that the BCC should approve the CUP with the listed conditions.

Commr. Campione added that when this case was brought to the Planning and Zoning Board, Mr. Charles Lee with the Florida Audubon Society indicated that the business had been active since the Wekiva River Protection Act was enacted and that he had no concerns with the operation.

Commr. Blake opined that he would be interested in not limiting the CUP to just the current owners as long as the uses remained the same, but expressed support for limiting the CUP to Mr. and Mrs. Trubenbach since they found it to be an acceptable condition.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 10, Rezoning Case # CUP-18-01-5, Sliptech CUP, finding it to be an existing non-conforming use at the time that the Wekiva River Protection Act went into effect in Lake County.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:28 a.m. for 10 minutes.

public safety communication tower

Mr. McClendon suggested that Tabs 11 and 12 be opened at the same time and indicated that they were being continued from a previous meeting. He specified that Tab 11 was an FLU amendment and that Tab 12 was a rezoning request. He explained this information about the case: Tab 11, Rezoning Case #FLU-18-09-4, was applied for by the Lake County Office of Public Safety Support; the site was located along S.R. 46 east of Mt. Plymouth Loop and west of C.R. 435; the site was located in Commission District 4 and was approximately 20 gross acres; and just under 10 of those acres were requested to be amended from the Conservation FLU to Public Service Facility and Infrastructure in order to construct a public safety tower and a stormwater management facility. He also said that the current FLU for all 20 acres was Conservation. He then listed these staff analysis findings: the Public Service Facility and Infrastructure FLU category would benefit the public or general welfare through conservation, recreation or public facilities and infrastructure; the proposal was for an emergency communications tower which was a joint project between the City of Apopka and Lake County; the proposed amendment was consistent with the Comp Plan Policy I-1.5.3; the current zoning of the property was Urban Residential (R-6), currently inconsistent with the proposed FLU; there was a concurrent rezoning application; and on July 30, 2018, there was a community meeting with surrounding property owners and residents who stated that they were in favor of the tower but not at the proposed location. He said that staff recommended approval and that prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on August 1, 2018, staff received sixteen emails in opposition and one in support of the tower. He recalled that on August 1, 2018, the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board was to deny the two cases by a vote of 4-2 and since that meeting, staff received an additional 19 emails in opposition. He then explained that Tab 12, Rezoning Case #RZ-18-06-4, was for the same approximate 10 acre location and would rezone the property from R-6 to Community Facility District (CFD) in order to construct a public safety tower. He displayed a concept plan for the property and listed these staff analysis items: the Office of Public Safety Support was requesting to rezone only 10 acres of the 20 acre property; the public safety tower would address needed and identified communication services in the area; this was a joint project by the Office of Public Safety Support and the City of Apopka; and the tower was proposed to be a guided wire public safety tower at about 350 feet in height. He noted that the associated waivers with the rezoning application included a residential setback of 254 feet in lieu of 1,320 feet and a tower separation setback of 2,269 feet in lieu of 5,000 feet; furthermore, staff supported both of the waivers solely based on public health, safety and welfare needs, and that staff would not likely support the request for a traditional cellular tower. He said that all remaining LDR requirements would be met, that the tower would be self-collapsing, and that the Public Works Department was also requesting a stormwater management facility at the north end of the site. He concluded by mentioning that on August 21, 2018, the BCC had continued the case until the September 25, 2018 meeting.

Mr. Greg Holcomb, Director for the Office of Public Safety Support, provided an analysis of the property. He listed these events in the analysis timeline: the City of Apopka’s analysis on different Orange County properties began in December 2016, though these properties could not be used for construction; the City approached the County in December 2017 about an interlocal agreement; County staff, the City and Motorola cooperated to establish a defined area where a tower would provide necessary coverage for the joint project to support both the City of Apopka and Lake County; and on March 13, 2018, Lake County entered into an interlocal agreement with the City which expired on September 13, 2018, though there was an item on the current agenda to extend this agreement. He explained that the City agreed to extend the agreement pursuant to the approval of the S.R. 46 site and that on August 21, 2018, the BCC requested that staff conduct additional due diligence on other potential sites and report back at the current meeting. He relayed that staff identified 45 potential locations within the defined area based on acreage needs, that all of the 10 acre parcels were identified within the area, that staff contacted each property owner by phone calls, and that of the 45 parcels, 17 were vacant. He then mentioned that the identified parcels either did not meet engineering requirements or the owners were not interested. He stated that the residents adjacent to the subject property also provided staff with additional properties with some of them existing within the defined area, while others were outside of the area and did not meet criteria for coverage of both the City of Apopka and Lake County, nor did they meet the engineering requirements or have interested owners. He displayed a map showing the defined area and the properties considered by staff and the community. He said that the Neighborhood Lakes area was suggested by the community for analysis and he relayed these findings about that area: it was on the far east corner of the defined area; staff contacted the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and found that their interest was in obtaining lease revenue which would not be generated by a public safety tower; the time required for the approval process through the SJRWMD would be significant; the City of Apopka had not agreed to this location; the property had not been analyzed or approved by engineers as a viable option; and the engineering costs would be about $30,000 to determine feasibility through soil samples and other environmental protection activities along with the engineering of tower frequencies, microwaves and connectivity. He stated that the usable portions of the Neighborhood Lakes property were outside of the defined area and were close to the Wekiva Parkway, though the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) denied access to the property from the Wekiva Parkway. He expressed concerns about unobstructed views of the tower from surrounding neighborhoods, and potential conflicts existed with the Neighborhood Lakes Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Multi-Use Trail Master Plan. He specified that there was a trail nearing its approval which would utilize the property, and he indicated that this property would also create an unknown timeline for addressing public safety concerns. He remarked that the preferred location was still the S.R. 46 property which was originally recommended by Motorola. He elaborated that it existed within the defined area, that it would create a savings of approximately $450,000 to Lake County due to not having to fund the construction of a tower, and that there would be options for residential enhancements through land improvements in the form of frontage along S.R. 46 and the sides of the subject property. He also said that immediate safety concerns would be addressed for both Lake County and the City of Apopka by using this location, and the S.R. 46 stormwater management facility would also be addressed. He recommended that the BCC approve staff’s recommendation, to find the request consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDRs, and to approve both FLU-18-09-4 and RZ-18-06-4 to allow the construction of a public safety tower and stormwater management facility with the conditions as stated in the staff report.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. James McGovern, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, said that residents were not opposed to the tower or public safety services. He relayed that many residents he recently spoke to were unaware of the proposed tower and later opposed the location. He opined that there were locations along S.R. 429 where the tower could be placed.

Mr. Jeff Albright, a resident of Lake County, noted the variances associated with the request and said that according to the LDRs, the only way to change a variance was due to an economic, technological, legal or other type of hardship, though he opined that the hardships listed for the current case did not meet this criteria. He opined that the proposed variance changes were drastic and that he did not want this to become a norm for the County. He mentioned that he also received a list of 18 existing public safety tower sites in Lake County with six being owned by the County, one being leased, four having leased towers, four using cooperative agreements with municipalities for land and County towers, and three using cooperative agreements with municipalities for tower structures and land. He asked how many of these towers were located in residential areas and adjacent to homes and he opined that none of the towers he had seen were inside a city neighborhood. He expressed concerns about the neighborhood location of the proposed tower and that while towers were becoming part of sightlines, he was concerned about a close tower in a residential neighborhood.

Ms. Patti Albright, a resident of Lake County, distributed papers detailing an investigation into public tower sites which were owned by the County, State or a city, and listed the pros and cons of each. She listed the pros for the Lake Edwards site as being the access from S.R. 46 and the location within the desired coverage area. She then said that the cons included that the site required an 80 percent variance for setbacks from residential homes, a 60 percent variance for cell tower distance separation, would harm the area’s aesthetics from Mt. Plymouth Village Center, would impact historical drainage patterns, and could impact nearby property values and the conservation area. She then listed these pros for the potential Neighborhood Lakes site: would meet the residential and cell tower separation setbacks; would have access through Baird Avenue and Fenimore Street; was not in the Mt. Plymouth Village center; was located along S.R. 429; and was adjacent to the preferred coverage area, though a con for this site was that there was a proposed trail there. She also listed the pros for the State Forestry site off S.R. 46 in the Town of Sorrento as meeting the setback requirements, having access from S.R. 46, and not being located in the Mt. Plymouth Village Center, with the cons being that the tower would be visible from S.R. 46, though it could be partially screened with trees. She detailed the pros of an Orange County site owned by CFX as meeting the setback requirements for a tower, having access from C.R. 437 or Palmetto Street, not impacting Mt. Plymouth Village Center, and being in the desired coverage area. She listed the Orange County site cons as potentially costing Lake County more money, though funds could be generated by dividing and selling two 180 foot wide commercial parcels from Lake Edwards along S.R. 46. She then listed these pros for a potential site owned by the City of Eustis: met setback requirements; would not impact Mt. Plymouth Village Center; access from Cardinal Lane; and a partnership with the City of Eustis. She said that this site would be farther from the City of Apopka’s desired coverage area, though she urged the Board to consider other options for the tower site.

