A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

October 9, 2018

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 9, 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 Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk, Board Support.

INVOCATION and pledge

Pastor John Haynie of Bahá’ís of Lake County gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, asked for the Board to consider approving Tab 2 and allowing Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Office of Emergency Management Director, to provide a brief update on Hurricane Michael prior to the employee awards.

hurricane michael update

Mr. Carpenter provided an update on Hurricane Michael and noted there were no current watches or warnings for Lake County, nor were they expecting any for the county. He reported that the County would not be opening emergency shelters; however, it possibly would be providing host shelters after the storm for anyone who is unable to return to their homes. He remarked that one health care facility in the Florida Panhandle was sending 62 of their residents and 32 staff members to a facility within Lake County. He reminded residents to stay informed and prepared throughout the hurricane season.

approval of proclamation 2018-150

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2018-150, designating October 14-20, 2018 as Mediation Week in Lake County.

employee awards

Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached service milestones in their careers with Lake County as well as quarterly award recipients as follows:

EMPLOYEE and quarterly AWARDS

FIVE YEARS

Dustin Dart, Firefighter EMT (not present)

Office of Fire Rescue

Timothy Daubert, Stormwater Inspector II

Public Works Department

Timothy Gilbert, Road Maintenance Operator

Public Works Department

Benjamin Green, Firefighter/ Paramedic (not present)

Office of Fire Rescue

Bradley Hermesman, Firefighter/ EMT (not present)

Office of Fire Rescue

TEN YEARS

Peggy Stassie, Library Assistant I (not present)

Office of Library Services

Shane Strew, Recreation Coordinator

Office of Parks & Trails

FIFTEEN YEARS

Cynthia Jones, Office Associate IV

Information Technology Department

Juanita Popenoe, Extension Agent (not present)

Office of Extension Services

QUARTERLY AWARDS

EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER

Maria Ramirez, Library Assistant II

Office of Library Services

Ms. Nelson stated that Ms. Maria Ramirez was being recognized as the Employee of the Quarter and was a Library Assistant II at the Marion Baysinger Memorial Library in the City of Groveland. She remarked that Ms. Ramirez had taken on a new role this quarter as the Interim Office Associate IV in order to assist the Office of Library Services in their administration office after another employee’s retirement. She commented that Ms. Ramirez took initiative to learn this new role as well as train the new incoming employee for the position, all with a positive, professional attitude. She shared that Ms. Ramirez provided excellent customer service to the entire Office of Library Services and that her creative problem solving and dedication to the team was inspiring. She noted that there was no interruption to service during this time of transition and that the Office of Library Service and Lake County were grateful for Ms. Ramirez’s dedication and assistance. She congratulated her on being Employee of the Quarter.

SUPERVISOR OF THE QUARTER

Fred Martin, Chief Plans Examiner (Supervisor)

Office of Building Services

Ms. Nelson stated that Mr. Fred Martin, Chief Plans Examiner from the Office of Building Services, was being recognized as the Supervisor of the Quarter. She commented that Mr. Martin exemplified the Lake County values of excellent service, integrity, diversity, innovation, professionalism, accountability and teamwork. She said he was dedicated to handling difficult situations with poise, intelligence and confidence. She remarked that he worked with zoning, permitting and inspections to assist with complex building situations that needed additional assistance. She mentioned that he led by example and that his helpful demeanor made a difference for Lake County on a daily basis. She noted that he was always quick to help in any situation and that his effort and commitment, which he consistently displayed through his work, made him an outstanding model of Lake County’s core values. She then congratulated him on being the Supervisor of the Quarter.

T.E.A.M. OF THE QUARTER

COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:

Bryan Baquiran, Multimedia Content Coordinator, Office of Communications

Levar Cooper, Senior Web Developer, Office of Communications

Elizabeth Heine, Software Developer, Information Technology Department

Aaron Textor, Web Designer, Office of Communications

Paul Long, Senior Graphic Designer, Office of Communications

Ms. Nelson recognized the Lake County Fairgrounds Website Team as the T.E.A.M. of the Quarter, noting it consisted of employees from both the Office of Communications and the Information Technology Department. She relayed that these employees worked together to build a new website for the fairgrounds which would serve as a wonderful resource for the entire Lake County community. She remarked that this talented team had worked seamlessly together on photography, illustration, web design, service programming and database development in order to create a website that would make it easier to schedule events, reserve booths online, and share upcoming events with the community. She commented that this team was a great example of employees coming together to serve the county in a new and interactive way. She then introduced the team, thanked them for their service, and congratulated them for being the T.E.A.M. of the Quarter.

presentation of proclamation 2018-150

Commr. Sullivan read and then presented Proclamation 2018-150, designating October 14-20, 2018 as Mediation Week in Lake County, to Ms. Debbie Clark, Director of Case Management, and Mr. Tom Aemisegger, Mediation Services Coordinator, with the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

Ms. Clark thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for the proclamation and then recognized the mediators in the audience. She mentioned that every Wednesday in the Lake County Courthouse, these volunteer mediators help to resolve disputes for small claims mediations.

MINUTES APPROVAL

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Minutes of August 21, 2018 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Mary Aspedon, President of the Homeowners Association for the Hills of Mount Dora, thanked Commissioner Campione and the Board for their assistance in installing a stop light at the intersection of Wolf Branch Road, Round Lake Road and Scenic Hills Drive. She relayed that her development appreciated having the light and felt it would enhance safety in the area. She also expressed concerns regarding the Round Lake Road extension project.

Commr. Sullivan thanked Ms. Aspedon for her positive input and Mr. Cole reported that there was going to be a public meeting regarding the Round Lake Road area in the near future and he encouraged residents to attend in order to voice their opinions and concerns.

CLERK OF the circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, 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.

Southwest Florida Water Management District FY 2019 Meetings

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2019 Schedule of Meetings and a map depicting the District’s boundaries from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, as required by Section 189.417, Florida Statutes.

Property Placed on the Lands Available List

Request to acknowledge receipt of property placed on the Lands Available List. Lake County has until December 17, 2018 to purchase property from the Lands Available List before it is available to the public.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT agenda

Commr. Sullivan requested for Tab 24 to be included with the Consent Agenda, which he noted was a request and approval for an amendment to a contract and did not have any fiscal impact.

Commr. Blake asked for Tabs 8 and 20 to be pulled from the Consent Agenda for Board discussion and a separate vote.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 20, plus Tab 24, pulling Tabs 8 and 20 for discussion and a separate vote, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2018-151 declaring October 7 - 13, 2018, as National Fire Prevention Week.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval to award Contract 19-0201 to Mateer & Harbert, PA (Orlando, FL) for the provision of health law services on an on-call basis, which is a new requirement generated by the consolidation of Lake County Emergency Medical Services within the Lake County Board of County Commissioners structure. The annual fiscal impact may vary significantly each year based on circumstances involving the need for the contract services. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

Request approval to accept Offers to Purchase on Alternate Keys 1537392 and 3817889; and approval for the Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents.  The fiscal impact is $5,800.00 (revenue). Commission Districts 3 and 4.

Request approval of Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement for Property with Herman J. Heidrich & Son; and approval for the Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents. The fiscal impact is $270,000.00 plus minimal closing costs (expenditure). Commission District 3.

Request approval and execution of the First Amendment to Contract for Medical Examiner Services between the District 5 Counties and Dr. Barbara Wolf for Medical Examiner Services. There is no fiscal impact for fiscal year 2019.

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Request approval of payment of the Florida Association of Counties membership dues. The fiscal year 2019 impact is $29,762.00 (expenditure).

ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Request approval to amend the current Tourist Development Sponsorship agreement with Timothy Frederick to show an increase of $7,500.00 in the sponsorship amount for fiscal year 2019 and 2020. The total additional fiscal impact is $15,000.00 (expenditure).

PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE

Public Safety

Request approval to purchase one 2019 Pierce/Freightliner all-wheel drive commercial pumper for Lake County Fire Station 15 in Pine Lakes, and one Pierce/Enforcer custom pumper for Fire Station 76 in Yalaha, from Ten-8 Fire Equipment, Inc. (Sanford, FL), and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all implementing documentation and related budget transfer(s). The fiscal impact is $934,964.00 (expenditure). Commission Districts 3 and 5.

Request approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Lake County Sheriff's Office to provide essential food services to persons working during times of declared emergency in the Lake County Emergency Communications and Operations Center. Services will be on an as-needed basis at a cost of $4.25 per person/per meal. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

Request approval to purchase two LIFEPAK cardiac monitor units, which will be used to upgrade services from Basic Life Support to Advanced Life Support at Lake County Fire Station 110 (South Clermont) and Fire Station 111 (Bay Lake). The estimated fiscal impact is $58,127.60 (expenditure). Commission District 1.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERNAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Public Works

Request approval to execute corrected Resolution 2018-153 accepting the following roads within Sawgrass Bay Phase 2A, 2B, and 2C into the County Road Maintenance System: Yelloweyed Drive “Part” (County Road No. 0360D), Maidencain Street “Part” (County Road No. 0360F), Ribbon Court (County Road No. 0360G), Centipede Street (County Road No. 0361), and Fescue Street (County Road No. 0361A). There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

Request approval of Resolution 2018-154 and Railroad Reimbursement Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Florida Central Railroad Company, Inc., for the FDOT to provide lights and gates for the railroad crossing on Round Lake Road, located in Mount Dora. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $1,800.00 (expenditure – maintenance costs). Commission District 4.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $216,142.17 associated with Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53160 and Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #7690 issued to construct a commercial driveway apron and a turn lane on County Road 561 for a McDonald’s restaurant located in Tavares. The fiscal impact is $800.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 3.

COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE

Community Services

Request approval of the Transit Division Substance Abuse Policy. There is no fiscal impact.

Parks and Trails

Request approval of Contract 18-0444 for Janitorial Services for Lake County Parks and Trails to Faithworks Total Ground Maintenance, LLC. (Mt. Dora, FL) and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $56,160.00 (expenditure).

Request approval and execution of a "License Agreement for the Pasture Reserve Well Monitoring Site" for an easement to be granted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

TAb 8 – resolution 2018-152 – revised FY 2019 fee schedule

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2018-152, adopting the revised fiscal year (FY) 2019 fee schedule, Exhibit Q, due to a scrivener’s error.

Commr. Blake voted no.

TAb 20 – site preparation for south lake regional park

Commr. Campione inquired if this was for the entire site preparation and asked Mr. Cole for an overview of this tab.

Mr. Cole replied that this was for the site preparation predominantly for phase one; however, as a part of this item, there would be some site preparation for future phases two and three for an economy of scale as they work on phase one, such as stormwater management facilities. He relayed that this work would prepare the site for the construction of fields, along with the removal of fill at no additional costs. He reported that the cost related to this item was from the full contract amount that had already been bid and that incrementally, staff would be seeking Board approval for different components of the project.

Commr. Campione asked if this construction company was incorporating the fill removal and if the dirt was physically being removed from the site or just being moved around on site.

Mr. Cole confirmed that the construction company was incorporating the fill removal, noting that the previous bidder for the removal of fill was unable to obtain a bond for the project; therefore, that contract was discontinued and the fill removal was now incorporated into the original contract at no additional cost. He stated that it was being physically removed from the site although there might be some that was moved around on site and that it would be an eighteen month to two year dirt removal process for phase one, with possibly some additional removal for other parts of the project.

Commr. Campione said that she continued to have concerns regarding this project as she thought that once the dirt was removed, the site would be forever changed; additionally, she felt that in its current condition it would have value related to residential development as opposed to making it a ballfield facility. She realized that the County was far into this project but had concerns about how expensive it was becoming. She relayed that she was supportive of moving forward with phase one as long as the activities on phases two and three did not alter the site to the extent that it could not be utilized for other purposes if the County were to find a better economical fit for the site. She asked if staff had received feedback from the City of Groveland on their commitment to participate with this facility.

Mr. Cole asked Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, to speak regarding the dirt removal and the phase one impacts verses phases two and three.

Mr. Bonilla remarked that the intent of this agenda item was to completely remove all the fill material off of the site in a time frame between eighteen months to two years. He explained that this would also prepare phases two and three for future development and would include the stormwater areas, landscaping retaining walls, and some preliminary work on Max Hooks Road, which he noted would be necessary for the trucking of the fill material. He confirmed that all of the fill material would be removed as part of phase one.

Mr. Cole relayed that there had been conversations with the City of Groveland for a couple of years, that he had sent a letter to the City back in August 2017, and that he and Mr. Bonilla had two meetings with the City Manager to discuss cost-share opportunities, noting that there was interest from the City but no financial commitments made at this point.

Commr. Campione inquired about a potential Lake County ordinance which would address dirt removal from various county sites and the impact to the roads used for that process. She then asked about the direction on the road that these trucks would utilize as they removed dirt from this site.

Mr. Cole relayed that as part of the agreement with the hauling, the trucks would be turning right out of the project for safety reasons.

Commr. Campione asked how many trucks would be used per day and Mr. Bonilla replied that there would be close to 300 round trips per day.

Mr. Cole added that this would also involve constructing a fence and a barrier to the east side of Max Hooks Road in order to separate the trucks from the mobile home park which was on the east side of the road.

Commr. Parks remarked that they had looked at various park sites since 2010, that all the sites had some type of topographical issues, and that there would be a large amount of dirt removed on any site.

Commr. Campione stated that she wanted to have ballfields built but was concerned with the number of truck trips down State Road (S.R.) 50.

Commr. Sullivan remarked that the trucks would be utilizing the strategic intermodal system of S.R. 50 and U.S. Highway 27, which should be able to accommodate that many trips. He felt that there was probably not a site within the county that would meet all the requirements the Board would like, especially in South Lake. He shared that recently at a Tourist Development Council meeting, they had discussed how ballfields can have a positive economic impact to the County by bringing in higher level tournaments. He opined that the Board needed to approve this contract and move forward with this item since they had already spent many years on it, had held public hearings on it, and spent money for it. He reiterated that this was within his commission district and that he had met with homeowners regarding its impact.

Commr. Campione expressed her concerns in making sure the Clermont City Manager was aware of the number of trucks per day that would be removing dirt and asked if there was a time of day restriction for operation.