Ms. Lynne Thornton, a resident of Mount Plymouth, showed a map of the Lake Edwards site and the Neighborhood Lakes site, noting that the latter site was much larger. She then stated that it would not have any nearby hills to interfere with reception, that it was dry land, that it had access, and that it was away from homes. She expressed concerns with safety, aesthetics, property values and health with the current proposed tower site, which she opined would not be present at the Neighborhood Lakes site. She also noted that this site would be closer to the City of Apopka and that the Lake Edwards site had a nearby hill which could cause interference; additionally, taller antennas could be placed on a tower located near the Neighborhood Lakes location. She noted that the Neighborhood Lakes location was outside of the defined coverage area, but said that she had spoken to Mr. Holcomb who indicated that this area was approximate. She requested that the record for the Planning and Zoning Board, the LDRs and the Comp Plan be incorporated into the record for the current meeting, along with the May 2, 2018 and August 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board meetings and the August 21, 2018 BCC meeting. She reiterated concerns with property values due to her house being about 350 feet from the proposed tower and said that she had spoken with three local mortgage companies with one being unsure of the tower’s effect on values, another stating that no effect should occur if the tower was not deemed to be an environmental hazard, and the third recalling that a loan request for a property in a similar situation was denied because a tower was too close to the house. She expressed concerns with other situations where mortgages were denied based on cellular towers being in close proximity to homes and she opined that it could also pose an issue with insurance. She said that a survey was conducted by the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy and that out of 1,000 citizens surveyed, 79 percent responded that they would not purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cellular tower; additionally, it was stated that there was a loss of around 20 percent of value in these situations based on sales analysis and opinions from the survey. She opined that the approximate $30,000 engineering costs required for the potential Neighborhoods Lakes site could be offset by the County selling a lot on the northeast Lake Edwards site as commercial property for a minimum of $50,000. She commented that many neighbors in attendance wanted to have a downtown park on the Lake Edwards conservation area and she remarked that additional revenue could be gained by selling the Lake Edwards parcel to nearby residents. She reiterated her opinion that the Neighborhood Lakes property was the most fitting site for the tower because it would be away from residential areas, was owned by the County, and was of a sufficient elevation. She said that the approved six month extension for the interlocal agreement with the City of Apopka would allow for more time to investigate potential tower sites and she expressed interest in serving on a citizen committee to help find these sites.

Commr. Campione asked Ms. Thornton to point out the location of her house on the map.

Ms. Thornton showed the location of her house and said that the nearest guy wire stake was about 110 feet from her house and that the tower itself would be approximately 352 feet from her back door.

Mr. Cole clarified that the current consideration was for a public safety tower and not a cellular tower.

Ms. Thornton noted that in the agreement with the City of Apopka, the tower was discussed to share revenue and would be considered to have added cellular equipment and to lease cellular space. She expressed concerns with leasing cellular space near her community and reiterated that the Neighborhood Lakes location would be preferable due to the County being able to build a higher tower there and rent additional cellular space on it.

Ms. Marsh stated that the County did not fully own the Neighborhood Lakes property, that it was a joint ownership with the SJRWMD, and that use of the property would require the SJRWMD’s permission. She also noted that the extension of the interlocal agreement with the City of Apopka was only the BCC’s approval and that the City had not yet approved it.

Ms. Thornton said that Mr. Cole previously informed her that Lake County was the lead manager of the Neighborhood Lakes property.

Ms. Marsh replied that this was correct, though the County did not have complete ownership and the SJRWMD would still have to provide permission to construct a tower there.

Mr. Fred Antonio, a neighbor of the Lake Edwards conservation area, said that he purchased the property because of the conversation area. He expressed support for nearby conservation areas and said that taking roughly 50 percent of the Lake Edwards site out of conservation could affect the use of the remaining acres. He commented that Lake Edwards acted as a natural drainage area as it was an ephemeral wetlands with no freestanding water for most of the year, which he opined was more important to ecology than freestanding lakes. He also said that the area was important for avian species which moved through it periodically, and he expressed concerns about the lack of an environmental assessment for the property. He indicated support for the tower being constructed at a different location, and mentioned that the 80 percent residential setback variance being sought was significant and would affect nearby residents. He also indicated concerns that approving this request could set a precedent for significant variances, along with concerns for safety, home value impacts, aesthetics impacts, electromagnetic radiation, and that the tower was only rated for winds of 104 miles per hour (MPH). He mentioned that the setback requirement between towers was being reduced by about 60 percent from 5,000 feet to 2,269 feet and that these variances suggested that the parcel was too small to house the tower. He mentioned that community improvements had been planned along S.R. 46 and that a tower would negatively impact nearby property values, curb appeal and aesthetics. He showed a diagram showing that the proposed tower would be taller than the tallest lighthouse in the State of Florida and would be approximately 100 feet higher than the Citrus Tower. He said that in addition to the tower, the site would also house a stormwater retention plant, two equipment shelters, two above ground fuel tanks and a 20 foot wide road built to give access to the tower. He stated that no information had been given about how nighttime illumination of the tower would impact nearby residents and opined that the variances were too significant. He agreed that the Neighborhood Lakes site would be more appropriate and that it should be considered. He recognized the effort that the Mt. Plymouth community had put into finding alternate sites and reiterated that the residents were only opposed to the location and not the proposed tower.

Ms. Patricia Cummings, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, said that the area was a designated conservation area for the community starting in 1926. She opined that the parcel was too small for the proposed use and that substantially changing the setback variances was not appropriate for an ordinance applied for by the County. She stated that the approximate 350 foot tower was taller than its distance to nearby residences and that while the tower was noted to be self-collapsing, severe weather conditions such as hurricanes could cause the tower to pose a danger to residents. She noted the discussion to use another nearby tower to house the public safety equipment, which could reduce costs. She stated that the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area had been planning a beautification project to include sidewalks and businesses, to improve the local economy, and to encourage growth in the area. She said that the tower would be close to the area’s main street, would be aesthetically displeasing, and would discourage individuals from opening businesses or building a home in the area, which could also negatively affect home values. She commented that the preparation for the site would require a large amount of additional soil and that a change in the existing terrain could impact the water runoff there; furthermore, the change in water patterns could cause flooding to the established homes in the community. She said that she hoped that the BCC would consider this information and investigate a different feasible option.

Mr. Ralph Talbott, a resident of Sorrento, said that the proposed tower would be approximately one mile from a daycare which his children attended and about 1.5 miles from Sorrento Elementary School. He commented that he had read articles from numerus institutions such as the University of Albany and Harvard Medical School which opposed the electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) emitted by cellular towers as they can cause health issues. He said that neither he nor his neighbors were originally aware of the proposed tower and he asked the BCC to reconsider the issue.

Ms. Karen Moss, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, expressed concerns for the neighbors of the subject property. She relayed that Mr. Holcomb had previously said that the Office of Parks and Trails would provide funding for tree mitigation, though she had sent an email to Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, who informed her that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget was approximately $100,000 to be used for tree planting where needed throughout the county. She opined that this would not be a sufficient amount of funding for the required landscaping, and she did not agree with previous comparisons between the proposed tower and an existing tower in the City of Tavares due to the latter tower only being about 100 feet tall. She noted previous discussions for revenue generated by the proposed tower being reinvested into the nearby community and expressed concerns that this reinvestment was not certain. She asked where the access would be for the conservation area, and she agreed with the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation to not approve the request.

Mr. Steve Boldec, a resident of Mt. Plymouth, said that Mr. Holcomb’s list of issues with the Neighborhood Lakes site was important and would prevent the tower from being moved there. He stated that he would understand this list creating a hardship that would justify the Lake Edwards location; however, he was previously unaware of concerns such as the approximate $30,000 engineering costs for that site. He opined that having just learned of these items at the current meeting, the residents did not have sufficient time to prepare a response. He stated that the residents would require additional time to respond to the objections to the Neighborhood Lakes site.