Mr. Bonilla replied that Oelrich Construction had submitted a transportation plan to the Lake County Public Works Department for their review and approval as there were several permits needed.

Commr. Breeden noted her support for limiting the hours of truck operations and Commissioner Sullivan added that hours could be restricted within the county ordinance that the Board was developing.

Commr. Blake explained that he was not supporting this due to the cost of this project and felt that funds could be better spent on maintaining and improving the existing roads throughout the county, noting that this was tax revenue already approved and legally able to be spent on basic infrastructure.

Commr. Campione stressed that throughout the process of adopting the penny sales tax, it was a priority for South Lake to have ballfields, noting that she was not opposed to the building of ballfields. She opined that money could be spent on the Hills of Minneola project and that much could be accomplished on that site within 24 months.

Commr. Parks mentioned how other county sites would take 24 months or more of excavation in order to be ready.

Commr. Breeden reminded the Board how long it can take to go through the overall process of hiring a consultant, design, public vetting, etc. before any dirt can even begin to be removed. She stated that she did not see anything happening within 24 months at any other location.

Commr. Campione reiterated her desire to revisit this topic and address any need to adjust the hours or number of truck trips if it seemed that the dirt removal process was not working.

Commr. Parks indicated that they still needed to obtain clarification from the City of Minneola on what that site would be utilized for.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the proposed guaranteed maximum price (GMP), and execution of associated authorization for construction, for full site preparation in support of the South Lake Regional Park project under contract 18-0207 awarded to Oelrich Construction.

Commr. Blake voted no.

round lake Road project presentation

Mr. Fred Schneider, County Engineer, mentioned that this presentation was on the status of the Round Lake Road project development and environment (PD&E) study. He shared some project background, noting that the need for these improvements was originally evaluated based on an area-wide traffic analysis performed in 2013. He relayed that due to the Wekiva Parkway entering onto S.R. 46, the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Lake County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had discussed that FDOT would pay for two evaluations, which were both concurrent with each other, regarding needed improvements in order to handle future traffic loads due to growth. He relayed that the traffic analysis identified that one improvement was the extension of Round Lake Road and the other was the realignment of County Road (C.R.) 437. He indicated that the C.R 437 realignment study was completed and that the Round Lake Road PD&E study was half way through its completion. He reported that the area had experienced substantial growth due to the following: the Wolf Branch Innovation District; the Wekiva Parkway; the Lake Wekiva Trail being constructed through the area; and a new proposed residential development in the area.

Mr. Luis Diaz, with Stantec Consulting Services, explained that a PD&E study is performed in order to identify the best location for a corridor based on an environmental process used to document social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with a proposed transportation improvement project. He displayed a map of the study area and explained that the project was extending Round Lake Road from south of the Orange/Lake County line up to S.R. 44. He specified that the open area on the map identified possible locations for the corridor, with the study determining the best location. He showed a pie graph reflecting crash information for Round Lake Road from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017, noting that there was a total of 71 collisions, with one being fatal, and that the desire was to develop improvements that would make it safer along this corridor. He remarked that they had looked at traffic volumes, including existing daily traffic and projected forecasts for the year 2040. He indicated that traffic volumes would continue to grow with the development happening in the area and that this extension of Round Lake Road would provide an additional corridor to help spread out traffic in the area. He relayed that the purpose and need for this was to sustain projected future growth, to provide a north-south corridor, to improve traffic safety, to enhance emergency evacuation and safety routes, and added that it was a high ranking priority project for Lake-Sumter MPO. He reported that the March 8, 2018 public meeting had over 150 people in attendance and that residents shared these concerns: impacts to the rural character of the area; environmental impacts; that the corridor would attract more traffic; safety in the area; property access; and why this project was needed. He relayed that they met with several additional stakeholders, including the Round Lake Charter School, Lake County Public Schools, the City of Mount Dora, and various property owners, and that there was a project website that had received emails and comments regarding the project. He explained that the road would have four through lanes with two in each direction, five foot bike lanes, a multi-use trail on the west side, and a six foot sidewalk on the east side. He then displayed maps of five possible alignments for the road as well as an alternatives evaluation matrix, noting that the PD&E study had considered right-of-way, environmental, cultural, wetland, and wildlife impacts. He summarized that this evaluation matrix, public comments from the upcoming workshop on October 25, 2018, and all the impacts found in the study would be used to determine which of the five alternatives would be the best recommended improvement. He recapped that the objectives for the project were to create short-term improvements that would improve safety, provide a facility that would meet standard criteria, develop an improvement that was consistent with the projected growth in the area, balance the project approach, and have a context sensitive design which considered environmental, social and economic impacts. He mentioned these opportunities for the project: joint use ponds with FDOT at the intersection of S.R. 46; improved traffic safety; provision of a north/south corridor; and a trail for pedestrian and bicycle safety. He relayed the next steps would be the alternative concepts public workshop on October 25, 2018 at the Mount Dora Community Building, a recommended improvement public meeting in early 2019, an update presentation to the BCC and public hearing, and final documents completed by April or May of 2019.

Commr. Campione asked if the matrix of the different options considered the costs for each alternative.

Mr. Diaz replied that there was not enough information yet to determine construction costs but that those would be added by the time of the public meeting. He added that it would only be construction and would not include right-of-way or business impact costs.

Commr. Parks asked if the BCC would approve the final route and Mr. Diaz confirmed that they would.

Mr. Schneider remarked that as part of the PD&E study, one of the alternatives was always the option for the BCC to decide not to build.

Commr. Sullivan asked if a funding source had been identified yet and commented that this would also be a part of the impact fee workshop in the afternoon.

Mr. Schneider responded that the design was not currently funded; however, staff would be working with FDOT for funding and relayed that Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director of the Agency for Economic Prosperity, was also requesting funding through an economic grant for a Round Lake Road study. He indicated that the PD&E study was always the first step before funding. He commented that one process that has happened throughout the county for almost every major road built was that once the corridor is identified, the larger land owners can then better understand where the road is going to be developed and hopefully there is an opportunity for public-private partnerships. He added that through these partnerships, there can be donations of land for right-of-ways, stormwater ponds, and upfront financing for impact fee credits.

Mr. Cole clarified that the funding Mr. Matulka was seeking was the $2.5 million through the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund which the BCC approved at their September 25, 2018 meeting.

public hearing ordinance 2018-49 prohibited and exempt signs

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 11.01.05, ENTITLED “PROHIBITED SIGNS,” AND SECTION 11.01.06, ENTITLED “EXEMPT SIGNS,” TO EXEMPT SIGNS MADE OF CLOTH, CANVAS, FABRIC, PAPER, PLYWOOD, OR OTHER LIGHT MATERIAL WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED OR DESIGNED FOR PERMANENT DISPLAY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Campione asked if the Office of Code Enforcement would be able to address signs that had become worn and in need of repair.

Ms. Marsh replied that it could potentially fall under the area of junk, trash and debris and code enforcement could then request for the sign to be made safe.