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

Commr. Parks asked about the Neighborhood Lakes site and if staff could confirm that there would be access from Fenimore Street and Baird Avenue. He said that there could be access off a side road from S.R. 429, but there would not be access from the emergency lane on the S.R. 429 interchange.

Mr. Holcomb replied that this was correct and was what CFX said about the Wekiva Parkway side. He said that on the Fenimore Street side, there was a gate which was examined by senior staff. He explained that equipment entering the site would include cranes and other large machinery and that the area to the west would be on the opposite side of the tower site, so there would have to be access all the way to the other side of the property. He commented that some areas of the site were currently identified as dry while others had been identified as wetlands, similar to Lake Edwards. He mentioned that the assessment performed at Lake Edwards had not been conducted at Neighborhood Lakes and that the County uses the 2012 flood zone for the area when selecting the two parcels which they felt would be the most conducive to a tower. He said that for an additional assessment, the previous $30,000 assessment would be negated and this cost would have to be reapplied for the new site; additionally, the cost could be greater due to having to implement a roadway across a larger parcel. He said that the approximate $30,000 would fund the environmental analysis and consider the wetland areas in the site.

Mr. Cole asked if any engineering costs had been incurred for the recommended site.

Mr. Holcomb responded that close to $30,000 had already been spent and that a new $30,000 would have to be spent to assess the Neighborhood Lakes site.

Commr. Parks asked for the most important reason why the Neighborhood Lakes site could not house the tower.

Mr. Holcomb replied that it was a public safety and timing issue. He relayed that the City of Apopka had been attempting to accomplish their goal for nearly two years and that there was an urgency for public safety. He stated that Lake County had similar concerns due to some areas being identified as having public safety coverage issues, and he remarked that another reason would be timing; specifically, a lengthy analysis process could find that the parcel is unusable or that the SJRWMD would not want a structure built there.

Commr. Breeden asked how much of the wetlands at Lake Edwards would be impacted and if staff was planning on introducing a significant amount of fill dirt to the site.

Commr. Campione asked if staff had considered a property north of S.R. 46 near a group of silos which had some industrial uses.

Mr. Holcomb replied that the tower, its anchors and roadway would be on about three percent of the twenty acres and that this area would have to be brought to regular standards of building. He also relayed that staff considered sites within the 10 acre desirable zone provided by engineers.

Commr. Breeden asked if the County could prohibit the colocation of cell carriers on the tower.

Mr. Holcomb noted that a tower which was near the proposed Lake Edwards site had five cell carriers on it and that it would be unlikely for one of those carriers to request colocation on the proposed tower. He said that the verbiage in the interlocal agreement with the City of Apopka would grant the BCC the authority to approve or disapprove cellular activity on the site and if approved, to identify where the funds would go.

Mr. Cole also clarified that it was within the Board’s authority to change this component of the agreement.

Commr. Parks commented that the requested variances were significant and asked if there were no other options or sites for the tower.

Mr. Holcomb said that regarding the 1,320 foot residential setback variance, the Lake County Code addressed guy wire towers at this length regardless of how tall the tower is. He stated that this was a normal variance for a guy wire tower, as they were not among the tallest towers in the County, and that this variance was regularly requested. He stated that the cellular tower setback would not apply if the tower was solely used for public safety and that this was also a common variance request in the event that the tower became a cellular tower and generated revenue at a later date.

Mr. Cole noted that there were no other sites with the criteria that staff was using. He relayed that the County did not have funding allocated for the purchase of land or constructing a tower, so Mr. Holcomb investigated similar sized parcels within the joint area which could be used.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the possibility of rotating the tower or guy wires.

Mr. Holcomb replied that the engineers would consider this and that the direction was to maximize the distance of the guy anchor points from nearby parcels. He stated that the design of the retention pond affected how the tower could be rotated, and there were concerns with two of the guy anchors having a setback of 50 feet from the wetland area or possibly encroaching on a nearby property line. He concluded that the guy wires could likely be rotated slightly.

Mr. Cole said that the tree mitigation fund, which consists of funds collected when trees are removed without permits, had been used to plant trees at county parks and facilities. He elaborated that there were currently ample funds to provide a vegetative buffer along the guy wire areas which would be surrounded by fences, along with a landscape buffer around the retention pond and tower.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm if the tower was 350 feet tall. She also asked about the setback.

Mr. Holcomb explained that the actual tower structure would be 300 feet and the antennas on top would add an additional 20 feet, so staff asked for 350 feet to be considered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He then stated that the setback would be 253 feet from the closest property line and that the tower would be self-collapsing within a 120 foot radius of the base.

Commr. Campione expressed that she would not vote to approve the request and that she would have issues with the tower if she lived on Chevy Chase Drive and was abutting the site. She suggested finding another site and selling some of the Lake Edwards property in order to generate the revenue to fund this. She asked that any revenue from colocations on the tower would be given to this community and the immediately adjacent area if the BCC approved the request. She also asked the BCC to consider these items: road improvements for paving Chevy Chase Road to create some offsetting value for the nearby residents; a provision to create a tree buffer around the site; and an attempt to move the guy wires to be further from the residents’ property lines, even if it would impact wetlands.

Commr. Parks asked if Commissioner Campione would be in favor of allowing more time to investigate the Neighborhood Lakes site.

Commr. Campione said that investigating that site could lead to a six month process.

Commr. Blake asked if Hurricane Irma caused the loss of any public safety towers of this size.

Mr. Holcomb replied that no towers were lost in the Lake County area, though there was some damage in the Florida Keys. He explained that the standard was a building code and national standard and that the wind loads are considered for every tower, which are then constructed to that standard.

The BCC members disclosed that they had each met with Ms. Thornton about this issue, and Commissioner Breeden disclosed that she had also met with Ms. Moss.

Commr. Breeden expressed support for the BCC to approve the request, acknowledging that many residents were not in favor of it. She said that it was a public safety issue and that delaying it further would put citizens and first responders at risk. She stated that she would support not having any cellular colocation on the tower, and she indicated support for implementing landscaping around the area and rotating the guy wires as far from homes as possible. She also said that she would not object to placing the paving of Chevy Chase Drive on the BCC’s list of road projects.

Commr. Campione stated that at the property she mentioned earlier in the discussion near a group of silos, there were about nine acres which were used for a trucking business and had access for trucks. She asked if a public safety tower could be placed on this type of property. She also relayed that she found a citizen who was willing to discuss this parcel.

Mr. Cole also inquired if setbacks would be required on this property.

Mr. Holcomb responded that a public safety tower could be placed on any parcel, but was unsure if the City of Apopka would approve this action since it would delay their process. He also added that the County did not own this parcel. He then indicated that setbacks would likely be required and that the process would have to be restarted from the beginning.

Commr. Parks stated that he wanted to confirm that all other options had been exhausted but that once this was confirmed, action would have to be taken for public safety.

Mr. Holcomb stated that the proposed area was the only viable option at the current time.

Mr. Cole said that staff’s primary focus was safety and that there were critical concerns about these issues and timing. He remarked that staff had not investigated the parcel suggested by Commissioner Campione, but noted that there were a number of structures on that site and that setbacks could be an issue.

Commr. Sullivan opined that the greater public good would be to move forward with the recommendation. He said that staff had considered all alternatives and would also consider if there was a better way to engineer the tower on the site.

Mr. Randal Fernandez, Deputy Chief for the Apopka Police Department, commented that this was a difficult decision and that residents’ best interests must be taken into account. He stated that about one year prior, he and Mr. Holcomb began discussions between Lake County and the City of Apopka for the interlocal agreement and to perform due diligence on the different properties. He said that the City of Apopka was interested in partnerships and that the recommended action would benefit both entities. He noted that the case had a reached a point where the City wanted an answer on the current day. He mentioned the importance of public safety agencies being able to communicate and asked to move the process forward.

Commr. Blake said he had hoped that the Neighborhood Lakes option would be viable, though recent discussions with the SJRWMD left him unsure of the outcome.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Tab 11, Rezoning Case # FLU-18-09-4, LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower Small Scale Map Amendment – Adoption, and Tab 12, Rezoning Case # RZ-18-06-4, LCBCC Public Safety SR 46 Communication Tower – Rezoning, with the requests to not co-locate with cellular carriers on the tower, to implement landscaping buffers near the tower, to rotate the guy wires as far as possible from adjacent homes, and to possibly add the paving of Chevy Chase Drive to the list of road projects.