Commr. Breeden commented that she had been reviewing signs throughout the county and noticed that commercial real estate signs were typically four feet by eight feet, which is 32 square feet instead of the 16 square feet listed within the ordinance, and she shared concerns that it would require more work and a higher cost for these larger signs. She recommended two alternatives to either change the limit from 16 square feet to 32 square feet or change it to 32 square feet along any four lane or greater roadway.

Ms. Marsh remarked that could be added to the ordinance if it was included in the motion to add the additional category for 32 square feet signs along any four lane or greater road. She suggested to also add Commissioner Campione’s requirement that signs had to be safe and in good condition.

Commr. Breeden asked if the wording on a sign was deteriorating to the point it could not be read, could it be regulated and Ms. Marsh responded that content could not be regulated.

Commr. Breeden asked how many 32 square foot signs could be allowed on property and Ms. Marsh replied that 32 square feet signs had to be 250 feet apart on any property.

Commr. Blake asked if there were any existing signs of that size on two lane roads that could be affected by this ordinance and suggested adding a one year delay on enforcement in order to give people enough time to make changes if needed.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2018-49 amending 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, with the additional provisions of adding a new category to allow 32 square feet signs along four lane roads or greater, that signs be safe and in good condition, and that there be a one year delay until the new restrictions are enforced.

Commr. Blake voted no.

other business

appointment to the Children’s Services council

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Colonel Herbert Scott Smith to the Children’s Services Council, as the member-at-large representative, to complete an unexpired two-year term ending May 14, 2019.

reports

county manager

Lake Emergency medical services transition update

Mr. Cole provided an update on the Lake Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transition into Lake County government, noting that the transition was progressing smoothly and much had been accomplished in the last eight months since the Board approved the transition in February 2018. He reported that on October 1, 2018, 195 Lake EMS employees became County employees, that EMS was in the process of relocating their offices from Mount Dora to the County Administration Building, and that he would report back to the Board in early 2019 to provide an update on the complete transition. He welcomed the Lake EMS employees into the County organization and thanked them as well as the County and EMS leadership for their assistance in making a smooth transition.

Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Cole, Mr. John Molenda, Assistant County Manager, and Mr. Jerry Smith, Executive Director for Lake EMS, for all their work in making this a smooth transition.

Commr. Sullivan also commended staff on this effort and remarked that Lake EMS continued to maintain their high level of service during this transition.

commissioners reports

commissioner parKS – district 2

future of TRANSPORTATION SUMMIT

Commr. Parks encouraged everyone to attend the Future of Transportation Summit on Friday, October 12, 2018, in the Clermont City Center, from 8:00 am till 12:30 pm. He stated that topics would include transportation planning for the county and the region, regional connectivity, the future of how roads will be built, the use of right-of-way, autonomous vehicles, and ride and car sharing.

commissioner breeden – district 3

homes in partnership request

Commr. Breeden mentioned that she had received a request to write a letter of support for Homes in Partnership, Inc. in their effort to apply for a federal grant for affordable housing. She recalled that the Lake County Community Services Department had partnered with them in the past and she asked for the Board’s support of her writing this letter on behalf of the BCC.

commissioner blake – district 5

florida wildlife festival

Commr. Blake announced that that the Florida Wildlife Festival would be happening on October 20, 2018 at Gwinn Cadwell Park in the City of Umatilla.

commissioner sullivan – chairman and district 1

tourist development council meeting

Commr. Sullivan reported that the Tourist Development Council met the previous day and he commended them and the Agency for Economic Prosperity staff for the many ideas and activities they were supporting. He stated that the Office of Elevate Lake had a great program established which was producing a positive economic impact for the county.

Mr. Cole commented that Mr. Matulka would be attending the BCC meeting on October 23, 2018 to share his vision for economic development and tourism in the county.

meeting recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:30 a.m. until the 12:30 p.m. Mobility Fee Workshop.

12:30 p.m. work session

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners continued their meeting on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:30 p.m., at the Emergency Communications Operations Center (E.C.O.C.) Building, Tavares, Florida, in order to conduct a workshop on mobility fees and transportation impact fees. 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; Fred Schneider, County Engineer; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk, Board Support; and Bill Oliver, Principal Engineer working with Kittelson & Associates.

mobility fees presentation and discussion

Mr. Cole recalled that the Board had discussions over the last year regarding exploring the potential replacement of transportation impact fees with mobility fees; additionally, they also had discussed adding a fourth impact fee district in order to address needs in eastern Lake County. He relayed that on August 21, 2018, Mr. Bill Oliver, Principal Engineer working with Kittelson & Associates, provided the Board with a detailed overview of mobility fee options and was asked to continue his efforts and hold today’s workshop. He commented that concurrent with that direction, the Board also asked for staff to further evaluate and potentially establish a fourth transportation impact fee district while working through the mobility fee options. He remarked that Mr. Oliver would be presenting more detailed information on mobility fees and would like to receive consensus from the Board on how they would like to proceed, noting that if the Board was interested in continuing with mobility fee considerations, then staff would anticipate additional Board workshops as well as engaging the stakeholders, the community and the local governments. He indicated that after the mobility fee discussion, Mr. Schneider would present the proposed transportation impact fee change with a request to advertise a public hearing to be held on October 23, 2018.

Mr. Schneider stated that the purpose of today’s workshop was to update the Board on the option of transitioning from a transportation impact fee to a mobility fee and to also provide the Board with a proposal to create a fourth transportation impact fee district. He reiterated that mobility fees were first presented at the May 8, 2018 BCC meeting and then again at the August 21, 2018 BCC meeting, and that this workshop was at the Board’s request.