Commr. Campione voted no.

ordinance 2018-39 uniform street addressing system

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 CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE V, ENTITLED “UNIFORM STREET ADDRESSING SYSTEM”; CLARIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROAD NAMING, POSTING ROAD NAME SIGNS, OBTAINING ADDRESSES FOR STRUCTURES, ADDING ADDITIONAL ROAD NAMING STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT; AMENDING SECTION 1.05.00 LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; EXPRESSLY INCORPORATING CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE V, ENTITLED “UNIFORM STREET ADDRESSING SYSTEM” INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Commr. Sullivan explained that this ordinance would make the street addressing system uniform throughout the county.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Ms. Marsh noted that there was an errata sheet included with the ordinance which would remove the language stating “the Board may deny requested road name changes if 20 percent of the property owners file written objections”.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-39 amending Chapter 18, Article V, entitled "Uniform Street Addressing System" to: clarify the requirements for road naming, posting road name signs, and obtaining addresses for structures; add additional road naming standards for development; and incorporate Chapter 18, Article V into Lake County Code, Appendix E, Section 1.05.00 entitled "Incorporation by Reference."

regular agenda

ordinance for prohibited and exempt signs

Mr. McClendon presented a proposed ordinance to amend the exempt signage standards and regulations. He explained that in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that signage standards could not be based on the content of those signs, and that in March 2017, the BCC removed all of the content based sign restrictions in the LDRs. He relayed that the existing ordinance still prohibited pole signs, deleted or amended all the references to content based items in the Lake County code, and temporary signs became non-permanent signs including political, incidental, non-commercial and real estate signs, etc. He said that the temporary sign definition was also amended in the ordinance and currently allowed two of these signs displayed for a maximum of ninety days each if the signs were a maximum of six feet in height and thirty-two square feet in size; furthermore, the signs could not be electric or illuminated and they would not require a permit. He summarized previous BCC sign workshops as discussing these items: exempting all temporary signs from any standards; proposing a restriction on the number of days that temporary signs are allowed to be displayed; ensuring that no permitting would be required to display a temporary sign; regulating temporary signs based on the acreage of a parcel; and expanding the list of temporary sign materials. He remarked that the current proposed ordinance would remove the temporary sign standards from the LDRs and would consider temporary signs as being exempt from permitting. He specified that this would state that signs constructed of light material would be considered non-permanent, and would allow residents to have any number of signs of three square feet or less if they met setback requirements in the code. He noted that this would also allow a resident to display one sign greater than three square feet and less than 16 square feet for each acre of property as long as it was six feet or less in height and not illuminated. He said that any sign constructed of material that did not meet the criteria would be prohibited, that there would be no calendar day restriction, and that a permit would not be required for non-permanent signs. He recalled that on September 5, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the ordinance with signs of a maximum of 32 square feet in lieu of the BCC’s directed 16 square feet. He relayed that staff’s recommendation of 16 square feet remained the same, and that the requested action was either to request approval to advertise the ordinance as presented to exempt certain signs which are not intended or designed for permanent display or to exempt signs up to 32 square feet as suggested by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commr. Sullivan clarified that this was a request to advertise an ordinance and that if approved, it would come back for a public hearing.

Commr. Blake indicated that he would be voting against the request because he was not in favor on the limitation of the number of signs allowed per acre.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns that the consequences would be uncertain if no limit was placed on the number of allowed signs.

Commr. Blake opined that individuals place signs for their content to be read and that they would naturally place them appropriately. He also commented that he was not in favor of any sign regulation.

Commr. Breeden said that she was unsure if she could support the ordinance because there was no time limit placed on the signs. She also expressed opposition to allowing 32 square foot signs.

Commr. Parks recommended allowing 16 square foot signs with a number limit.

Commr. Campione asked if any number of signs below that 16 square feet would be exempt.

Mr. McClendon replied that any signs under three square feet in size would be exempt and that there would be no limitation to their number, though they would have to meet setback requirements.

Commr. Breeden asked if the signs could be placed on vacant property and Commissioner Parks asked if the signs could be placed in right of ways.

Mr. McClendon responded that the signs could not be placed on vacant property nor right of ways.

Commr. Campione opined that the previous temporary sign restriction was too extreme and that while she was not willing to deregulate signs completely, this ordinance was worth trying as a solution.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to advertise an ordinance to Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations Section 11.01.05 "Prohibited Signs" and Section 11.01.06 "Exempt Signs" to exempt certain signs which are not intended or designed for permanent display, exempting sign copy area up to 16 square feet.

Commr. Breeden and Commr. Blake voted no.

final drafts of parks and trails master plans update

Mr. Bonilla presented the updated draft of the 10 year Lake County Parks and Trails Master Plans. He explained that the County currently had two master plans and that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2005 and the Trails Master Plan was adopted in 2008. He said that the County was also being served by the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board which considered matters of planning before providing recommendations to the BCC. He elaborated that this board was currently constituted of nine members and one non-voting member from the County Commission. He stated that five of the members’ appointments were from the BCC, one was from the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), one was from the School Board, one was from the League of Cities and another was from unincorporated Lake County. He stated that the County’s current adopted level of service was four acres per one-thousand residents in the unincorporated population. He remarked that in 2005 when the plan was adopted, the County had acquired several properties which were not taken into account when considering acreages; furthermore, these properties included the Ferndale Preserve at 196 acres, the North Lake Community Park at 96 acres, the Palatlakaha Environmental and Agricultural Reserve (P.E.A.R.) Park at 50 acres and were all acquired after the adopted level of service which showed an efficiency of 52.09 acres. He then commented that when comparing the year 2005 to 2018, the acreage increased for active parks, passive parks, trails, blueway trails, community centers and cemeteries. He said that currently the county had four sports complexes and twelve parks for its active parks, and twelve parks, ten public lands and fifteen boat ramps for its passive parks. He also said that the county had 21 miles of county-maintained paved trails, 34 miles of nature or hiking trails which the county also maintained, and 162 miles of blueway trails. He remarked that in order to enhance quality of life, the County was continuing to support its parks and trails for the purposes of the economy, tourism, health, alternative transportation, recreation and conservation. He reported that the majority of these parks were open seven days a week, that staff was also available seven days a week when compared to the five days a week that they were available in 2005, and that there were extended hours of operation at some gated and staffed facilities with some examples being the North Lake Community Park, the Minneola Athletic Complex (MAC) and the East Lake Sports and Community Complex. He stated that many accomplishments had been funded with the sales tax. He displayed a list of some of the facilities that received improvements and noted that these included sports fields, lighting, parking, pathway systems, picnic areas, playgrounds and dog parks. He showed a map with the locations of the four sports complexes and noted that they did not exist in 2005. He elaborated that there was now the substantially completed North Lake Community Park which had been open for the past nine and a half years, and the East Lake Community Park which opened in 2013 and was planned to be completed within the following four years. He also specified that the County began managing the MAC in FY 2012 and that the South Lake Regional Park was in the construction phase. He displayed a list of amenities which had been requested and accomplished since 2005, noting restrooms, shade structures, dog parks, concessions, observation towers, nature centers, and a wildlife watch post. He stated that Lake County was unique in that it had a Miracle Field at Lake Idamere, the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook, and the wildlife watch post station at P.E.A.R. Park. He then commented that from 2009 to 2017, there were over 31,000 sports related events in the county. He said that for the public lands property, the original referendum to purchase public lands was approved by more than 70 percent of voters and the County acquired 11 properties. He elaborated that at the current time, the Office of Parks and Trails was responsible for eight of the properties, that the Green Meadows Scenic Overlook and Trailhead was leased from the SJRWMD, and that the Pine Meadows Conservation Area was transferred to the County by the SJRWMD. He stated that the public lands provided a diverse ecosystem and a unique assortment of wildlife and that the first three public lands were open to the public in 2011. He then shared that the passive parks included P.E.A.R. Park which had been a wildlife conservation area and was currently on a 52 year lease with the state, Ferndale Preserve which was 196 acres, and Pine Forest Park. He elaborated that these facilities had received a significant amount of improvement funded through sales tax, and also had ongoing land management restoration efforts. He said that the County had also improved a significant amount of boat ramps over the past eight years and that this was mostly accomplished through the Boating Improvement Fund. He then stated that the County had at least 22 or 23 canoe and kayak launch areas, and he noted that paddling, canoeing and kayaking had seen an increase in usage which led to the County providing additional locations for residents. He remarked that the nature trails were all maintained by the County, that there were 34 miles of nature trails, and that the County offered educational and nature based events on a weekly basis with about 100 nature based events annually. He commented that the County also had 162 miles of global positioning system (GPS) waterway trails, which was started in 2007, and the latest addition was the Lake Eustis Run at 23 miles. He noted that between 2007 and 2017, the County hosted or partnered on more than 1,000 nature based events and that some of these events were mandated as part of the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) grant at P.E.A.R Park, the Ferndale Preserve, and the Lake May Reserve property. He relayed that the County was currently maintaining approximately 21 miles of multi-use trails with the most popular trails being the South Lake and Hancock Trails. He said that the trail system was designed, engineered and permitted through the Public Works Department, and the Office of Parks and Trails would manage and maintain trails that were not in the municipalities. He remarked that over the past several years, the County had offered many grants to municipalities and not-for-profit organizations, and had also been the recipient of many grants. He specified that recently, approximately $1.5 million from the FCT was received for the Lake May Reserve, that P.E.A.R. Park was a recipient of FCT dollars in the amount of about $2.3 million, and that the Ferndale Reserve received around $3.1 million from the FCT. He said that these properties had ongoing land management and restoration projects in addition to some capital improvements. He then listed several partnerships throughout the community which included these items: the Lake County School Board for East Lake Community Park for the County to transfer approximately 15 acres to the School Board in exchange for $15 million; the City of Minneola for the MAC in 2013; the City of Clermont, which the Lake Hiawatha Preserve was transferred to; the City of Clermont for the South Lake Regional Park; and the City of Fruitland Park for the Northwest Lake Community Park. He mentioned several partnerships with the SJRWMD, a partnership with Seminole State Forest, and partnerships with the LCWA. He said that the County had also been the recipient of smaller grants through DEP for North Lake Community Park, the Lake Idamere Miracle Field and P.E.A.R. Park, noting that these grants were generally about $200,000. He commented that the County had also partnered with the Florida Wildflower Foundation and that P.E.A.R. Park had been a key destination for wildflower viewing, and he recognized the volunteers that assist with parks and trails throughout the county.

Mr. Bonilla said that the BCC approved the Parks and Trails Master Plan in 2016, that both plans were being updated concurrently, and that the focus areas were to consider both the existing, planned and potential park facilities and active, passive and linear recreation opportunities. He relayed that six workshops were held with one in each commission district in the county, and that that there was extensive outreach with input being gathered from these entities: 14 municipalities; the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board; the Tourist Development Council (TDC); the Public Works Department; the Agency for Economic Prosperity; the Office of Communications; and the general public, among others. He commented that an online survey was administered with 889 responses, and the results suggested these takeaways: finish existing projects, particularly for the active parks that had been planned and programmed; work toward opening the remaining public lands property; continue to enhance the amenities and facilities; increase the path and parking lot lighting systems throughout the facilities; add pickleball courts due to public demand; continue to work with organizations to potentially develop a mountain bike trail in the county; and increase availability of exercise stations. He commented that in November 2017, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) received a presentation on the Parks and Trails Master Plans and in December 2017, the plans were presented to the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). He said that staff had developed a draft master plan which would include 52 miles of existing trails, 166 miles of planned, under design or under construction trails, and 170 conceptual trail miles. He listed some of the criteria used for trails as connectivity, readiness, community support, complexity, user experience, and enhancement impacts. He said that some trails which resulted in high demand included the Gardenia Trail, the North Lake Trail, and the Umatilla to North Lake Community Park Trail. He noted that three of the eleven high demand trails, including the Wekiva Trail, the South Lake Trail which was part of the Coast to Coast Connector, and the North Lake Trail phase 3, were part of the Lake-Sumter MPO’s priority list. He listed this information gathered from stakeholders about the trail system: continue to incorporate the Trails Master Plan into Lake County’s Comp Plan and any other long range planning documents, such as those which incorporate land use, environmental planning and transportation planning; coordinate with local governments for the adoption of the Trails Master Plan into local Comp Plans, municipalities’ trails master plans, and to work to protect trail corridors; continue to coordinate with stakeholders such as FDOT, the Lake-Sumter MPO, DEP, and the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT) to achieve trail construction more quickly and to obtain more opportunities for financial support; and continue to work with adjacent counties to have a seamless trail system between counties. He displayed a map showing the Neighborhood Lakes Trail and noted that there was a piece of property which the State would transfer to the County to finish building segment 4A. He elaborated that this segment would connect the trail on S.R. 46 and would eventually connect to the West Orange Trail south of the Orange County line. He stated this property had been in consideration for nearly four years and that staff would continue with the State for the property to be transferred to the County through a lease agreement, and mentioned that the connection to the West Orange Trail had been proposed in 2008. He then relayed this additional stakeholder feedback: develop an Adopt-a-Trail program, similar to the Adopt-a-Park program where businesses, not-for-profits and private owners could assist with the litter cleaning of the trail system; work to maintain a minimum level of service of one mile of multi-use trail per five thousand residents and one mile of nature hiking trail per 6,750 residents to be consistent with the 2008 Trails Master Plan and the State Comprehensive Outdoor Resource Plan; update the Trails Master Plan every 10 years; and continue to work with partners and examine ways to fund the expansion of the parks and trails system. He highlighted the blueway system as an important part of the public process and reported that Lake County had over 1,000 lakes. He said that residents would like to see the blueway system expand from the current nine locations, and he showed a map with possible future locations where potential partnerships could expand the blueway system. He then reported that stakeholder recommendations for the parks system included to consider incorporating by reference the Parks and Recreation Master Plan into the Comp Plan and any other long range planning documents, and to continue to explore partnership opportunities for ongoing capital and operating costs for both the parks and trails system; furthermore, he noted that central Lake County, northwest Lake County, Wellness Way, Cagans Crossings and the Four Corners areas were underserved and had the potential for significant growth. He displayed a slide showing a list of dates for the Hills of Minneola Recreational Partnership, including the initial presentation and a workshop from the City of Minneola, noting that the County had been in communication with the City and that staff’s current direction was to continue to explore partnership opportunities with the City of Minneola for cost sharing of the master planning, development and operation of the proposed park. He elaborated that part of the Hills of Minneola project was in an area where a trail corridor would be needed to connect to the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trailhead and that in addition to the park, the trail corridor would also need to be provided at the same time. He said that this would fall under the City’s jurisdiction and that Sugarloaf Mountain would provide the additional land to connect the trail to the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trailhead. He stated that these two pieces of property would give the County the necessary land to connect to the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trail through the Hancock Trail, extending off into both the Hills of Minneola and Sugarloaf Mountain. He said that if the City followed the County’s Trails Master Plan, then the County could request that they protect those corridors after the developers donate the land. He remarked that another stakeholder recommendation was to continue working with the Agency for Economic Prosperity to continue to secure funding for some sports-related events and that some of the funding could potentially be used for the development of sports complexes, public lands and passive park properties. He then added these additional stakeholder recommendations: continue to implement strategies from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to have as many facilities as possible be ADA compliant, which had seen some progress each year; update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan every 10 years; and ensure that the funds and resources are available to offset the operational costs. He commented that the population had grown significantly since the initial Parks and Trails Master Plans were approved, and the necessary resources would have to be available to address them. He noted that an additional recommendation was to implement these park size classifications: neighborhood park for any park smaller than 15 acres in size; community park for any park greater than 15 acres but less than 74 acres; regional park for parks equal to or greater than 75 acres; and special use. He then highlighted these park reclassifications: North Lake Community Park being reclassified as North Lake Regional Park: East Lake Sports and Community Park being considered a regional park due to meeting the acreage criteria after an additional 42 acres were acquired by the County in the previous year; P.E.A.R. Park becoming an active park; the northern portion of Pine Forest Park, including the Scrub Jay habitat, becoming a passive park; Lake Saunders Boat Ramp becoming a passive park; and Ferndale Preserve and the western 268 acres of P.E.A.R. Park becoming public lands to be consistent with the land management operations and the mission of the properties. He said that for stakeholder recommendations concerning the level of service, the County was currently operating on a level of service of four acres per thousand residents. He continued by stating that the County had 3,892 acres and that the passive parks were separated from the active parks. He remarked that on the passive side, the current level of service was 21.3 acres per 1,000 residents and that for active parks, 3.3 acres per 1,000 residents were provided, and this was based on the unincorporated population. He relayed that the recommended level of service was 10 acres per 1,000 residents and that this aligned with the national average of 10.1 acres per 1,000 residents as cited in the National Recreation Parks Association’s (NRPA) 2018 performance review. He commented that the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board voted to support the Trails Master Plan draft and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan draft in February 2018 and May 2018, respectively. He recalled Board discussion on April 24, 2018 about the possibility of establishing a parks foundation, and he said that staff had conducted research on how to achieve this. He elaborated that a BCC ordinance would be required to establish a committee and provide a purpose, membership requirements, duties, etc. He noted that there would be a fiscal impact to staff due to the addition of one or two full time employees, and there were similar staffing levels at other parks foundations. He stated that staff also researched the County’s current donation policy to allow the solicitation and acceptance of gifts or donations from the public for public purposes, and that the policy would cover instances in which citizens, businesses, charitable and other organizations provide donations to the County. He explained that the review and approval of donations was based on value, that any donation worth over $25,000 would come before the BCC, and that any donation worth less than $25,000 would come to the County Manager. He concluded by requesting that the BCC approve to adopt the 10 year Parks and Trails Master Plans.