Mr. Oliver stated that his goals for today were to share more information with the Board, to allow time to address their questions, and to seek Board guidance on next steps, noting that they would be discussing fee district boundaries, incentive programs, possible additional land uses in the fee schedule, and performance goals and revenues. He indicated that if the mobility fee was adopted, it would rescind and eliminate the transportation impact fee. He defined that a mobility fee and transportation impact fee were similar in that they both were a one-time charge on development which creates additional roadway traffic in order to help fund the needed transportation system capacity, and that residents already living in Lake County would not pay the fee. He explained that some of the differences were that a mobility fee encouraged developing multi-modal systems that serve all modes of transportation, varying the fee geographically, and creating incentives for different forms or types of development that a county might want. He specified that if an area was not growing and did not need more infrastructure, then it did not need a mobility fee; however, he remarked that indications in Lake County showed that travel demands were growing. He then displayed four graphs depicting fuel sales, daily traffic volumes, the State of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population projections and the Lake-Sumter MPO Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) growth forecasts, noting that all of the graphs showed growth for Lake County. He reported that the rate at which the county was selling gasoline between the years 2013 through 2017 was increasing at a rate of 2.7 percent per year which indicated growth; furthermore, the BEBR graph showed steady population growth for the county up to just over a half a million by year 2045. He remarked that the purchasing power of traditional sources of revenue used for transportation needs, including both maintenance operation and capital, were declining and that the value of a dollar of gasoline taxes had declined dramatically since the 1980s and was anticipated to continue to decline. He added that when gasoline taxes are charged on a gallon of gasoline, it is a fixed number of pennies and that as the price of gasoline increases, the same fixed number of pennies is being collected; therefore, the taxes of gasoline do not increase or decline with the price of a gallon of gasoline. He elaborated that as a result of this, many had abandoned the gasoline tax as a reliable source of transportation funding and were encouraging that the source of funding for transportation facilities be diversified. He said to think of a transportation system as a large bucket that is used to carry travel within it, giving the example that if a community has a bucket of 300,000 vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) and the community is trying to serve 200,000 vehicle miles of travel (VMT), then the two-thirds ratio is an indication of the degree of congestion the community has; therefore, the emptier the route network, the better quality of service. He elaborated that as the index increases, congestion levels also increase. He further explained that if that same community is forecasted to grow by 100,000 VMT over a given timeframe and if the community is able to fund a matching amount of capacity at 100,000 VMC, then the capacity ratio increases from two-thirds to three-quarters since it then has 300,000 VMT being carried by a system that has 400,000 VMC. He said that the ratio at which capacity is added, relative to growth, is basically a parameter that establishes a trajectory for the future. He then displayed a graph comparing congestion measures as related to county populations for Lake County and several surrounding counties. He mentioned that it was natural as an area grows for transportation networks and systems to become more congested and that the County should consider what quality they want for their transportation system and how large of a fee would bring this quality. He showed a map of the county identifying more congested areas in which it would be harder to deliver as high of quality of transportation service as desired compared to other areas, adding that Lake County is unique due to the number of lakes which can constrain the ease of developing connections in a network. He remarked that a preliminary fee schedule had been developed that charged the least amount in the constrained areas with a higher fee in the suburban areas. He said that fee district boundaries have to be defined for each parcel of land within the county, noting that environmental features such as a lake, railroad track, or interstate highway system can create a barrier. He explained that when roads define the boundary of a district, a buffer zone is set up around it so that property on it can qualify for the lower fee district. He stated that since the constrained districts were near cities, they would probably want to have some input on the boundaries. He reported that the Lake-Sumter MPO 2040 Transportation Plan showed that the congestion measure within the constrained area was 0.56 in 2010 and was forecasted to be 0.85 by 2040, which he opined represented a substantial increase, and for the suburban area it was 0.36 in 2010 with forecasts at 0.73 by 2040.

Commr. Sullivan expressed concerns that the fee districts map excluded in its constrained core area the U.S. 50 corridor through the City of Groveland, which he opined was one of Lake County’s fastest growing municipalities.

Mr. Schneider remarked that the plan is updated every few years and that there could be revisions to the core area as it got closer to the year 2040. He commented that the areas outside the core areas would need a higher fee in order to build roads for the areas that are expanding. He noted that there would not be as many improvements in the core red areas on the map as there would be in the suburban yellow areas on the map, which are driving the need for improvements due to the growth in those areas.

Commr. Campione acknowledged that the red constrained areas would have higher congestion but could not collect higher fees.

Mr. Oliver explained that if the boundaries of the red constrained areas were to enlarge, then they would recalculate the congestion measures since there would be more development and the road network would be expanded to areas of less congestion. He elaborated that expanding the boundary of the red area would bring the fee for the suburban down slightly while bringing the fee for the constrained area up some to make the fees closer. He continued with his presentation showing a trip-end density map from the Lake-Sumter MPO’s Transportation Planning Model, noting that on this map the green areas were the lowest intensity traffic generation in the future, the yellow areas were the suburban areas, and the red areas were the constrained higher trip density areas. He referenced maps of the various fee district boundaries provided to the Board, stating that they might want to redefine the boundaries as the current ones were based on the Lake-Sumter MPO’s traffic analysis zones, which were developed without consideration for mobility fees.

Commr. Campione asked for clarification on these maps that the fees were lower inside the red lines as that was infill, while outside the yellow lines was the suburban area where newer subdivisions could be developed.

Mr. Oliver confirmed that was correct and added that in the core area, there is lower quality of service. He said the fee is lower because of shorter trip lengths that consume less of the transportation system.

Commr. Sullivan inquired about the area in the far left corner of the map which was only serviced by C.R. 470 and C.R. 33 and opined that there would be development in that area. He stated that C.R. 470 was a state project for the purposes of connecting the intermodal system from I-75 to U.S. 27; however, he opined that since that could take years to happen, it would fall on the County to improve the roads as needed.

Mr. Oliver replied that in order to preserve good quality of service, it would make sense to develop additional road corridors to help serve that area so it was not dependent just on C.R. 470.

Commr. Breeden asked if more funds would be needed to improve C.R. 44.

Commr. Campione opined that it was a two-lane constrained road.

Mr. Schneider responded that it was not policy constrained as a two-lane road. He opined that some roads in the core area would need to be widened to four-lane roads within the next twenty years.

Commr. Parks asked for clarification that with the way the districts were established, could the red areas still receive funding and Mr. Oliver confirmed that was correct. He also asked if the red core area was being defined on the level of service already being constrained, the shorter trips, and the fewer trips. He mentioned that sometimes they use the term “internal rate of capture” in regards to new development and asked how clear it would need to be set up so that when new development came, that could become a core area very quickly if it met this criteria.

Mr. Oliver responded that once it is decided that there are no further road improvements that can be done, then it starts to become a constrained environment.

Commr. Parks asked if that meant it became constrained from a policy decision.

Mr. Oliver replied that it could be a policy or a practical consideration not to improve these roads. He added that mobility fees could also be used to fund capital aspects of transit system enhancements.

Mr. Schneider remarked that as the year 2040 approached, there would be other ways to utilize mobility fees to help with the service on the roads that are really congested in the constrained areas, such as transit, intersections, signal improvements, etc.

Mr. Oliver continued his presentation by recalling the importance of creating flexibility within the benefit districts since travel generated in one district often goes into another district, such as spending flexibility so that fees collected in the A district could be spent in both the A and B district. He said this allowed money to be collected and put into construction quicker. He added that if one land use is given a discount, then revenues will fall short in delivering that quality of service; therefore, the amount of incentive being provided must be backfilled by a source that the growth that is paying the impact fee is not funding. He explained that in Lake County, the gasoline taxes were not currently being used to fund capital, which was instead being funded by impact fees; therefore, growth was paying 100 percent of capital so there was not money there to incentivize. He elaborated that if the County was to shift some of the gasoline tax money into the capital program, then people who have lived in the county for more than 25 years would be generating some revenue to help with the growth and funding of the incentive. He stated that another form of revenue such as the infrastructure sales tax, which was currently going towards resurfacing, could also be shifted into the capital program so that a portion of that could go to help fund incentives. He remarked that incentives can be provided for a desired form or location of development. He shared these possibilities of what could be incentivized: the affordable housing program to have the fee 100 percent waived for housing that qualified for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP); targeted industries that were part of the economic development program with a 65 percent discount for core areas, 35 percent for suburban areas, and no discount in the rural areas; and for small, locally owned businesses. He summarized that incentives were common in other areas and something the Board should consider in order to stay in a competitive position, noting that it did require other revenue.

Commr. Campione mentioned an email received by the Commissioners from a citizen asking if a waiver could be given for veterans with tenure. She added that a discount could potentially also be given to those who have lived in Lake County for a while but are building another home, since they already paid impact fees on their first home. She suggested that a certain amount could be set aside for the various incentives and distributed on a first come, first serve basis to those in the different categories until the funding was depleted.