Mr. Michael Woods, Executive Director for the Lake-Sumter MPO, expressed his agency’s support of the Trails Master Plan update and said that it was also important to consider the previous 10 years. He specified that with the implementation of the Florida Sun Trail legislation and the funding for Central Florida, Lake County had nearly met its 10 year implementation strategy from the 2008 plan. He stated that these were transportation corridors and that as the county urbanized, these transportation networks would increase in importance and add to the local quality of life and economic prosperity. He thanked the BCC for their leadership and he recalled that Lake County was a leader with the Lake Minneola Scenic Trail being one of the first rail to trail conversions in Central Florida. He concluded with the hope that his agency could continue providing funding for these projects.

Mr. Cole stated that this was an in-depth process which the Office of Parks and Trails began about two years prior. He said that while guidance was received from a consultant, he wanted to commend Mr. Bonilla and the office to ensure that appropriate stakeholder and community input was received throughout the county.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Bonilla and said that he would support the request for approval of the master plans. He remarked that the trails and passive recreation areas helped make Lake County unique, and he asked if there had been a response from the City of Minneola about a possible recreation partnership.

Mr. Cole responded that the BCC approved for him to send the letter at a previous meeting, though he had not yet received a response from the City.

Commr. Parks expressed support for a parks foundation and noted that one or two staff members would be necessary to enable it, though he opined that there were some organizations which could assist with this. He specified that he recently met with individuals from the Trout Lake Nature Center and they said that they could operate a parks foundation if the County would create it. He commented that this could allow the County to seek funding opportunities from corporations and non-profit organizations.

Mr. Cole responded that staff would follow up on the issue.

Commr. Sullivan said that he had visited numerous baseball parks in various counties and he opined that the North Lake Community Park was one of the best facilities. He also stated that about one million cyclists passed through a trail in the City of Winter Garden each year and that similar economic impacts could be experienced by Lake County. He expressed excitement about Lake County’s level of service and he thanked the Office of Parks and Trails for their work.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Bonilla for all of his work since he joined the County and for how much had been accomplished with a sometimes low amount of resources.

Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Bonilla and his team for being responsive to calls from citizens.

Commr. Campione asked that when considering the issue of designating regional and community parks, if it would be possible to have a regional park which would be contiguous. She gave the example of the City of Minneola’s property within the Hills of Minneola development and asked if the nearby MAC could be considered along with it as a regional facility, or if they would have to be physically adjacent to be considered as such. She said that the Hills of Minneola developer also had property across U.S. 27 which could be used as part of the park and could also be separated out for different types of courts and fields. She stated that a larger total acreage could be a result and asked if this particular part of the development could be considered as a regional park if the smaller parcel had some separation.

Mr. Bonilla replied that staff would have to consider the distances and characteristics of each park and that a multiplex could potentially be considered.

Commr. Parks opined that parcels which were connected and walkable could help determine this.

Commr. Campione asked if the County could contact the City of Minneola specifically to ensure that as the City negotiates with the Hills of Minneola developer, that they would have the developer reserve and possibly construct the trail corridor which would create connectivity to the Ferndale Preserve and the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trailhead. She remarked that the City of Minneola wanted the trail system and that reaching out to them could give them the required tools to incorporate it into the Hills of Minneola development plan.

Commr. Breeden added that there could be some impact fee credits available for the project. She also relayed that Mr. Joe Dunn, with the Friends of Lake Apopka, had talked to Mr. Mark Johnson, Minneola City Manager, about trying to move forward on this item.

Commr. Parks said that the Minneola City Manager could be asked about this, and Mr. Cole indicated that staff would follow up on the issue.

Commr. Campione remarked that the City of Minneola had discussed this issue at a previous city workshop and that the County already had the trail system in its plan. She commented that this would give the City the tools to inform the developer that it would need to be part of the overall site plan. She commended staff and said that a recent event at the East Lake Community Park was a great success.

Mr. Bonilla said that staff would share the master plans with the municipalities to allow them to designate and protect trail corridors as development comes before them. He stated that the City of Minneola had Sugarloaf Mountain and the Hills of Minneola which could connect to the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trailhead, and this could allow for a loop around Lake Apopka which would prevent having to spend effort on the C.R. 455 side which had limited right of way and road width.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final drafts of the Lake County Parks and Trails Master Plans update.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

festival of flight and flowers

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Festival of Flight and Flowers would be on October 13, 2018 in the City of Eustis, and the event would continue between October 12 and October 14, 2018. He said that there would be many guest speakers and some activities would also occur offsite.

Commr. Breeden clarified that the event used to be the Wings and Wildflowers Festival.

future of transportation summit

Commr. Parks stated that the Future of Transportation Summit would be on October 12, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the City of Clermont. He encouraged the BCC to attend and said that there would be some great guest speakers and that the summit would provide a look into the future of transportation, regional connectivity, how roads are built and planned for, the public use of right of way, autonomous vehicles, ride sharing, and road design techniques that could help preserve water quality.

workforce housing meeting

Commr. Parks remarked that on September 27, 2018, at 8:00 a.m., he would be attending a workforce housing meeting in the City of Clermont. He also invited the BCC to attend. He commented that the meeting concerned workforce housing and would not discuss issues of homelessness.

Mr. Cole noted that information about this event had been distributed to the BCC.

Commr. Sullivan said that it would involve economic development through housing opportunities.

proclamation 2018-135 domestic violence awareness month

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-135 designating October 2018 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

commissioner campione – VICE CHAIRMAN AND district 4

proposed renaming of landfill road

Commr. Campione said that Landfill Road was next to the property where the Renaissance Faire was held, and she had asked staff if the road’s name could be changed to correspond to the event. She said that the Renaissance Faire organizers had asked for the new name to possibly be “Lady of the Lakes Road” or “Renaissance Road”, with “Lady of the Lakes Road” gaining the most support in an online poll. She asked if the BCC would find it acceptable to have staff move quickly on renaming the road so that if it passed the 911 test, then the new name could be used in the next event’s advertising.

Mr. Cole said that Mr. Holcomb’s office had been conducting the due diligence required for road naming.

lake county historical museum advisory group

Commr. Campione mentioned the recent issue of bringing a statue of a Confederate general to the Lake County Historical Museum and asked if the Board would be agreeable by consensus for her to serve as a liaison and work with the museum as they form a committee or advisory group. She specified that she could help oversee the issues of context, presentation and how to display the statue in a way that would accommodate concerns from citizens. She commented that she could also help identify opportunities where the BCC could take a role in developing community enhancement efforts for the museum.

Commr. Breeden asked if this would include working with all parts of the community, and Commissioner Campione confirmed this.

Commr. Sullivan supported having Commissioner Campione fulfill this role.

Commr. Parks also expressed his support for Commissioner Campione and he asked to be informed about any new community ideas or activities.

Commr. Breeden supported the proposal but opined that the Confederate general statue should not be brought to Lake County.

Commr. Campione said that there could be some opportunities for the BCC to assist with community cohesion. She remarked that there might also be some chances through the County’s library system or in the County’s buildings to house displays which could tell stories about the community. She added that the community’s participation could help determine which items they would want to be displayed and to promote inclusiveness and unity.

Commr. Parks stated that it was a great opportunity and that there was ample wall space in local buildings for housing displays or art which could be combined with a historical perspective.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

UMATILLA BUS ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS

Commr. Blake thanked Ms. Dorothy Keedy, Director for the Community Services Department, and her team for attending a recent meeting at Piney Grove Baptist Church in the City of Umatilla. He elaborated that the meeting discussed trying to give the community better access to a nearby bus stop, and a proposed revenue neutral idea was to adjust the bus route to the Altoona post office. He then said that the bus would have a pick up location on Church Street three times per day starting on November 1, 2018. He noted that the community was grateful for this effort and that he was also working with Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, on a sidewalk project to allow better access to the bus stop.

meeting recess and reassembly

The Chairman called recess at 1:17 p.m. until the 5:05 p.m. Budget Public Hearing Meeting.

5:05 budget public hearing

PRESENTATION OF MILLAGE RATES

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this meeting was to have the second of two public hearings on the FY 2019 budget as required by Florida Statutes, and to adopt the final millage rates and the final budget for FY 2019. She commented that Chapters 129 and 200 of the Florida Statutes outline the procedures for the annual adoption of tax rates and budgets and also would require her to also identify the tentative millage rates for FY 2019, as well as any adjustments to be considered by the Board before adopting the final millage rates and the final FY 2019 budget. She mentioned that the public hearing was advertised in the Daily Commercial on September 21, 2018, that the advertisement would be reflected in the resolutions to be signed, and that the advertisement was within the required timeframes for publication as outlined in the Florida Statutes of not less than two, nor more than five days from the final public hearing date. She remarked that the FY 2019 proposed Lake County General Fund Countywide Millage was 5.1180 mills, which was equal to the FY 2018 rate and a 5.82 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 4.8364 mills. She said that the proposed FY 2019 Lake County Ambulance Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) millage was 0.4629 mills, which was equal to the FY 2018 rate and a 5.83 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4374 mills. She said that the proposed FY 2019 Lake County Stormwater, Roads and Parks MSTU millage was 0.4957 mills, was equal to the FY 2018 rate and was a 6.37 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4660 mills. She relayed that the proposed FY 2019 Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU millage was 0.4704 mills, was equal to the FY 2018 rate, and was a 6.31 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4425 mills. She then said that the Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt millage did not factor into the rollback calculation as it was approved by a referendum, and that this millage was 0.1324 mills which was a 0.02 millage decrease to the rate adopted in FY 2018. She commented that based on the calculation per the Florida Department of Revenue on the DR-420 Certification of Taxable Value form, the current proposed aggregate rate was 5.45 percent over the rollback rate.

budget summary

Ms. Barker remarked that there had been 17 budget workshop to date and a strategy was used as a roadmap for the development of the FY 2019 budget with these elements: departmental budgets were evaluated for operational efficiencies while maintaining the current levels of service; some mandated costs increased, including Florida Retirement System (FRS) rates and the Department of Juvenile Justice contribution; all of the operating millages would be kept at the FY 2018 rates; the Public Lands-Voted Debt millage decreased 0.2 mills; and staff was making an effort to rebuild the General Fund reserves after the depletion from Hurricane Irma. She then listed these characteristics of the proposed final budget for FY 2019: fully funds the Judicial Support, Clerk of Courts, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections and Medical Examiner; provides an additional $3 million to the Sheriff’s Office; provides an additional $380,384 for the Sheriff’s Office for their in house support; incorporates the approved project list for the Infrastructure Sales Tax which was approved in August 2018; includes employee performance based raises up to a three percent; includes the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS); incorporates savings from efficiencies; and General Fund reserves would be at seven percent with the Board’s policy goal being from seven to twelve percent of the General Fund’s operating budget. She said that the proposed budget also included an additional 196 new staff positions with 193 new Office of EMS positions transitioning from Lake EMS, one new position in the Office of Human Resources transitioning from Lake EMS, one new position in the Information Technology (IT) Department also transitioning from Lake EMS; and one new position in the Community Services Department for the Housing and Community Development Division which was directed by the BCC at the August 21, 2018 BCC meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Maggie Denk, Director of Camping and Recreation for Easterseals Florida, said that she ran Camp Challenge and thanked the BCC for their support of the Children’s Service Council Grant. She explained that the county’s public safety services helped Camp Challenge operate and that the camp also could not be operated without Lake County Fire Rescue and the Sheriff’s Office. She said that both of those agencies had responded to safety issues, medical emergencies and other occurrences at the camp, while also providing positive services to campers. She recalled that during the previous summer, a camper experienced a significant behavioral health emergency which was effectively responded to by the Sheriff’s Office, and she expressed her support for funding the Sheriff.

Ms. Linda Krupski, Founding Director for LovExtension, said that her organization was non-profit and supported the elderly in Lake County. She stated that the BCC enabled her organization to operate and had provided an initial grant opportunity approximately eight years prior. She commented that before this time, LovExtension was only providing social visits to people in facilities to assist with loneliness and depression, and the initial grant opened the opportunity for the agency to provide social visits for seniors living in their homes. She remarked that providing home visits helped the agency identify the struggles faced by these individuals, such as a lack of food, and that food had since been provided to individuals who were unable to cook. She described helping an elderly individual who could not pay their rent by providing a monthly assortment of food and other necessary supplies, and she said that there was a growing number of grandparents who had the responsibility of raising their grandchildren. She indicated that LovExtension was currently serving 488 senior or disabled individuals in Lake County and was providing 317 seniors with an assortment of food each month to assist them with their budgets. She related that in 2017 in Lake County, there were over 6,500 people who were 60 years or older on food stamps, and over 14,000 people aged 60 or higher were eligible for food stamps during this time. She remarked that one in seven persons aged 60 or older in the State of Florida were in the poverty range and that every LovExtension bag of food given had a story associated with it and was appreciated. She expressed gratitude to the BCC for allowing the food to be distributed with the Lake County Human Services Grant. She opined that the Meals on Wheels program was inadequate and that there was a two or three year waiting list to access it. She said that her agency conducted a food survey for each individual to provide only the food that the recipient would eat. She stated that her organization also provided incontinence products, nutrition drinks and personal hygiene items. She commented that all services were free and that none of the organization’s employees were making a salary. She explained that many of their clients lived on around $650 per month and that most of them were only receiving $16 per month in food stamps, which could not be used for personal hygiene products. She relayed that toilet paper was the top request received by her agency and opined that the elderly and disabled should not have to be concerned about necessities such as food and toilet paper. She expressed appreciation for the BCC realizing the importance of human services grants.

Ms. Georgia Palmer indicated that she had family who served with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) and that she had pride in their service. She expressed concerns about a reduced number of deputies assigned to different road shifts, specifying that the number of deputies assigned to the alpha shift had decreased by 23 deputy sheriffs at full staff since the year 2002, and this figure included the loss of the lieutenant, sergeant, and K-9 handlers. She also indicated concerns about the financial compensation for the events that the deputies must experience and she opined that remaining status quo on this issue would encourage experienced deputies to seek employment at other agencies which could provide greater financial stability. She opined that other agencies in the county had kept up with factors such as the cost of living for deputies, population growth, and the amount of calls for service. She asked the BCC to not remain status quo with the Sheriff’s Office.

Commr. Sullivan responded that this would be the BCC’s greatest challenge in the current fiscal year, along with restoring the County’s reserves. He stated that an additional $3 million would be provided to the Sheriff’s budget and that other ideas would be considered. He relayed that the BCC would be committed to reviewing this issue and that if the County did not have its reserves, it would have instead had to borrow funds to expend as a result of Hurricane Irma. He indicated that it was uncertain when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would reimburse these funds, and he stressed the importance of rebuilding the reserves due to them being used for both the County and the LCSO. He remarked that the Sheriff experienced new expenses resulting from the state legislation for school resource officers and that because the County had funding in its reserves, it was able to provide approximately $300,000 in the current year’s budget as additional funds. He concluded that the BCC was aware of the issue, that he would consider the issue of the LCSO’s competition with the municipalities and other counties, and that he appreciated their service.

Mr. Cole clarified that the millage rate would be remaining status quo and would not increase. He added that the Sheriff’s budget would potentially be increasing by approximately $3 million and that this figure would not be status quo.

Commr. Breeden asked to clarify if this would be about a five percent increase in the Sheriff’s budget.

Mr. Cole confirmed this and also stated that staff had worked to reduce County expenditures by approximately 1.4 percent to allow funding for other purposes.