Commr. Blake agreed with the thought of giving a discount to those who had lived in the county for many years; however, he shared concerns about a waiver for the very specific circumstances of the citizen who had emailed the Commissioners. He added that he understood why counties gave incentives for targeted industries; however, he felt that philosophically, this was the government interfering with the free market and deciding who would receive tax breaks.

Commr. Campione stated that she thought Lake County’s targeted industries were fairly broad and agreed that she would feel uncomfortable selecting which retail business might receive an incentive unless it was a locally owned business.

Commr. Blake specified that he viewed that differently as a locally owned business would be someone who had already been paying taxes and this could be a reward for them.

Commr. Breeden suggested it could be based on businesses that offer higher wage earnings instead of just certain industries.

Commr. Blake expressed concerns around the suburban area near C.R. 470 having a higher impact fee since there were planned entities coming to that area who had already budgeted and he felt this would be an added expense for them.

Mr. Oliver replied that type of issue could be addressed in the implementation plan, noting that fees could be phased in over two to three years.

Commr. Campione indicated that the current fees were very low and that those developments knew there was the potential for the fees to change.

Mr. Oliver continued his presentation with presenting these proposed additional fee categories: institutions such as a house of worship, private school, daycare, assisted living, nursing home and hospital; offices such as medical or veterinary clinic; retail to include convenience retail, a quality restaurant, or a high turnover/sit-down restaurant; and industrial such as a distribution/parcel hub/fulfilment warehouse. He also noted that the current fee schedule only had twelve land uses and that staff often had to determine where to place land uses that are not in the fee schedule. He said that adding additional land uses would give staff more flexibility, would make it easier to determine where to place requests, and would make it a more fair administration of the fee program.

Commr. Campione mentioned how important the daycare category was since it was such a needed service and stated that people were already in transit on their way to work when they drop off their children at daycare. She asked if there was a way to make sure that category fee was fair.

Mr. Oliver replied that the magnitude of the fee was based on how much of the system the development consumed and was measured by taking the number of trips generated per day, multiplied by an estimated length of trip, and then applying a pass-by factor, such as passing by to drop off a child and not an additional trip on the road.

Commr. Campione remarked that since the industrial category was a targeted industry the County wanted to encourage, she opined it would be better to build that into the fee itself rather than having to develop incentives.

Mr. Oliver remarked on performance goals and revenue, indicating that if the County wanted a high quality transportation system, then it needed more revenue to support that. He mentioned that on the quality of service trajectory graph displayed earlier in the meeting, the State of Florida curve related to a capacity addition ratio (CAR) of about 1.25, noting that Lake County’s rate at $4.5 million per year collected in impact fees puts the County on a trajectory of 0.34, which he opined was well below the state curve. He explained that the Board could consider the goal options of having no funding increase, which would give a CAR of 0.34 but traffic would become congested, or slow down the rate of deterioration and choose a higher CAR rate. He shared that it was estimated that travel on the county road system would increase by about 42,000 VMT per year and if a 1.25 CAR was adopted as a basis for the fee and revenue program, then the County would need to build 52,500 VMC per year. He added that at a cost of $300 per VMC, that would equal about $15,750,000 per year of revenue needs. He elaborated that there would also be additional needs such as sidewalks, transit, bike lanes, safety, etc. which would all have capital aspects that could be added to these financial goals. He summarized that if the CAR was changed from the 1.25 to 1.00, then the calculations would also change and the County would not need as much revenue. He recapped that previous Board discussions considered having a list of projects that could be completed over five to ten years, and indicated that how quickly the County wanted the roads constructed would affect the amount of funding needed each year. He then displayed a graph depicting congestion measure by year projected from years 2016 through 2044 for state and county roads, just county roads, and the Florida trend.

Commr. Breeden inquired if any of the road projects listed on the previous slide were on track to receive FDOT funding.

Mr. Schneider replied that the list included some roads that were funded and some roads that were not fully funded, noting that they were all significant enough road projects to be eligible for state funding and that staff was pursuing that.

Mr. Oliver then presented the Commissioners with a spreadsheet exercise centered on the areas of goals and needed revenue, potential revenue sources, incentives programs, mobility fees, and network performance. He explained the following within the exercise: the goals and needed revenue chart showed CAR for the rural, suburban and constrained areas and calculated the amount of money that would be needed each year based on the estimated growth of the county; the potential revenue sources showed infrastructure sales taxes, property taxes, and mobility fees and how different amounts for each area would affect revenue; the incentives program chart included possible percentage discounts for the SHIP Program, Economic Development Program, and small, local businesses for the three districts of rural, suburban and constrained; and the mobility fees diagram had examples of various fee categories and the potential fees for each of the three districts.

Commr. Sullivan asked what the capacity was currently on county roads.

Mr. Oliver replied that for state and county roads it was about 0.52 and that for just county roads it was approximately 0.42.

Commr. Breeden asked if impact fee credits could be used on mobility fees and Mr. Oliver confirmed that they could. She then asked for an explanation on why fees that are too low actually hurt the ability of a developer to use impact fee credits.

Mr. Schneider explained that many of the main roads in the county have had public-private partnerships and that through those partnerships, the land was donated and the County provided impact fee credits for the design and construction of the new roadway. He gave the example that a developer would provide $5 million upfront to finance and build the project; additionally, the developer would need to recoup that money and so the County would give them credits and typically they could draw down those credits as they sold out their development. He elaborated if there was a low fee, they could only consume about $1 million of the credits and that would still leave $4 million left to be utilized. He stated that the current impact fee system provided an incentive to have these partnerships; however, it made it difficult for the larger land owner to release those credits.

Mr. Oliver then reviewed a handout given to each Commissioner that presented four different options to consider, based on the information in the spreadsheet exercise, in order to raise $14.5 million annually, noting these examples were all calculated on the suburban single family fee as a comparable baseline. He explained these four scenarios as follows: option one was to have a mobility fee only with no incentives that would place the fee high at $6,600; option two was to adopt a five cents local option gas tax (LOGT) with no incentives, which would generate for Lake County about an additional $4.5 million and lower the single family fee to $4,600; option three was to also adopt the five cents LOGT but with incentives, noting that the County would need $3.2 million to fund this incentive program; and the fourth option was with the same five cents LOGT and incentives but adjusting 0.17 mill of the property taxes into the program to meet the incentive program budget. He commented that if the County is undertaking the burden of the incentives program and if many of the incentivized land uses occur inside city limits, he suggested renegotiating the distribution of those taxes between the cities and the County to help cover this expense. He then asked the Board how they would like to proceed from this point.

Commr. Breeden remarked that she liked the philosophy and the flexibility of the mobility fees but had concerns with the increase in fees as compared to what was currently being charged.

Mr. Oliver suggested a staged implementation over two to four years.

Commr. Campione asked about the previous statement to confer with the cities and Mr. Oliver replied that was primarily in regards to the boundaries for the constrained districts relevant to the suburban district and was not for fees.

Mr. Schneider commented that the fee amount was based on the Board’s decision; furthermore, he noted that if the Board wanted to transition from the current transportation impact fee to the mobility fee, then they should look at the goals they want for the mobility fee and decide if those goals can be reached. He said if the fee rates were not going to be changed, then it would probably be best to keep the current system and not transition to a mobility fee since the mobility fee funding can be spread further to different types of infrastructure which would then spread out the revenue with less going to road projects. He reiterated that if the Board’s priority was still road projects then he suggested staying with the current system.

Commr. Campione asked if all the districts transitioned to the south district fee, how close would they get the County to the approximate $15 million needed in funding for the road project list.

Mr. Oliver responded that if the south district fee went from $2,700 up to $3,000, and the other districts were brought up to the same fee, it would generate $6.9 million per year, noting this was based on mobility fees with suburban areas at $3,000 and constrained areas at $1,386.

Mr. Schneider reminded the Board that the County had reached the $15 million this year in total with County, developer, and FDOT funds on Citrus Grove Road. He said that anything more then what was currently being done would be beneficial. He explained that Mr. Oliver reported the $6.9 million per year on his example because there was not a lot of development in the north and central districts currently being generated; therefore, there was not a significant amount of additional revenue from those areas. He added that staff thought there would be increased development in the Wekiva area in the future.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Oliver for his presentation and expressed support for mobility fees since they can be more flexible and have incentives. He opined that government has a leadership role to encourage higher wage jobs, noting that he supported having a higher wage job category for incentives. He relayed that he liked the analysis presented and thought the CAR represented what should be considered as to whether the County was fine with how it was now, or how it would possibly be 20 years into the future, and said that even maintaining for 20 years would incur additional cost. He remarked that in order to explain this to constituents as well as to make his decision, he would want to have the data on the following: what this would mean for citizens as it could mean a significant increase in fees or more travel time per traveler per year; what did it mean for economic development; and what did it mean for businesses, as having immediate access with reduced traffic times was important for them. He felt that this data would be information that people could relate to and would help them to better understand that this change could assist the county in being competitive; furthermore, it would explain to residents that travel time could increase if the County did not make changes, which could mean less time with their family or at their business. He also asked how effective the County was at receiving FDOT funding for the county’s road projects.

Mr. Schneider replied that FDOT tries to balance funding and that they had spent more lately due to the Wekiva area. He commented that he felt that Lake County generally did well at receiving funding and that there were several road projects that FDOT had completed in the county. He remarked that there was a good amount of state funding going into the county infrastructure and that the County relied on the turnpike roadways, for example, for travel. He added that FDOT also brought safety projects, bike trails, multi-use trails, etc. to the county.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she liked the concept of a higher fee outside of the more urbanized areas such as the suburban areas; however, she was having difficulty accepting the actual numbers. She opined that in theory the aspects of mobility fees sound good but from a practical standpoint it was challenging to present to individuals.

Mr. Cole stated that because mobility fees could rely upon incentives, staff would need direction with what the Board wanted to do with incentives.

Commr. Campione asked if the funding for incentives could be at a set amount so that once the amount of money for those incentivized categories was depleted, then the full fee would be paid. She remarked that this could help the Board to monitor the process to see if the incentives were being used without leaving it open-ended. She commented that the constrained areas were being subsidized by the suburban areas that were paying more.

Mr. Oliver clarified that if someone owned a home in the suburban area, they would have travel in the rural and urban districts. He explained that when the suburban fee was set, it reflected what proportion of the travel occurred in each of the three districts at their performance goals and costs.

Commr. Campione responded that she understood the methodology but opined that the average citizen and the Homebuilders Association would see it as costing more to build a house in the suburban area as compared to the constrained area. She opined that many people prefer a rural lifestyle and this would make it harder for them to obtain that. She stated that she felt more comfortable staying with an impact fee at this point.

Commr. Sullivan remarked that there were many details to consider and it was a difficult decision. He gave for example that if a subdivision was to be built, it would need urban services such as water and sewer; however, by having this fee as a mobility fee, it was incentivizing growth to be in the urban centers where there is water and sewer. He commented that the Board needed to come to a decision on how they wanted to see Lake County grow, noting that he felt each Commissioner wanted to maintain the quality of life that the county was known for but needed to decide how to get there. He remarked that quality of life consisted of how much time was spent in traffic as well as putting funding into recreation and such. He indicated that transportation was an area where they were receiving traffic complaints and addressing it was a normal function of government. He opined that the Board should compare the two philosophies of mobility fees and impact fees and decide how each fits into the direction the county was growing. He thought the LOGT should be considered in order to keep up with maintenance needs on existing roads. He stated that he liked the idea of mobility fees but would like to see what could be improved with impact fees and felt that the Board needed to move forward with the best plan for the county.

Commr. Parks stated that if the Board did move forward with mobility fees, he suggested reaching out to various homebuilders associations and city chambers of commerce to get their reactions and thoughts, as well as connecting with Pasco County to inquire on how they implemented mobility fees within their county.

Commr. Campione inquired about the gas tax, stating that she thought they were going to use it for resurfacing but under these scenarios presented today, it looked like it was possibly going to be used to offset incentives. She also asked about the suggestion of using part of the millage towards incentives instead of resurfacing and opined that it was easier to explain to the public when money is going towards much needed resurfacing and maintenance of existing roads instead of new roads.

Mr. Cole remarked that Mr. Oliver was presenting mobility fees as an option without taking into consideration previous Board discussions. He relayed that one option at this time in the meeting was to proceed with the other part of the presentation about the fourth impact fee district, which would give the Board time to consider everything discussed on mobility fees.

Commr. Campione agreed and felt that a fourth impact fee district as well as increasing the existing impact fees could be a good interim plan to help with the immediate future until they have time to receive input from the other groups mentioned and the outcome of the upcoming vote on the Super Homestead Exemption.

meeting recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 2:30 p.m. for ten minutes.

transportation impact fee presentation and discussion

Mr. Schneider displayed a map depicting the current transportation impact fee districts for Lake County as well as the fees charged for a mid-size single family home, noting the three districts were the south, central and north. He recapped that at the last BCC meeting, it was suggested to create a fourth impact fee district; therefore, staff proposed keeping the borders of the south and central districts the same and suggested splitting the north district into the two districts of north central and northeast Wekiva. He then displayed a map reflecting the boundaries of these new districts. He explained that the north central district would still have the cities of Astatula, Tavares, Mount Dora, Eustis and Umatilla and that the northeast Wekiva district would be primarily unincorporated Lake County and would include the higher growth area near the Wekiva Parkway. He showed a listing of the existing transportation impact fee schedule, noting that it included about 11 categories with four being residential, such as single family, multi-family, mobile home park, and active adult community, and the rest being non-residential. He explained that the 100 percent column was the calculated rate that could be charged and that the listing also showed the percentage of fee charged for each district, noting that 13 percent of the fee was being charged in the north and central districts with 70 percent in the south district. He then presented several proposals, which included the two new districts of north central and northeast Wekiva, and the possible fees for each district. He elaborated that these proposals kept the north central at the current 13 percent with the following suggested phased fees for the northeast Wekiva district: 26 percent effective February 1, 2019, which placed the single family rate at $1,000; 39 percent effective August 1, 2019, which would make the single family rate $1,500; and 52 percent effective February 1, 2020, which would bring the single family rate to $2,000, noting this was still less than the south district.

Commr. Campione recommended these possible options: raising the north central fee rate slightly as well to 26 percent and then remain at that rate; starting the northeast Wekiva district at 39 percent, effective February 1, 2019, and then going to 52 percent on August 1, 2019; and then eighteen months later raise the northeast Wekiva area to 70 percent.

Commr. Sullivan suggested raising those two districts, north central and central, to 26 percent in February 2019, and continue along the same increases suggested for northeast Wekiva by going to 39 percent six months later.

Commr. Breeden stated that the north central and central districts should possibly also increase over time but added she would prefer to wait on going to the 52 percent in these districts.

Commr. Campione agreed with those rates and suggested holding the central district at 39 percent. She recapped this would raise it to 26 percent on February 1, 2019, 39 percent on August 1, 2019, and then temporarily hold at that rate, which would make the single family fee about $1,500, noting this would be the fee close to Marion County’s fee but still lower than Sumter County’s fee. She remarked that the Wekiva area was a desirable area and large developments were coming; furthermore, opined that the developers would be willing to pay the higher fee because they were already accustomed to paying it in Orange County and south Lake County.

Mr. Cole noted that a comparison chart of surrounding counties’ transportation fees were displayed for the Board to review.

Commr. Blake commented that he preferred that fee increases only happen for the north central and northeast Wekiva at this time and that any increases to the central district happen later due to the developments already in process in that area.

Commr. Campione asked if they could still break out the additional categories discussed before within the current study and Mr. Schneider indicated that they could. She then inquired that if a potential company in one of the targeted industries wanted to come to Lake County and was desiring an impact fee waiver, could the County at that time put into place a waiver for them as long as they were able to find a different source of funding to offset the waiver.

Ms. Marsh responded that a waiver program could be created for whatever categories the Board desired and that it would require an approval to advertise and a public hearing before the waiver program could go into effect.

Commr. Campione asked what the main projects were for the central district.

Mr. Schneider replied that there was Rolling Acres Road in the City of Lady Lake, the completion of C.R. 466A, some areas of C.R. 470, and if growth occurs near the turnpike interchange, there could be improvements needed on C.R. 48 and C.R. 33 in Okahumpka.

Commr. Blake asked if it was possible to increase the penny sales tax money spent on roads for a year in order to catch up on some of the resurfacing needs.

Commr. Sullivan stated that the Board could revisit in the next budget year what to do with the penny sales tax.

Commr. Breeden reiterated there was a large amount of funding going into parks.

Commr. Sullivan recapped that the Board desired to move forward with creating another fee district, and implementing a 26 percent in the northeast Wekiva, north central and central effective February 1, 2019, and phasing increases.

Commr. Campione remarked that she would support bumping the first increment in the northeast Wekiva district to 39 percent on February 1, 2019 and then to 52 percent on August 1, 2019. She agreed to raising the central district to 26 percent and holding at that rate.

Commr. Breeden suggested implementing 39 percent for the northeast Wekiva district and 26 percent for the north central and central districts, effective February 1, 2019 and then hold at those rates for a few months to receive feedback.

Commr. Campione stated she was agreeable to holding in the central but felt that the northeast Wekiva area should be raised in six months.

Commr. Parks inquired about one of the formulas for the mobility fee that was presented earlier in the meeting which had an increase in material costs for the south district, and asked at what point in the process would that be considered for the south district again.

Mr. Oliver responded that for that estimate, it was using the mobility fee district structure; however, it took the suburban fee, which covered most of the south district, and increased it from $2,700 to $3,000 which reflected a ten percent increase due to inflation, and that as part of the regular fee program, fees are reviewed and updated every three years.

Mr. Schneider confirmed that and added that every three years staff performs a fee analysis to ensure that the fee being charged is reliable and correct, although the fee might not necessarily be changed. He stated this analysis looks at the trip length, trip rate, use categories, updated construction costs estimates, credits, etc.

Commr Parks asked if that would be happening soon.

Ms. Marsh added that the most recent study that the Board adopted was dated February 9, 2017; therefore, it would not be done again until 2020.

The Board inquired about adding the additional fee categories and Mr. Schneider responded that these were categories that staff thought the Board might be interested in but numbers for them had not been calculated yet.

Mr. Cole suggested proceeding with adding the fourth impact fee district at this point and then staff could come back with the additional fee categories information to be added later. He remarked that staff could have the ordinance with the fee increases and the addition of the fourth district, without the new categories, ready by the next BCC meeting.

Ms. Marsh remarked that if this ordinance, with the fee changes and additional fourth district, was presented and approved at the October 23, 2018 BCC meeting, then the changes would go into effect February 1, 2019. She noted that if the Board wanted to add the categories at the same time, it would delay the effective date for the rest of the categories due to the requirement to wait 90 days for implementation. She recapped that the Board could approve this ordinance and then bring back a second ordinance creating new categories.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved an ordinance to be advertised with the addition of a fourth impact fee district, with the four districts then being south, central, north central and northeast Wekiva. The percentage of the full transportation impact fee charged for the new northeast/Wekiva district would be 39 percent effective February 1, 2019, 52 percent effective August 1, 2019, and 70 percent effective February 1, 2020. The north central and central districts’ fees would increase to 26 percent effective February 1, 2019. The south district fees would remain the same as they currently exist.

Commr. Blake voted no.

Ms. Marsh relayed one more consideration for the ordinance, noting that in the spring of 2018, the Board had expressed interest in discontinuing the prepayment program. She said that this was listed in this current ordinance and that she needed Board direction if they wanted to discontinue prepayments. She stated that if they did want to discontinue prepayments, then she would need an effective date, and if they did not want to discontinue prepayments, then she would take it out of this ordinance.

Commr. Campione supported leaving the discontinuance of prepayment in the ordinance and suggested January 1, 2019 as the effective date.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved discontinuing prepayment of impact fees, effective January 1, 2019.

Commr. Blake voted no.

Board direction on mobility fees

Mr. Cole recapped these options in regards to the transition to mobility fees: put it on hold until the changes to impact fees were made and the November vote for Super Homestead Exemption was complete; have Mr. Oliver return to the Board with his recommendations based on the input from today, noting that it might be above what was palatable for the Board; and if the Board was interested in mobility fees, then discussions with the various stakeholders such as the cities, homebuilders associations, and local governments, could take place and the item could be brought back before the Board at another workshop. He opined that the Board should wait on mobility fees until the transportation impact fee changes were made to determine its effectiveness.

Commr. Sullivan suggested scheduling another workshop on transportation within the first three months of 2019, which would give Mr. Oliver time to work on proposals and time for the Board to determine the effect of the changes just approved.

Commr. Campione indicated that she would reach out to the homebuilders associations prior to the next BCC meeting.

The Commissioners thanked everyone for all the work they put into today’s presentations and proposals.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

__________________________________

timothy i. sullivan, chairman

ATTEST:

____________________________

Gary J. Cooney, Clerk