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

board discussion

Commr. Campione said that public safety concerns and the issue of attempting to provide competitive salaries for the Sheriff’s Office and different County departments had been a focus of the Board’s budget discussions. She mentioned that the County departments were utilizing merit pay to adjust salaries and that there had been negotiations with the fire department to address compression issues; however, the Sheriff had highlighted specific needs as identified in his salary study. She recalled that the Board had expressed interest in considering available funds at midyear to further assist the Sheriff’s request for an additional $700,000, and she proposed cooperating with the Sheriff to utilize some of the forfeiture funds that the Sheriff’s Office had accumulated over time. She elaborated that these funds could be used to fund school resource officers, though could not be for operating expenses. She stated that the original school resource officer funds could then be utilized for other purposes such as implementing a salary study. She commented that this would allow the Board to approach the coming fiscal year with the ability to fund the additional $700,000 so that the Sheriff could perform a salary study in spring 2019. She also noted that if there was adequate funding at midyear, the Board could adjust the Sheriff’s budget accordingly to offset that cost. She said that being able to utilize a midyear funds or the forfeiture trust fund to support the school resource officers would allow the Board to commit to allowing the Sheriff’s salary increases to be enacted in April 2019. She stated that about $500,000 could be taken out of the forfeiture trust fund, and proposed that the Board take approximately $200,000 out of the reserves to create a total of around $700,000 for the Sheriff to utilize. She clarified that the only change to the BCC’s budget at the current time would be this $200,000 and that the remaining $500,000 would be drawn from the Sheriff’s forfeiture funds with the County assisting to coordinate the logistics of this act.

Commr. Breeden asked to clarify if Commissioner Campione was suggesting to provide these funds at midyear.

Commr. Campione responded that the forfeiture trust fund would be used to ensure that funding was available for the Sheriff to move forward with his salary increases to take effect in April 2019. She added that if the midyear funding was available, it would then be used to replace the funding drawn from the forfeiture trust fund.

Sheriff Peyton Grinnell said that he appreciated Commissioner Campione’s efforts to find additional funding for a salary study. He related that he had not yet spoken to his general counsel to determine the feasibility of this type of plan, and that he would have some concerns when considering that school resource employees had already been placed on campuses and were currently receiving paychecks. He noted that he was also utilizing state law enforcement trust funding for other items that the statute allowed such as chronic prevention and assisting drug rehabilitation for addicts, noting that he was required to spend 25 percent of the state law enforcement trust fund money for these purposes. He recalled that he proposed a budget in June 2018 to inform the Board of the required funding for effective and efficient law enforcement services in the county. He remarked that five cities were now paying higher salaries than his office and that he was losing employees; additionally, populations were growing and the costs for service were rising. He said that his agency had made significant reductions in service over the past decade with about 53 less positions when compared to 2008, and the closure of the South Lake district office and jail in the City of Clermont in order to bring those staff and prisoners to facilities in the City of Tavares. He stated that he would be willing to cooperate with the BCC and that he had to look at least five years out to ensure that he would be providing citizens with quality law enforcement and keeping up with the costs for service. He said that he first would have to be able to attract quality applicants and that this could be accomplished by being competitive within the job market. He noted that his office’s starting salaries were about $11,000 less than neighboring sheriff agencies and he expressed an interest in training and retaining applicants. He commented that even with an additional $700,000 in funding, his employees would have to wait until April 2019 for the salary study. He reiterated that he was requesting additional funding and said that he was aware of the Board’s rule for the reserve levels; however, he opined that there was a clear and present need at the Sheriff’s Office, and he proposed potentially taking $700,000 out of reserves to address this.

Commr. Parks thanked Commissioner Campione for her proposal and he expressed that his concern was creating a formal assurance that the Sheriff’s salary concerns would be addressed by April 2019. He said that the BCC was supportive of public safety and he asked about what would happen if the forfeiture trust fund would not be able to fully fund the Sheriff’s salary increases and if the BCC would commit to providing the $700,000 at midyear if so.

Commr. Campione indicated support for utilizing the forfeiture funds and that if it was found that some of those funds would have to be held back and could not be used, she would support making up that difference at midyear through incoming revenues or by utilizing reserves. She opined that at least $400,000 or $500,000 of the forfeiture funds could be used for school resource officers to offset the additional funding and specified that revenues which met projections could be used to offset the cost, though reserves could be utilized if the revenues were lower than projected.

Commr. Breeden said that this could impact the County’s funding for the following year and that while she liked the idea, she was unsure if the County should mandate how the Sheriff spends his trust fund.

Commr. Campione stated that collaboration with the Sheriff’s Office was important. She commented that piecing the funds together between the County and the Sheriff’s Office was an alternative and that the County funds could be offset by revenues if they were above projections. She indicated her support for helping the Sheriff meet his goals for a salary study at midyear and reiterated that she wanted to contribute an additional $200,000 at the current time.

Commr. Parks mentioned that out of the approximately $500,000 from the forfeiture funds, some portion of the funding would possibly have to be used for another purpose and that more time would allow this to be investigated. He then asked to clarify if the Board would be formally committing to provide funding at midyear.

Commr. Breeden inquired if a better option would be to save the $200,000 until midyear.

Ms. Barker clarified that the second BCC meeting in January 2019 would be the first midyear adjustment with a second to follow in April 2019.

Commr. Sullivan said that another option would be to commit to an additional $350,000 for the Sheriff’s budget in the current year, which could be taken out of reserves and given to the Sheriff immediately. He then said that by midyear, the forfeiture trust fund and other funds could be investigated and that subtracting $350,000 would not drastically affect the reserves. He added that in January 2019, the Board would consider additional funding to meet the $700,000 goal and that the forfeiture funds could be used if necessary.

Commr. Campione voiced her support for this idea and said that it would allow the Sheriff to commit to implementing his salary study in April 2019.

Ms. Barker summarized that the BCC would be reducing the reserves by $350,000 for FY 2019 and placing it into the Sheriff’s transfer for law enforcement. She said that the overall dollar amount for the BCC’s FY 2019 final budget would not change and it would only be a matter of shifting the funds out of reserves, but indicated this would drop the reserves to below the Board’s policy goal of seven percent.

Commr. Breeden stated that this could also affect the County’s bond rating.

Commr. Parks urged the Board to incorporate a formal commitment to meeting the $700,000 goal by midyear into the motion.

MILLAGE RESOLUTIONS

Ms. Barker stated that the first requested action was to adopt the final millage rates for FY 2019.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County countywide final millage rate of 5.1180 mills (Resolution 2018-142), the Lake County Municipal Services Taxing Unit for Ambulance and Emergency Services final millage rate of 0.4629 mills (Resolution 2018-143), the Lake County MSTU for Stormwater, Parks and Roads final millage rate of 0.4957 mills (Resolution 2018-144), the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU final millage rate of 0.4704 mills (Resolution 2018-145), and the Lake County Voter Approved Debt Service final millage rate of 0.1324 mills (Resolution 2018-146),

Commr. Blake voted no.

CHANGES TO FY 2019 TENTATIVE BUDGET

Ms. Barker said that there had been various changes since the approval of the tentative budget, including some fund balance and revenue projections. She added that funding related to the increased hours at the Cooper Memorial Library in the City of Clermont, which would be provided by the City in the amount of $76,920, was added, and roughly $36,000 would be coming to the County to fund three part time staff positions with the remaining $40,000 being provided to Lake-Sumter State College for additional security costs. She then added these items: funding for a DEP community planning grant for a University of Central Florida (UCF) master plan study for the community redevelopment agency (CRA); updated purchase order (PO) carryforward estimates; additional pending capital projects were re-budgeted into the new year; other miscellaneous changes and corrections; and reducing the reserves by $350,000 and adding it to the Sheriff’s transfer to law enforcement personnel. She read the requested action to adopt the changes to the FY 2019 tentative budget totaling $675,902.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the adopted changes to the FY 2019 tentative budget totaling $675,902.

Commr. Blake voted no.

final BUDGET

Ms. Barker read the requested action for adopting Resolution 2018-147 for the FY 2019 final budget totaling $454,282,768.

Commr. Parks thanked staff for supporting the BCC and the County. He said that the County had made positive steps toward meeting the Sheriff’s requested budget and that he looked forward to working with the BCC and staff to help provide funding for the salary study at midyear.

Commr. Sullivan thanked both the audience for attending and staff for assisting the BCC and the County.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2018-147 for the final Fiscal Year 2019 budget for Lake County totaling $454,282,768.

Commr. Blake voted no.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

_________________________________

timothy i. sullivan, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK