A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
september 10, 2019
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 10, 2019 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: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Wendy Breeden, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; 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.
INVOCATION and pledge
Pastor John Blake from Good News Church in the City of Leesburg gave the Invocation and Commissioner Campione led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, stated that there had not been any changes to the agenda since it was first published; however, he asked for the Board to remove Tab 23 to be rescheduled for another meeting.
Commr. Campione recognized Mr. Sandy Gamble, Lake County School Board Chairman, for being present in the meeting since there were items on the agenda for school impact fees with the Lake County School Board. She also thanked Vice Mayor Karen LeHeup-Smith and Commissioner Marie Aliberti from the City of Eustis for attending as well.
presentation by the lake county tax collector
Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), introduced the Honorable David Jordan, Lake County Tax Collector, whom he said had recently purchased automated external defibrillators for all of the Tax Collector Offices and contacted the Office of EMS for training. He relayed that Captain Jonathan Carey, Chief of Training for the Office of Emergency Medical Services, conducted the training at the various tax collector locations.
Honorable David Jordan shared that his offices served approximately 30,000 people a day and that due to that, they wanted to be prepared to handle any emergencies that might arise. He commended Captain Carey for his expertise and the manner in which he extended his passion and care for those he trained. He also remarked that even once trained, it can be difficult to know when and how to react to emergencies; however, he said that Captain Carey’s method of training provided ease and comfort for his office personnel to be able to act when needed. He thanked Captain Carey as well as all the public safety officers for their time and efforts and then presented a recognition plaque to Captain Carey.
employee service 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 follows:
Craig King, Senior Building Inspector
Office of Building Services
Amy Thompson, Library Assistant I (not present)
Office of Library Services – Cooper Memorial Library
Tyrone Baquie, Server Administrator
Information Technology Department
Barry Fitzgerald, Fire Lieutenant/ Paramedic
Office of Fire Rescue
Elizabeth Heine, Programming & Application Support Division Manager
Information Technology Department
William Jenkins, Fire Lieutenant/ Paramedic (not present)
Office of Fire Rescue
Lisa Douglas, Compliance & Monitoring Associate (not present)
Office of Code Enforcement
Pamela Edwards Goodson, Branch Supervisor
Office of Library Services – East Lake Library
Randy Beadle, Maintenance Technician I
Office of Facilities Maintenance
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2019-99 declaring September 17-23, 2019, as Constitution Week.
Commr. Parks remarked how powerful and important the constitution was and then read and presented Proclamation 2019-99 to Ms. Debra Johnson, with the Daughters of the American Revolution.
Ms. Johnson thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for the opportunity to accept this proclamation.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2019-98 celebrating Beacon College’s 30th Anniversary.
Commr. Breeden read and presented Proclamation 2019-98 to Dr. George J. Hagerty, President of Beacon College.
Dr. Hagerty commented how proud the college was to be located within the City of Leesburg and Lake County and to have an outreach that touched the world. He shared his pride for the college’s efforts in educating students with learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorder. He shared that these were bright students who could make a difference in society and the future of the nation if they were able to receive appropriate undergraduate education. He felt that the college’s curriculum was unique and that student graduation and employment rates were outstanding. He shared his desire to have the college’s mission be known throughout the nation and for the college to be proudly embraced by Lake County residents. He thanked the Board and the community for the recognition of their 30th anniversary.
Commr. Campione shared the Board’s gratefulness for having Beacon College as a partner within the community and recognized Dr. Hagerty for his impressive leadership.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. David Serdar, a Fruitland Park resident, expressed concerns with climate change, environmental litter, and the use of plastic bags. He relayed that he had contacted many state representatives regarding his concerns and shared that he had an idea which he was promoting for a way to properly dispose of cigarette butts. He encouraged the BCC to reach out to state representatives in support of better environmental laws in order to provide a better future for the next generation.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a Lake County citizen, opined that Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements (ISBAs) did not work well and that he thought the residents involved in an ISBA should have a vote within any city which was attempting to annex around them. He asked for internal audit reports and suggested that there be one regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement which the County was waiting to receive for Hurricane Irma expenses. He recommended that the Lake County Water Authority be merged into the County operations or the Harris Chain of Lakes Restoration Council; additionally, he questioned why the Lake County School District was only being reimbursed 75 percent for providing shelters during Hurricane Dorian as he felt they should receive 100 percent. He ended by praising the County for Tab 33 on the agenda and for the estimated revenue it would be bringing into the County.
Commr. Campione explained that in regards to the reimbursement to the Lake County School District for emergency shelters, the 75 percent was based on the fact that FEMA typically reimburses 75 percent, noting that if the County did receive 100 percent reimbursement from FEMA then it would be passed onto the school district.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of July 16, 2019 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
hurricane dorian update
Commr. Campione commended Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, for keeping the Board and staff informed with up-to-date information throughout the storm, noting that Lake County was fortunate to not receive the predicted direct hit which could have been devastating to the county.
Mr. Carpenter provided a chronological recap of the events related to Hurricane Dorian, and said that it was 11 days from the first day they started to watch the storm to the day they ended their operations. He reported that emergency management began monitoring Hurricane Dorian on Saturday, August 24, 2019, at which point they began communication with stakeholders including Lake and Sumter Emergency Recovery (LASER). He then reported the following details: on Tuesday, August 27, 2019, they formally began their conference calls with the State and the weather service; on Wednesday, August 28, 2019, they held the first meeting of the executive policy group in order to brief them on the timing of the hurricane, noting that it was expected to impact Lake County with a strong category two hurricane; on Thursday, August 29, 2019, the citizens information line was opened and calls were made to special needs residents, sandbag operations began at five county locations, the Executive Policy Group met, the Board of County Commissioners Chairman signed the first local state of emergency proclamation, and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) went to a level two activation; on Thursday, August 29, 2019, emergency management trained 30 people comprised of County employees and volunteers to work in an emergency shelter, noting that the hurricane center was still predicting Lake County to be directly impacted by a category two hurricane; on Friday, August 30, 2019, the EOC remained at a level two activation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., sandbag operations continued, and all 15 of the primary emergency shelters were prepared and ready; on Saturday, August 31, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners Chairman signed an emergency order for a no-wake zone for the St. Johns River in the Astor area and the five day forecast indicated a northward turn and parallel track with the east coast of Florida so the EOC scaled down their emergency sheltering plan from 15 shelters to six shelters; on Sunday, September 1, 2019, the EOC remained at a level two activation and the Executive Policy Group approved the opening of emergency shelters for the following day at 8:00 a.m. with Lake County forecasted to receive tropical storm gusts between 45 to 50 miles per hour and sustained winds between 25 to 35 miles per hour; and on Monday, September 2, 2019, the EOC went to a level one full activation with 24 hour operations, the six emergency shelters were opened with transportation provided as needed, and Commissioner Parks led a meeting comprised of LASER and faith based groups who were interested in assisting the county in times of disaster.
Commr. Parks mentioned that there was a follow up meeting for this group on September 19, 2019, and he thanked LASER for their efforts, noting that there was now a way to get these groups involved in a unified manner to assist with emergencies.
Mr. Carpenter continued his update reporting the following: on Tuesday, September 3, 2019, the EOC remained at a level one activation, the Board of County Commissioners Chairman signed the second local state of emergency in order to extend it for another seven days, weather began to impact the county, and emergency shelters were open for their second night; on Wednesday, September 4, 2019, impacts from Hurricane Dorian were minimal, local news reported 148 power outages in the county, emergency shelters were closed at noon with no host sheltering needed, and support focus shifted to the Astor area due to moderate flooding levels with the Lake County Sheriff and the Office of Fire Rescue setting up 24 hour operations there; and on Wednesday, September 4, 2019, all day-to-day operations were moved back to respective County Offices with EOC going to a level three monitoring by 4:00 p.m. that day. He relayed several milestones that were accomplished during this time which included the provision of 108,256 sandbags, the citizens information line answered 2,846 calls with 1,548 calls being made to special needs residents, emergency shelters hosted 570 individuals, public transportation provided rides to shelters for 66 people, and social media had 12 press releases, 160 posts to social media, and 605,754 Facebook impressions.
Mr. Cole added that even though the storm did not hit Lake County, there was a lot of effort that went into being prepared in case it did, noting that he was thankful for Mr. Carpenter’s leadership and his team for doing a great job of making sure everything ran smoothly. He shared that there were fiscal impacts due to these types of events and since the county was a part of the declaration of state of emergency, those costs would be submitted to FEMA with the hope to receive 75 percent of the costs.
Commr. Parks opined that Mr. Carpenter was the best EOC director in the state of Florida and he thanked him, his team, the Board Chairman and the County Manager for all they did during this time. He stressed the importance of the churches and non-profit groups’ efforts to organize through LASER in order to help ease the burden of the school district in providing emergency shelters.
Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Carpenter, his staff, the cities, the school board, and everyone who helped lead the effort, noting that it could have been a serious event if the hurricane had taken a different path and the County needed to be prepared.
Commr. Sullivan commended Lake County for having great working relationships between the cities, the County and the emergency management team. He also thanked those who volunteered to work the citizens information line.
Commr. Blake relayed that he enjoyed working the citizens information line and that he always receives compliments regarding the professionalism of Mr. Carpenter and the emergency operations team.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, remarked that the state of local emergency would expire this day, and relayed that Mr. Carpenter was requesting an extension to that due to the flooding in Astor.
Commr. Campione clarified that was due to the impacts the flooding was having on residents and businesses in that area.
Mr. Carpenter specified that according to the forecast from the weather service, that by September 15, 2019, it was predicted to be below the minor flooding stage and back into action stage as water was flowing well and levels were falling.
Commr. Campione recalled that after Hurricane Irma, there were concerns regarding what the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) could have done to be better prepared; however, she said that with this storm, they did take action ahead of time to relocate water in order to help alleviate flooding, noting that it would be almost impossible to completely alleviate the flooding due to the pressure coming from the storm. She said that she appreciated the SJRWMD’s level of preparation for this storm. She commended the staff and volunteers at the EOC for their positive attitude, helpfulness, cooperation, and the great job they did. She explained that within the state of Florida, the counties all had the same protocols and procedures which assisted with cooperative efforts. She also thanked the Lake County School District for being key partners and for their ability to open shelters. She explained that Tab 16 on the consent agenda was for reimbursement related to expenses for activating the shelters, noting that even though the agenda item stated 75 percent, if the County was to receive 100 percent it would all go to the school district.
Mr. Cole confirmed that was correct. He elaborated that County staff and the school board staff were working to formalize this for future storms.
Commr. Campione stated that after Hurricane Irma, FEMA changed the rules directing expenses for sheltering to be submitted by each county, noting that prior to that it went through the school district. She elaborated this change raised the question that if the County was going to submit for reimbursement then who would pay the upfront costs; furthermore, she related that it was decided for the County to cover the upfront costs but once the reimbursement was received, the County would receive that reimbursement and any additional funding would be passed along to the school district. She reiterated that the County and school district would formalize an agreement for the future which would address staffing levels and other needs. She also asked for consideration regarding LASER funding, noting that it had previously been funded through the county budget. She explained that LASER was a not-for-profit organization which was able to assist residents directly in receiving funding which the governmental entity would not be able to. She said that since LASER was no longer in the county budget, it meant that the County had to work on an agreement with them during emergencies which could be an extra challenge; additionally, she indicated that LASER would need to have their resources in place and opined that without the assurance of funding being available, it created an unfair situation for them. She indicated that since LASER might be assisting the coordination of not-for-profit organizations, faith based groups and volunteers, then the County could possibly rely on them to be the organization to coordinate these efforts annually. She suggested that during the budget deliberations, the Board could consider placing an annual funding amount within the budget to address this.
Commr. Parks shared his support of this suggestion to keep LASER in the County budget on a regular basis and opined that the amount of funding LASER would be able to bring in for post-recovery efforts would be more than what it might cost to provide annual funding to them. He felt that organizing 25 to 30 churches would require attention on a regular basis in order to coordinate all efforts and he believed LASER would be a good fit for doing this.
Commr. Breeden agreed as well.
Mr. Cole explained that during the anticipation of Hurricane Dorian, it was expressed that LASER would need supplies; therefore, he relayed that as soon as the EOC went to a level one activation, the County was able to give LASER a check for $25,000 in order to purchase supplies, which he noted would now be available for any future events. He indicated that staff could develop a memorandum of understanding between the Board and LASER for consideration on a future BCC meeting agenda and that it could be added to the September 24, 2019 public hearing.
Commr. Campione thanked everyone for their work and for the training that was provided to be prepared for emergencies.
Mr. Carpenter thanked the Board and County staff for all their support, noting that he was thankful for the Lake County public servants and volunteers who came together to make everything run smoothly.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, as follows:
List of Warrants
Request to acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
Estates at Cherry Lake CDD Resolution 2019-05
Request to acknowledge receipt of Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District Resolution 2019-05, identifying the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 meeting schedule for Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District. This meeting schedule is being submitted in accordance with Section 189.015(1) of the Florida Statutes.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Parks expressed a desire to comment on Tab 33, and Commissioner Breeden wanted to comment on Tab 30.
Commr. Blake asked for a separate vote on Tabs 8, 9, and 25. He explained that Tabs 8 and 9 were eminent domain takings which he reiterated from previous discussions that he had concerns with that; additionally, he said that regarding Tab 25, he wanted to be consistent with a previous vote he had made, noting that it was not the item itself but rather the financing of it.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 6 through 33, pulling Tab 23 for a later agenda, and pulling Tabs 8, 9 and 25 for a separate vote with comments on Tabs 30 and 33 after the vote.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tabs 8, 9 and 25.
Commr. Blake voted no.
Commr. Parks complimented staff on Tab 33 and for taking advantage of the opportunity to advertise and bring in revenue which could help offset the cost of providing transit services.
Mr. Cole acknowledged Mr. Ron Russo, Deputy County Manager, and Ms. Jill Brown, Director for the Lake County Office of Transit Services, for their work on this.
Commr. Campione added that the Transportation for Disadvantaged Coordinating Board was planning to have discussions regarding Uber Health which was a new service that was approved and could be utilized for medical trips, noting that the County could possibly use it in the future.
Commr. Breeden remarked that Tab 30 would be of interest to small game hunters. She recalled that in her previous service as a department director, taking the Pine Meadows Conservation Area into the County was being considered and staff realized after talking to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that this area had the potential to be a possible area that could be used by duck hunters. She indicated that this tab was moving that process forward and that she was pleased that there would be another venue for small game hunters.
Commr. Campione clarified that staff would be coordinating the activities in such a way that it would not affect individuals utilizing the area for boating or hiking with it being two different activities at two different times of the day and year.
The Consent Agenda was approved as follows:
Request approval of a First Amendment to Lease with Hooks Street Investments, LLC for the Lake County Tax Collector's South Lake Regional Service Center at 1505 Hooks Street in Clermont, and authorization for the County Manager to execute annual reimbursements to Hooks Street Investment for building insurance and real estate taxes per the Lease Agreement. The estimated fiscal impact is $345,000.00 (expenditure).
Request approval of First Amendment to the Lease Agreement between Lake County and Phyllis B. Cross for the Eustis area EMS Station located at 702 S. Grove Street, Eustis. The fiscal impact is $14,400.00 for Fiscal Year 2020 (expenditure). Commission District 4.
Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Court Case No. 2018-CA-2078, Lake County vs. David Outar, et al., (Parcel Number: CG-07) for the needed right of way on the Citrus Grove Road Project. The fiscal impact is $167,200.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.
Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Court Case No. 2018-CA-1984, Lake County vs. Christopher McCarthy, et al., (Parcel Number: CG-06) for the needed right of way on the Citrus Grove Road Project. The fiscal impact is $187,300.00 (expenditure). This settlement provides compensation to the property owners only and does not include attorney's fees and costs. Commission District 2.
Request approval of an invoice for Clayton, Roper & Marshall, Inc., for appraisal consulting services for an eminent domain litigation case for the Citrus Grove Road Project. The fiscal impact is $26,977.47 (expenditure).
Request approval to extend the 2019 tax roll until completion of the Value Adjustment Board hearings. There is no fiscal impact.
Request approval of the 2020 Board of County Commissioners meeting dates: January 14 and 28; February 11 and 25; March 10 and 24; April 7 and 21; May 5 and 19; June 2 and 16; July 7 and 21; August 11 and 25; September 15 and 29; October 13 and 27; November 10, 17 (Investiture) and 24; and December 8 and 22.
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Management and Budget
Request approval of unanticipated revenue Resolution 2019-108 amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 General Fund Budget for the receipt of funds per the School Crossing Guard, School Resource Deputies and Court Liaisons agreements between the Lake County Sheriff and the Lake County School Board, and approval to increase the FY 2019 transfer from the General Fund to the Lake County Sheriff by a like amount. The fiscal impact is $707,489.00 (revenue/expenditure).
Request approval of the request from the Lake County Sheriff's Office to transfer funds from General Fund Reserves to Transfer/Jail Operations-DEP/AST. The fiscal impact is $100,000.00 (expenditure).
Request approval to apply for the Fiscal Year 2019 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Local Solicitation for the Lake County Sheriff's Office to purchase equipment, and authorization for the Chairman to execute any required grant documents. The fiscal impact is $33,850.00 (revenue/expenditure).
Request approval to reimburse the Lake County School Board 75% of its expenses related to activating shelters during Hurricane Dorian. The fiscal impact is up to $300,000.00 (expenditure).
Request approval to declare items as surplus, and authorization of their removal from the County’s official fixed asset inventory system records. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Request approval to renew the County's annual Loss Control Program insurance policies with Princeton and other insurance companies, Brown & Brown's annual fees for professional services, and pre-funding of the Tenant Users Liability Insurance Program, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated total fiscal impact is $1,908,366.00 (expenditure).
Request approval of Contract 19-0503 with Wakely Consulting Group, LLC (Tampa, FL) for actuarial consulting services to provide analysis and certification for the group health plan. The total fiscal impact is $23,750.00 (expenditure - over a five-year term).
AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Request approval of an agreement with the University of Central Florida for management of Lake County's Small Business Development Center services. The fiscal impact is $150,000.00 (expenditure).
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Request approval to:
1. To accept and execute the Fiscal Year 2020 Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance (EMPA) Trust Fund Base Grant Agreement.
2. To receive the EMPA Trust Fund Base Grant Agreement from the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, in the amount of $105,806.00.
3. For the County Manager to execute future amendments/modifications that do not involve financial impact.
4. For the Office of Emergency Management Director to execute the certification required under Exhibit 2 (page 18) of the Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Base Grant, and to execute this certification for any other future emergency management grants received by the County.
The fiscal impact is $105,806.00 (revenue/expenditure).
1. To accept and execute the Fiscal Year 2020 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Agreement.
2. To receive the EMPG Agreement from the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management, in the amount of $94,381.00.
3. For the County Manager to execute future amendments/modifications that do not involve financial impact.
4. For the Office of Emergency Management Director to execute the certification required under Section 9D (page 4) of the EMPG and to execute this certification for any other future emergency management grants received by the County.
The fiscal impact is $94,381.00 (revenue/expenditure).
Planning and Zoning
Request approval for an Interlocal Agreement for School Impact Fee Infill Waiver with the Lake County School Board. There is no fiscal impact from this action.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Request approval of the following in support of the design and construction of the Lake County Animal Shelter relating to contracts 18-0202 and 18-0003: a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $7,223,639.00; a change order for Dickerson Architects Inc. of $43,460.00; a transfer of available funding from the Reserves account associated with the loan proceeds; and approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2019-109. The fiscal impact from this action is $7,267,099.00 (expenditure from Infrastructure Sales Tax loan proceeds). Commission District 3.
Housing and Human Services
Request approval to advertise an ordinance amending the Affordable Housing Committee membership and quorum requirement. There is no fiscal impact.
Request approval and execution of interlocal agreements between Lake County, the governing bodies of the Lake County Library System member libraries and the governing body of the City of Eustis, relating to the provision of library services. The fiscal impact for fiscal year 2020 is $974,290.00 (expenditure).
Request approval to submit the Fiscal Year 2020 State Aid to Libraries Grant Application and the Lake County Library System Annual Plan of Service. The estimated fiscal impact is $181,194.00 (revenue).
Parks and Trails
Request approval to award Contract 19-0926 to Pooley Enterprises, Inc. (Orlando, FL) for East Lake Sports and Community Complex improvements per the approved master plan. The fiscal impact is $2,313,375.00 (expenditure). Commission District 4.
Request approval and signature of a letter to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicating that Lake County seeks to partner and participate with FWC to allow the hunting of small-game in designated areas of the Pine Meadows Conservation Area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 4.
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 of an amended Haul Permit application submitted by KBC Verandah, LLC (Sanford, FL) for hauling activity associated with the Verandah Park subdivision located on Old Highway 441, within the City of Tavares. There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Commission District 3.
Request approval of Contract 19-0720 with Vector Media Holding Corporation (New York, NY) to provide advertising services on Lake County transit vehicles. The estimated fiscal impact is $422,000.00 (revenue).
ordinance to adjust the educational impact fee rates
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, introduced Tab 42 which was an update to the Lake County educational impact fee ordinance rates and a request for approval to advertise an ordinance to amend the Lake County Code in order to adjust these rates. He recalled that the Lake County School Board impact fee was last updated in 2015 with the fees adopted at the full calculated levels. He remarked that in order to comply with the Florida Statutes as well as to ensure that the technical study reflected the most recent data, the Lake County School Board worked with Tindale Oliver in order to update the educational impact fee schedule.
Ms. Nilgun Kamp, Director of Public Finance for Tindale Oliver, presented the Lake County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Update Study, noting that per ordinance and state legislative requirements the school impact fees must be updated every three to five years. She explained that impact fees were a one-time capital charge for new development with the purpose to cover new capital facilities; furthermore, she stated that they maintain the level-of-service (LOS), calculate the cost of growth, and are most needed when there is high growth and limited alternative funding. She then displayed the basic impact fee formula and explained that this formula takes the cost to provide certain infrastructure, such as a school building, and subtracts any non-impact fee contributions from future development in terms of taxes from that, and then the net cost gets multiplied by demand which is measured in terms of student generation rates. She reported that the study findings for single family land use as compared to the previous study reflected that the cost per student decreased, the credit per student decreased, and the student generation rate increased with the overall fee decreasing by about four percent. She relayed that the study reviewed the areas of inventory, facility service delivery, cost component, credit component, and demand component. She reported that Lake County had 43 traditional schools, noting that the inventory of schools did not count charter nor alternative schools. She related that facility service delivery was based on prototype schools which the school district intended to build and ranged from 135 to 160 square feet per student station. She stated that facility cost per student considered all costs necessary to build a school and included items such as architect/site improvements, construction, furniture/fixtures/equipment, and land purchase. She indicated that when these costs were added and multiplied by the square feet per student station, the cost per student station calculated at approximately $28,000; however, she said that since the previous study, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) had placed limitations on the amount the school districts could spend without experiencing a financial penalty so the school facility cost per student amounts published by the FDOE were lower at around $27,000 per student station. She added that the available permanent capacity for each school can affect the impact fee and ended up lowering the total facility impact cost per student to about $26,000; additionally, she said that transportation and ancillary facilities costs were also included in the total cost per student, noting that each were around $1,000 per student. She explained that credits considered how the school district was funding new schools or capacity projects and recognized a portion of non-impact fee funding sources which come from future development. She reported that with the total impact cost per student about $27,757 and the total revenue credit around $2,000 per student, the net impact cost per student was approximately $25,505 per student. She then reported on the demand component in regards to student generation rates, noting that current student addresses were matched with land use classifications to determine how many students were coming from each type of residential home. She indicated that there was in increase in the number of students from single family homes, that the number of students from multi-family homes stayed the same, and that the number of students from the mobile home category decreased by about ten percent. She stated that the final impact fee was calculated by multiplying the student generation rate with the net cost per student and ended up calculating to almost $9,000 for a single family home, about $7,000 for a multi-family home, and almost $5,000 for a mobile home, noting that this was a decrease to all categories when compared to the previous study. She then displayed a chart comparing school impact fee rates for all Florida counties.
Commr. Blake asked where Lake County ranked among the counties.
Ms. Kamp replied that Lake County was in the top ten percent of counties with higher fees.
Commr. Campione clarified that part of the reason for that might be that if there was no other funding source contributing to the building of new schools, then the school impact fees increased.
Ms. Kamp responded that there were several factors affecting this and one was the student generation rate, noting that counties with an older aged population might have fewer students and do not need as many new schools. She agreed that if there were no other alternative funding sources then the fee did end up being higher. She also noted that several counties had not updated their fees for several years or had adopted at a lower percentage. She gave the example that Miami-Dade County’s last study was in 1995 and that if they updated then they might be in the higher range.
Commr. Campione felt that particular county possibly did not update as they might still adopt a percentage which would place them at their current rate.
Ms. Kamp added that they might also have other sources of funding and did not necessarily have the pressure to update impact fees.
Commr. Campione commented that these impact fees had a direct correlation to the affordability of housing.
Ms. Kamp indicated that the most recent legislation allowed jurisdictions to discount for affordable housing without having to backfill; therefore, she said that the County had the ability to set aside a dollar amount so there were some ways to mitigate affordable housing.
Commr. Campione expressed concerns that the amount would still have to come out of the County’s General Fund.
Commr. Parks asked for clarification if the County could continue to pursue affordable housing and designate some waivers for affordable housing or workforce housing projects without utilizing the General Fund.
Ms. Kamp responded that House Bill 7103 had been signed which allowed the County to discount without having to backfill but that it would still be a revenue loss for the school district, noting that there were some concerns that this might be challenged since it went against the equity of everyone paying the basis of impact fees.
Commr. Campione commented that the school district would then receive less revenue.
Commr. Parks agreed that could be an issue that the County would need to work through with the school district; however, he felt that providing housing for teachers, civil servants, and trades workforce was also a concern.
Commr. Campione indicated that the legislation allowed for these certain groups to be targeted for discounts.
Ms. Kamp cautioned that the wording in the bill was affordable housing and that she was not sure whether it applied to all categories or just low income.
Commr. Parks added that there was a difference between workforce and affordable housing based on income levels.
Ms. Marsh explained that she believed that the wording did refer back to affordable housing definitions and the other relevant parts of the statute so she felt that the income thresholds would need to be considered.
Commr. Campione added that would be based on the median income and poverty level.
Commr. Parks remarked that when trying to build a house for less than $100,000 then that could make a difference and might fit the criteria for affordable housing.
Commr. Breeden suggested for staff to move forward with an ordinance to amend the impact fee rates and to coordinate with the school board.
Commr. Campione recalled that State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) funding had been used in the past to help offset the impact fees for low income housing; therefore, she felt that this option might free up some SHIP money for other things such as down payment assistance or transitional housing, noting that staff could review those options prior to the ordinance being brought back to the Board.
Commr. Parks inquired if the Sadowski Fund was SHIP funding and Commissioner Campione confirmed that it was.
Commr. Sullivan commented that those were funds generated by documentary stamp taxes.
Commr. Campione said that the amount received from that varies each year, that there was always a waiting list, and that the County did not know what projects could be funded. She relayed that in the past, there was an impact fee waiver agreement with the Lake County School District which she opined had been very effective in addressing workforce and infill housing, noting that the school district had agreed to continue with that. She stated that this was an example which was outside of the low income level and would need to be reimbursed; furthermore, she related that the school district had set aside $250,000 for those particular waivers. She reiterated her support for that waiver as she believed it assisted local builders and current residents who were attempting to build homes on existing and infill lots as well as helping neighborhoods by creating activity which might not otherwise have new construction. She expressed a desire for the school district to continue this especially if the Board agreed to support the 100 percent impact fee with the goal to consider additional waivers for low income housing.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to advertise an ordinance to amend Section 22-21 and 22-22, Lake County Code, to adjust the educational impact fee rates to the new proposed rates.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:20 a.m. for 20 minutes.
resolution 2019-112 Interlocal service boundary agreement
Ms. Marsh recalled that the City of Eustis had initiated a resolution in April of this year with the County having 60 days to respond, noting that the City had given the County an extension to the 60 days. She related that the County had met with the City to discuss what should be in the responding resolution; additionally, she stated that within the Board’s packet was the draft resolution which the Chairman had recommended that the County move forward with. She specified that the Board could make whatever changes they desired to this draft resolution.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there were speaker cards for this item and inquired whether the Board should have a discussion first or have the citizens speak first.
Ms. Marsh replied that it was up to the Board’s discretion but that it might be helpful to hear from those who wanted to speak prior to the Board’s deliberations.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Derek Schroth, attorney for the City of Eustis, provided this background information regarding this item: three years ago the City sought to initiate negotiations with the County for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA); the City had proposed to annex noncontiguous properties in their resolution dated March 17, 2016, and to expand their Joint Planning Area (JPA); there was a joint meeting on September 20, 2017 at the City of Eustis Community Center at which the County expressed their opposition to noncontiguous properties being annexed as well as the expansion of the City’s JPA; the City conceded those two points; and on April 19, 2019, the City adopted Resolution 19-43 conceding the points that the County had objections to and proposing that there be an ISBA with the boundaries of the current joint planning area, noting that area was established by agreement by the County over 30 years ago on July 21, 1987 which set forth the plan of development for the City of Eustis within those boundaries. He opined that the City’s current proposal was consistent with the 30 year old agreement and that there was no request to go outside the JPA nor to annex properties that were not contiguous which were the County’s two concerns. He said that the County had been very gracious with its time and willingness to discuss the matter and to work out the County’s responding resolution, noting that there was a prior draft resolution which was pulled from the June 11, 2019 BCC agenda. He then relayed that the City had objections to five requirements within the current draft resolution in the Board’s packet and requested that they be removed and that the County move forward with the proposed resolution minus these five restrictions. He mentioned that the first was in regards to the item under section two of the proposed resolution which required the ISBA to be amended if there was a voluntary annexation request. He felt that this process took a long time and that the City did not want to have to amend the ISBA every time there was a voluntary annexation but wanted the stability of an existing agreement within the boundaries of the JPA established 30 years ago. He said that the City’s second objection was in regards to changing the ISBA boundary. He implied that since the City was adhering to the joint planning area and there was no reason for an expansion or retraction of that JPA boundary area, then they asked for that restriction to be deleted. He mentioned that item number three established a process for people to be heard regarding the creation of an enclave that may result from voluntary annexation. He felt that there were already procedures in place and that existing statutory due processes were sufficient for anyone who might want to object. He commented that the fourth issue was to permit those who were subject to deed restriction to annex, noting that municipalities typically expand utilities to those within the unincorporated area under the condition that they agree to annex but for this condition most municipalities would not extend utilities. He implied that there were agreements in place with multiple residents and subdivisions in their deed restrictions to force them to annex if they were contiguous; therefore, he opined that section four infringed on this contractual right and required that someone may decline annexation even if they have a covenant to annex or an agreement to annex in the event that utilities were extended. He said that the last concern was in regards to the mediator, noting that the City did not necessarily object to a mediator but rather to the timing of the mediator. He remarked that since the City had made substantial concessions on the two major issues that the County had, the City was optimistic about moving forward, and they thought that having a mediator now was premature. He asked for that provision to be modified or deleted and to only occur if there was an impasse. He summarized that the City was asking for the draft resolution to be adopted less the five restrictions he just mentioned.
Mr. Ron Neibert, Eustis City Manager, commented that he would present options to the Board based on their discussions and he asked to defer his comments.
Mr. Ben Snyder, with Hanover Land Company, commented that his company had the Pine Meadows golf course under contract and this would be directly affected by the ISBA and the enclave issue. He relayed his understanding that there were other ISBAs in the county that allow for noncontiguous annexation; therefore, he asked for the Commission to support this ISBA and that the same treatment be put forth for the City of Eustis. He felt that since there was a mechanism for public comments in public meetings which allows unincorporated residents to express their opinions, there was not a need for an additional method. He said he did not understand how people could voluntarily opt out of deed restrictions as it did not seem consistent with accepting title documents at closing, noting that this did not necessarily affect his company’s project.
Commr. Campione replied that the first item that was requested would only apply to voluntary annexations that create enclaves and would not apply to voluntary annexations that would be allowed under the Florida Statutes.
Ms. Marsh responded that was correct, noting that was specifically what the City had asked for.
Commr. Campione implied that the County was not interfering with what the normal process would be if an enclave was not being created; furthermore, she said what the County was attempting to do was to address those situations where there was an enclave left behind as a result of an annexation. She explained that in regards to the comment about this taking a long time, she felt that this was a reasonable process because it was actually creating an enclave and as a result there might be unincorporated residents who were impacted by it. She related that this was the reason for the number three concern which was establishing a process by which unincorporated residents would have a voice. She opined that while there were public comment opportunities at meetings, an unincorporated resident might not be heard at a city meeting as city commissions would be focused on the concerns of their constituents; furthermore, she implied this had been an issue with other areas where ISBAs had been signed, had created problems for residents, and was the reason it had become an issue for the Board. She remarked that in regards to the residents who were already in a subdivision where there might have been a covenant to annex, the Board’s concern was whether the residents knew or were notified when they signed their closing documents and moved into that neighborhood that they might be annexed someday when the city was contiguous. She commented that if the City had a list of subdivisions that could possibly fall under that due to agreements and if this list could be included as part of the negotiations, then it would allow the County to understand what the documents stated, what people were given, and how easy it was for people to understand. She implied that was the reason the County had requested for that item to be included. She also remarked that if the city grew naturally without the assistance of an ISBA and those subdivisions then became contiguous, the County would not be able to be involved in that situation; however, if the County entered into an ISBA and allowed that process to happen faster and made subdivisions contiguous when they might not have been for 10 years, then that was what the County was concerned about.
Commr. Breeden said that she would have an issue if growth was outside the ISBA but she would not be concerned within the ISBA since the City already stated it had to be contiguous growth.
Commr. Parks thanked Commissioner Campione for her comments regarding the ISBA process and he noted that he wished that some ISBAs could be redone due to issues with them. He mentioned that there were cities in South Lake which were not near properties being annexed in and not a part of an ISBA, yet councilmembers were telling unincorporated residents at the council meetings that it was a city issue and they did not have a choice. He said that he agreed with Commissioner Campione’s thoughts but felt that maybe this had always been an issue. He wondered if redoing all of the JPAs within the entire county was a better approach, although he realized that might be difficult to accomplish. He implied that while there might be some councilmembers who would want the input from an unincorporated resident, he had experienced times when they did not want their input.
Commr. Campione agreed that county residents could show up at a city meeting to voice actions that were affecting them when a city annexed a contiguous property. She specified that the difference with an ISBA is that if the County opened the door for the City to be able to do an annexation that they would have otherwise not been able to do, then that is when the County gets placed in the middle of the situation and the citizens have concerns because the County entered into the ISBA.
Commr. Breeden said that she agreed and felt that the issue could sometimes be with compatible density, giving the example of Shirley Shores and the issue with lot sizes. She suggested instead of the approach within the draft resolution regarding the voluntary annexation, that possibly reaching an agreement with the City regarding density might be an option so that at least those areas next to lesser densities would be more compatible with the surrounding area even if the internal densities were higher.
Commr. Campione reiterated that if the City could provide a map identifying areas that were interested in an annexation that would otherwise create enclaves, then the County could address them so that there were specified areas, noting that on some ISBAs it identified certain parcels that could be annexed. She opined that the Pine Meadows property would not be controversial since they had densities already in place which were compatible with what the City was trying to accomplish. She thought that East Crooked Lake might be more controversial since there were larger lots surrounding the property being proposed for development as people would be concerned with the lot sizes, what their view would be, and how it would affect their property values from the standpoint of their lot sizes matching up to the lot sizes next to them around the lake; furthermore, she believed this would be a difficult land use case because of balancing unincorporated residents and city residents with the City wanting to grow in that area and the County residents objecting because they wanted growth that was consistent with what they had. She suggested mediating around that area and working towards a solution since it was more difficult. She also recommended pulling out the Pine Meadows property and other parcels that the City had received applications for and addressing those now and then bringing in other parcels as the City received additional applications.
Commr. Parks asked if the County could still comment and strongly object to anything a city might be attempting with an annexation.
Commr. Breeden responded that the Board could object and recalled that the Board did make comments to the City of Tavares regarding Shirley Shores. She felt that the City of Eustis had been caught in the middle inadvertently because this Board was seeing some of the problem areas with ISBAs due to decisions by past Boards with regards to ISBAs, although she thought this could be worked through with the City of Eustis. She implied that she was not ready to go to mediation yet but preferred to possibly have the Chairman and the Eustis Mayor meet without staff or attorneys but have it recorded by the Clerk’s Office in order to reach a proposed resolution.
Commr. Campione specified that since there were two developers who wanted to bring property into the City of Eustis and the City was trying to enhance its tax base, she felt that the suggestion to bring in a mediator at the front end and have a third objective party to help work through specific details would assist at the beginning and possibly save money. She suggested taking Pine Meadows out separately and addressing that development with an ISBA so that developer could move forward; furthermore, she thought that then the rest of the map and the identified issues could be mediated with the hope that a solution to the East Crooked Lake project could be found.
Commr. Breeden inquired about the possibility of pulling out the East Crooked Lake property and negotiating on it and then approving everything else.
Commr. Campione replied that there could still be the issues of disenfranchisement of unincorporated residents as well as trying to merge what the City wanted with what county residents were concerned about. She expressed belief that a process could be developed so that all sides had the opportunity to review a development plan, that their voice could be heard, and the City could blend in the concerns of unincorporated residents with an end product that everyone could agree on.
Commr. Breeden expressed a preference for written guidelines which could be followed.
Commr. Sullivan clarified that his thoughts on mediation were more about working through the issues and the process expeditiously, noting that he was open to any suggestions that would assist with this even if some properties got treated differently. He said he was a supporter of ISBAs because of the need for services in the urban areas, and that he wanted individuals to have a voice in the process. He felt that the Board could pass a broad resolution and then add language in the resolution that certain specific items would be negotiated. He explained that due to Florida’s Sunshine Laws the Commissioners could not discuss the items privately. He liked the idea of changing JPAs but supported this one getting accomplished now since the market was good with businesses and residents desiring to come to Lake County. He thought the Board needed to accomplish what they could in this meeting and then have more specifics or any items of disagreement addressed through mediation or a joint meeting between staff.
Commr. Campione suggested using the word facilitator instead of mediator.
Commr. Parks pointed out that there was agreement between the City and the County on numbers one and two of section two of the proposed resolution and suggested moving forward with those.
Commr. Breeden added that the item regarding the boundary for the ISBA was the JPA and she did not think it needed to be negotiated.
Commr. Campione opined that when doing a dispute resolution there would be some modifications in order to reach agreement. She said that everyone agreeing that the JPA would be the ISBA kept it from being something that could be used to negotiate a resolution; therefore, she suggested leaving it in.
Ms. Marsh clarified that the first number one and two under section two was word-for-word what the City of Eustis had asked for and was reiterating what they had placed in their original resolution. She indicated that the Board could have as their response that they were willing to negotiate exactly as the City had worded it; however, she said these items were not part of the County’s response but merely repeating what the City had asked for.
Commr. Campione added that what was listed below these two points were the points of contention which included what would be the boundary, and that the boundary might need to be adjusted as part of coming to agreement with the other issues. She opined that if they did have a facilitator, some of the more difficult items such as specific properties creating concern could be addressed by setting forth what would be an acceptable resolution of those particular properties.
Commr. Blake asked what would be the anticipated timeline if a facilitator or mediator was procured as he agreed with Commissioner Sullivan’s thoughts on getting this resolved as quickly as possible.
Ms. Marsh responded that typically a day would be set aside but it could take two days; therefore, she was not certain how long it would take.
Commr. Campione explained that having a facilitator or mediator would not require public notice requirements and could be done soon in order to draft a resolution to present to both parties. She felt that the mediation process was unique and worked well because there would be an objective party listening to both sides, helping to determine if both sides were being reasonable, and assisting with reaching common ground.
Commr. Breeden opined that having staff meet was not the right solution at this point and she expressed a desire to not prolong this.
Mr. Neibert commented that all of the development agreements that were currently in place with the City of Eustis would not be immediately annexed upon execution of this ISBA as none of them had any contiguity which would allow the City to exercise their rights under those agreements. He also expressed concerns with using a mediator as it would still be the same individuals in front of the mediator who had not been able to reach an agreement; additionally, he relayed concerns with how the information discussed would be relayed to elected bodies.
Commr. Breeden explained that it could be recorded by the Clerk’s Office with minutes being written.
Mr. Neibert suggested a joint meeting with both bodies and open dialogue with accurate and timely information provided. He said that in regards to the concern of adjacent neighbors, he felt that all cities had to take that under consideration; however, he asked for the BCC to have faith in the City of Eustis officials to make good decisions on the growth of this community and the impact to the county as a whole. He opined that no other community was required to perform a two-step process for reviewing projects with the possibility of the County vetoing projects which were coming before the City. He indicated that in regards to the East Crooked Lake project, the City was willing to either agree to exclude it from the boundary of the ISBA or to include only that project as part of the two-step process or review by the BCC. He recommended that the other pending projects be allowed to go through normal City review processes.
Commr. Campione asked what other projects the City had in addition to Pine Meadows and if they were large projects.
Mr. Neibert relayed that the City had others that had expressed interest but had not submitted any formal requests. He said they were smaller projects around 30 to 40 acres. He also added that based on the processes described to the City which included concept plans and zoning requests to be reviewed by the BCC, this would cause individuals to make a significant effort just simply to get into the City of Eustis and then they would have to go through the City’s process. He felt that unless they knew they could definitely go through the City of Eustis’ process, they were not willing to make the effort.
Commr. Campione said that if there was an ISBA done for the Pine Meadows property and then there was a joint meeting to discuss the bigger map and the drafted resolution, then the issues could be worked through and East Crooked Lake could be a part of that negotiation.
Mr. Neibert remarked that he appreciated the concerns for East Crooked Lake but that it seemed like the County was now wanting to approve projects that had not even been submitted yet and that the County wanted to negotiate other projects as part of this process. He indicated that projects were ready to go but did not want to submit applications now due to the uncertainty of what was happening regarding these issues.
Commr. Campione reiterated that her suggestion was to address the Pine Meadows right away with an ISBA so that it could move through the process; additionally, establish a time for the two boards to work through the rest of the bigger picture with the hope that an agreement could be reached that reflected the City’s JPA so that projects were not individually reviewed. She felt this would keep the Pine Meadows project from being delayed.
Mr. Neibert asked Commissioner Campione that if the Board was not desiring to review other projects, then what would be reviewed as part of a joint meeting in regards to the boundary.
Commr. Campione responded that the issues within the County’s responding resolution which were being discussed in this meeting would be addressed.
Mr. Neibert opined that the Eustis City Commission had expressed that the proposed conditions within the County’s responding resolution were unprecedented and unacceptable; furthermore, he believed that the City had compromised from the beginning three years ago and were also compromising by leaving out the concerns for the East Crooked Lake project. He asked for the BCC to give the City the ISBA under the boundaries that they proposed and to let the City govern itself.
Commr. Campione opined that intents were getting lost in translation and was the reason she was supporting a third party objective person.
Mr.Neibert proposed the open meeting process as part of the conflict resolution to include a joint meeting of the separate parties to reach negotiation rather than a mediator to meet with individual staff or elected officials as he felt this would be timelier.
Commr. Sullivan stated that he would support a joint meeting in order to move this process forward, noting that all staff work should be completed prior to the meeting in order to establish an ISBA that all parties could agree on. He agreed that it was not fair to single out one property and understood that there were other projects waiting which would probably meet all the requirements of the County and the City.
Commr. Parks agreed to that proposal and for it to happen as soon as possible within the next couple of weeks.
Commr. Blake commented that his position was the same as it was a few years ago when the Board had discussions on this topic, noting that his biggest concern back then was the annexation of noncontiguous properties. He shared that his concerns with having a facilitator was that the facilitator would need direction on areas the parties were willing to compromise on so was it worth outsourcing what would have to be done anyway. He shared that he was fine with the first and second requests from the City of Eustis since his prior concern was the noncontiguous annexation and the fact that even land use attorneys were not aware of the covenant that existed in those particular neighborhoods being discussed back then. He recalled that one item discussed previously was the need for full disclosure when people moved into a neighborhood, noting that he had no desire to micromanage municipal annexations. He stated that he did not have an issue with the JPA becoming the ISBA boundary or the voluntary contiguous annexations.
Commr. Parks said he agreed and reiterated that there were discussions regarding a better process although he was not sure what might have changed for notifications.
Commr. Campione specified that nothing had changed but that they had talked about the possibility of a process or notification where someone might have to come down to city hall to sign and document that they were aware if they bought property that had a covenant to annex.
Mr. Neibert added that the City of Eustis would include in the development process a separate covenant of annexation that is not buried within the development agreement; furthermore, they would require all developers to submit and file a specific covenant of annexation as part of their development process and that all sales documents include explicit language saying that this property being purchased may be subject at a future date to annexation by the City of Eustis. He clarified that this was for any development agreement moving forward but said that what was proposed under this ISBA was giving individuals the right to opt out of agreements that they were currently bound under.
Commr. Breeden suggested that idea be brought forward as part of the joint meeting.
Commr. Campione felt those were items that should still be part of the discussion; additionally, she expressed concern for opening the door to items that might set into motion a situation where people might be upset with the BCC for creating an ISBA that could place them in a difficult situation. She indicated her support of pulling the East Crooked Lake property out if the agreement was addressed as a whole as she felt it would slow down the process.
Mr. Neibert related that the City’s offer today was to opt that specific property out or to include it in the two-step process in exchange for leaving the other total boundary as is without any other conditions, noting that could change based on what the BCC decided in this meeting.
Mr. Brian Mitnik, a realtor working with the East Crooked Lake developers, shared that he became involved in this project about two years ago since he had grown up in the area and liked that parcel of land. He opined that many developers were not interested in this property because it was in Lake County and they felt the county was resistant to growth. He also believed that there was erroneous information being shared regarding this property and he did not feel that this was an enclave issue. He asked for the BCC and the City of Eustis to do what was fair and reasonable.
Commr. Blake mentioned that he was sympathetic to this development as he did not appreciate it when someone who builds a house on one side of the lake then believes that it entitles them to keep the view on the undeveloped side of the lake.
Commr. Campione remarked that individuals who did attend a BCC meeting to speak regarding this land were simply requesting that the one unit to one acre type density be honored and that they acknowledged that residential was the allowable use for that property. She felt that they were not against development but were more concerned with protecting their own investments and having development done with the integrity of the area in mind. She was hopeful that having a mediator could assist with negotiating the details, such as lot widths, number of units, what the project would look like, and lake access, so that everyone’s issues would be addressed and an agreement could be reached. She then mentioned that the Board needed to make a decision regarding this item, noting that the draft resolution in the Board’s packet was different than what was proposed by Mr. Neibert in this meeting. She recapped that he was promoting the possibility to exclude the East Crooked Lake property so that it was not part of the ISBA map and to move forward with having a joint meeting with a facilitator or mediator to assist with reaching a resolution with the City of Eustis; additionally, that East Crooked Lake would be involved in a two-step process.
Ms. Marsh clarified that in order to have the joint meeting with the elected officials, the County needed to have a responding resolution. She said what the Board needed to do at this point was to review this draft resolution and decide if they wanted to change it in order to adopt something in this meeting so that the County could move forward with the other discussions.
Commr. Campione suggested that the language on number four under section two be softened so that it would reflect that they were addressing covenants to annex and establishing a fair process which would leave this open-ended as to whether the ones that were already in existence would be addressed or only future ones.
Commr. Parks recommended for the resolution that since items one and two on the resolution were already agreed upon, to simply state that the County would participate in the negotiation of a possible ISBA with the City of Eustis, noting that they would then have the joint meeting to discuss.
Commr. Campione cautioned that based on previous discussions, it was helpful to list any specific items that were to be discussed.
Ms. Marsh offered to reword the current draft resolution in order to make it more general. She commented that she could take the second paragraph about the County’s willingness to participate and move it in front of items one and two, and then review the covenants to annex to make it broader. She thought it was a good idea to state what the County wanted to negotiate as long as it was broad enough to give flexibility regarding negotiation. She reiterated that the County was short on allowable time to respond since they had already received two extensions. She suggested tabling this issue until after lunch so that she could reword the resolution and have it in front of the Board for review of the exact wording prior to being voted on.
Mr. Cole asked that Tabs 34 and 43 be heard prior to the lunch break due to external individuals being present to speak on them. He recommended that this current item be tabled and revisited after lunch and that the Board address Tabs 34 and 43.
Commr. Campione agreed that was a good idea and relayed that the item would be addressed around 2:00 p.m.
Mr. Schroth announced that since it seemed like the consensus was to address East Crooked Lake, he would need to recuse himself as he had a property interest in that area. He thought that Mr. Neibert could address any changes to the resolution after lunch. He said that moving forward, the City may need separate council now that the structure was changing and he had a conflict of interest.
presentation on the 2020 legislative session
Mr. Russo thanked the Board for the opportunity to present an overview of the 2019 Legislative Session and to provide the Board with staff’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2020 legislative priorities. He recapped that each year the BCC submits a list of priorities to the Lake County Legislative Delegation and works with its lobbyist, GrayRobinson, P.A., on obtaining funding; additionally, Commissioners and key staff attend sessions in Tallahassee, Florida to support those County priorities with GrayRobinson coordinating pre-session legislative meetings for Lake County Commissioners and staff.
Mr. Chris Carmody, lobbyist with GrayRobinson, recapped that some of the FY 2019 legislative session highlights were a new governor, new legislature, the budget, Hurricane Michael recovery, transportation corridors, health care reform, school safety, and texting while driving. He recalled that a new governor was elected in 2018 and that the House of Representatives had 40 plus new members out of 120 members, and that the Senate had 10 new senators with eight of them coming from the House. He shared that the budget was $91.1 billion and that the governor vetoed about $110 million of that amount, with over $250 million being dedicated for Hurricane Michael recovery which included affordable housing funds, grant funds for relief efforts, tax credits and cuts for equipment and relief supplies, and waiving the out-of-state tuition fees for students to assist in enrollment. He shared that one of the governor’s focuses was water quality, noting that he asked for $2 billion over four years and received $650 million this session. He mentioned another legislative focus was transportation corridors relating to new toll roads in order to open up the movement of commerce and for hurricane evacuation and included the following: one of the proposed roads was to go from Polk County to Collier County; the second was the extension of the Florida Suncoast Parkway from Pinellas County to the Georgia border; and the third was the extension of the Florida Turnpike from its end to the where the Suncoast Parkway would be on the west coast of Florida. He also shared these session recaps: that the House received their three health care reform items which included certificate of need repeal, telehealth, and prescription imports from Canada; that the Parkland Commission presented their recommendations for school safety with the guardian program now being for instructional personnel and the ability for Charter Schools to opt in for school resource officers; and that texting while driving was now a primary offense with school and work zones now being hands-free. He remarked that looking ahead to 2020, the revenue estimators were predicting a $300 million surplus but were expecting a deficit in 2022 and 2023; additionally, he said that states could now administer online sales tax which may have a focus in order to have an economic impact. He relayed that other topics for next year would include hurricane preparedness and relief, water policies, and child welfare, noting that it should be another busy session.
Mr. Russo then shared these proposed FY 2020 legislative priorities for Lake County: enhancing public safety equipment with a request for $1.9 million to purchase 225 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) compliant air-paks; the Sun Eden water quality project with a request for $1.5 million for the design and construction of stormwater improvements in order to provide water quality treatment to existing discharges to Lake Harris with $500,000 of that request to be used for septic tank cost share upgrades; continued funding for hydrilla treatment with a request for $7.5 million to be provided through the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for herbicide used to treat the hydrilla; a request for $12 million for the design and construction of a hurricane proof multi-use building at the new fairgrounds property which would be 50,000 square foot and serve as an emergency special needs shelter, expo hall and educational facility; policy changes to the Right to Farm Act since the County had situations where this act was being used to circumvent the mining regulations; and policy changes for residents affected by medical marijuana facilities with the County seeking reasonable regulations regarding this issue.
Mr. Carmody then shared these additional FY 2020 proposed legislative priorities: $2.5 million to connect the South Lake Regional Park to the City of Groveland’s water systems; $1.5 million for Ferndale Preserve in order to construct the one mile multi-purpose trail; $3.5 million for the design, permitting and dredging of sediments from a canal connected to the primary Apopka-Beauclair (A/B) canal which discharges to Lake Beauclair; State Road (SR) 50 realignment; the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP); and the State Aid to Libraries funding. He concluded by sharing these upcoming key dates: the Board to consider legislative priorities at their September 24, 2019 BCC meeting; the Lake County delegation and the BCC to meet in the morning of October 9, 2019 with the delegation to meet with community stakeholders that afternoon; Commissioner meetings with appropriate committees and budget staff in Tallahassee on October 15, 2019; the deadline for submitting funding proposals to the House of Representatives on November 22, 2019; and the legislative session to begin on January 14, 2020 with the last day being on March 13, 2020.
Commr. Parks asked for the funding to assist with advanced treatment systems upgrades to include doing that within the Green Swamp as a priority.
Mr. Carmody responded that they expected the next legislative session to have a higher focus on septic to sewer conversion, noting that the Green Swamp and springs areas would the first focus; additionally, he implied that the governor and the legislative leaders recognized the need to invest in that even though it was expensive to convert.
Commr. Parks clarified that he was referring to the conversion to the advanced treatment systems and not necessarily creating a sewer system.
Commr. Campione added that it could even be for assistance with funding for individuals who desired to have the enhancement of their drain fields.
Commr. Parks relayed that in communications with the City of Clermont, they had expressed some difficulty they were having with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on a sovereign submerged lands issue, noting that the city had an eight lane, 2,000 meters rowing course and the state wanted to charge them $2.5 million a year for that. He said that he understood that sovereign submerged lands had to be leased but he felt that amount was not reasonable and that the City had asked the BCC to work jointly on that as a priority.
Commr. Breeden mentioned that she wanted the Board to write letters of support for specific projects such as the school board’s desire for a change to the funding formula, and the movement for funding for the Green Mountain Connector Trail in order to close the Lake Apopka Loop Trail.
Commr. Campione inquired if this was to ask for assistance for the Lake County portion, noting that Orange County had some matching funds.
Commr. Breeden replied that it would be in support of the legislative ask that Mr. Joe Dunn, with Friends of Lake Apopka, had brought forward. She indicated that he was wanting the Board to look for funding possibly through the penny sales tax if state funding was received for a couple of years. She added that Mr. Dunn had spoken to some of the Lake County delegation members who seemed to be supporting it.
Commr. Sullivan opined it should go through the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process, and Commissioner Parks agreed that it should be on the MPO’s priority list.
Commr. Campione wondered if it could be done concurrently by getting it to the MPO but at the same time drafting a request for additional funding which would assist with closing the loop. She felt it was important to get the developers in the Hills of Minneola and Sugarloaf Mountain to participate on their part, and to have staff work with the lobbyists on the request.
The Board expressed agreement on this item since Lake County was the last section for the complete loop, many residents utilized this trail, and it connected to the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail.
Mr. Cole asked if the Board desired to have a holding place for this item pending approval from the MPO; furthermore, did the Board still want to move forward with this request if it was not heard by the MPO in time.
Commr. Parks suggested placing it on the list for the purposes of discussion and if the MPO did not support it then it could be taken off.
The Board expressed consensus for a placeholder for this item.
Commr. Breeden continued with her requests and recalled that the YMCA had spoken to her regarding the success of an after school program for middle school students which helped to improve the school’s rating. She indicated that due to the school’s better rating, the YMCA was now losing their funding for this program and was seeking funding to continue it. She said that if they sought a legislative request for this funding, she would like for the BCC to write a letter of support.
Commr. Parks asked if this was countywide.
Commr. Breeden replied that it was not for all schools and believed it was about four or five middle schools who used this program.
Commr. Blake opined that it was a good program but that he was not certain if he wanted the County to advocate on behalf of a private entity regarding a legislative request.
Commr. Campione said that she would support it as she thought it had a good impact on the public school system. She then asked about Venetian Village.
Commr. Parks mentioned that the Apopka-Beauclair canal, which was the entrance to Venetian Village, was on the legislative priorities list.
Mr. Cole commented that it was important for the top priorities to be a narrow list so that the County legislators could present individual items and be more effective, noting that staff could take off items that the Board might want to replace with others.
Commr. Parks recapped then that Venetian Village could be on the next category down as an emerging issue with a funding component to accompany it, meaning that the residents on the private canals were participating in order to receive state funding.
Commr. Campione said that she agreed that water quality would be a big issue this session; therefore, she wanted to support having some local funds so the County could assist residents in Wekiva, those with waterfront property, or those within a certain distance of the waterfront who wanted to enhance or retrofit their existing septic tank systems.
Commr. Breeden related that based on Mr. Cole’s suggestion, she was fine with the Green Mountain Connector Trail item being placed on the second tier for this year, noting that letters of support did not really even need to be on the list.
Commr. Campione conveyed Board consensus for the septic tank request since it was a water quality issue.
Commr. Parks remarked that through the Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs), many cities were experiencing expenses to reduce nutrient loading and that the County would need to do the same and would need funding to help support that process.
Commr. Campione inquired if it could be documented that the County was reducing the nutrient loading through the facilitation of septic tank retrofits.
Ms. Mary Hamilton, Chief of Operations for the Public Works Department, relayed that the $500,000 request for the Sun Eden Water Quality Project was because the County had an allocation for septic tank nutrient reductions within the next five year cycle of the Ocklawaha BMAP. She explained that based on what type of unit is used, there was a percentage nutrient reduction which DEP would give credit for based on the number of units. She mentioned that her staff would be willing to work on proposals for the Green Swamp or other areas that the Board might be interested in.
Commr. Parks asked for the Green Swamp and Wekiva areas to be included, and Commissioner Campione added properties within a certain distance of waterfronts.
Commr. Sullivan stressed for the focus to be on the water quality and to include around the springs areas since the governor was supporting that. He suggested reviewing what areas would be proposed for that program.
Commr. Parks opined that Lake County was in a difficult position because of all its water bodies.
Commr. Campione agreed that the county’s lakes needed assistance and that this was the right time to bring it to the forefront.
Mr. Cole recapped that the Board was adding these priorities to what was already presented: a septic tank, retrofit request which would cover the Green Swamp and the Wekiva Basin added to the top tier; the Green Mountain Connector Trail with direction to work with the MPO on this for the other category funding; and letters of support for the City of Clermont rowing lanes, school board funding formula changes, and the YMCA. He indicated that these would be presented at the September 24, 2019 BCC meeting for their vote.
Commr. Blake mentioned the comment earlier in the meeting by Tindale Oliver regarding the legislation which allowed impact fee waivers to not be subsidized by the General Fund, and suggested asking for an expansion of that idea to include some workforce housing.
Commr. Campione reiterated her desire for the septic tank request to extend beyond the Green Swamp and Wekiva Basin.
Mr. Cole implied that staff would write it in such a way that it could include a broader scale. He asked if the Board had a funding amount they wished to request.
Commr. Parks suggested $10 million and Commissioner Breeden mentioned $2 million. He then said that the amount may depend on the number of homes which could be covered based on the type of system since there were different kinds of conversions and advanced treatment systems which ranged in pricing.
Commr. Campione suggested having up to a certain amount per home, noting that some residents might want the wood chip option which can be added to the drain field and is less expensive but effective and approved by the Department of Health (DOH), while other residents might want to convert to a more expensive system approved by DOH.
enterprise fleet management, inc. contracts
Mr. Russo remarked that he would be presenting a proposal to more efficiently manage the County’s light-duty fleet. He relayed that more than half of the County’s fleet was made up of light-duty vehicles which included sedans, sport utility vehicles, and light trucks, with the rest of the fleet being heavy trucks and equipment used by public works or emergency service vehicles. He shared that after conducting a thorough analysis, staff identified these opportunities for improvement: right size the quantity and type of vehicles needed; reduce maintenance repair and fuel costs; enhance budget forecasting; and provide vehicles with the most current safety standards.
Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, commented that the recent analysis of the current fleet focused on the age, reliability, life cycle, maintenance records, miles per gallon, safety equipment and dollar value of the current fleet. He indicated that the analysis pointed to fleet management with leasing in order to improve areas of opportunity and as a cost saving option, noting that fleet management with leasing studies were then reviewed with Enterprise Fleet Management identified as the optimal solution.
Mr. Jacob Roming, Senior Account Executive with Enterprise Fleet Management, shared a brief overview of Enterprise Fleet Management, noting that it was family and locally owned, had employee longevity, and worked with a mission to contribute to the local community. He mentioned that current government partners included 24 agencies in Central Florida, 141 agencies in the whole state of Florida, and 1,900 agencies nationwide. He commented that their focus for Lake County was on acquisition, maintenance, technology and support, and vehicle resale. He reported that the County currently owned 193 light-duty vehicles with 27 percent being over 15 years old, 64 percent being over 10 years old, half without electronic stability control or side curtain airbags, and over 84 percent did not have rear view cameras. He felt that this was an opportunity to enhance the safety features of the County’s fleet and allow staff to drive the safest and most reliable vehicles available; additionally, he mentioned that older vehicles have higher fuel and maintenance costs as well as lack the reliability of newer vehicles. He shared these objectives for the County’s fleet: right size the light-duty fleet in quantity and vehicle types; reduce costs to the County; eliminate maintenance costs associated with an aging fleet; provide staff with safe and reliable vehicles; and leverage the equity in the current fleet to offset the replacement costs. He indicated that Enterprise would partner with over 40 local shops within the county to provide maintenance to Lake County owned vehicles paid for by Enterprise, noting that this created synergy between the County, Enterprise and local vendors. He explained that by utilizing Enterprise, it would reduce the fleet size from 193 to 177 vehicles, reduce the lifecycle from 20 years to three years, and increase the miles per gallon (MPG) from an average of 16 to 20 mpg. He relayed that Enterprise would sell the County’s current vehicles on behalf of the County and would provide those proceeds directly to the County. He then showed a comparison chart between the County’s current fleet program and the proposed new program through Enterprise, noting that over a five year period, the current program cost about $5,145,102 while the proposed program would be approximately $4,765,891.
Mr. Cole then displayed a chart depicting operational, fuel and staff strategy savings for this proposed program over a five year span with the total savings for this period calculating to $981,359. He explained that the yearly staffing strategies savings represented the reduction of staff needed but was not due to layoffs but rather to vacancies not being filled. He elaborated that the liquidation of the current fleet would conservatively be approximately $1,200,000, which he suggested placing into a reserve account for at least three years so that if the County decided to return to owning its own fleet, there would be funds available for this purchase. He remarked that the $200,000 budgeted the previous year in sales tax funding for the purchase of new vehicles which had not been used while this proposal was being considered, could then be repurposed to other projects. He concluded that the total projected savings over five years was about $2.4 million.
Commr. Parks shared that this was a great example of how County staff was consistently looking for ways to be efficient with taxpayer dollars as well as provide great service. He thanked Mr. Roming for spending time with him to explain the program and the savings opportunity, noting that staff would also be safer with these vehicles. He supported this proposal and suggested that the cities within the county consider this as well.
Commr. Sullivan opined it was good to take this long term approach and he expressed his support.
Commr. Campione shared that she was impressed with the use of local vendors for service of the fleet, the improved safety for the vehicles, and the cost savings.
Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Cole, Mr. Russo, Mr. Falanga, and Enterprise for their work. He thought this put the County on the cutting edge in terms of benchmarks.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the contracts with Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc. for vehicle leasing, maintenance and consignment auto auction services, and approved the authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a lunch recess at 12:48 p.m. for one hour and 20 minutes.
resolution 2019-112 ISBA continued
Ms. Marsh distributed an updated resolution with the changes suggested by the Board and indicated that Mr. Neibert had reviewed it and made one change as well.
Commr. Campione asked for clarification that the order of items had moved around and that some of the provisions were removed, such as the one to have a process for unincorporated residents to be heard on their concerns.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that item would fall under number three on the revised resolution where it talked about voluntary annexation of contiguous properties. She stated that issue could still be negotiated even though it was not in the resolution.
Commr. Breeden felt it should be under the category of voluntary annexation.
Ms. Marsh relayed that the header on that paragraph stated that the County was willing to participate in the negotiation on the following issues, noting that it would all be a part of negotiating whether or not the Board would let them do contiguous annexations that created enclaves.
Commr. Campione stressed the importance of everyone knowing that could be an issue to be addressed at the time of negotiating as she opined it was still her most important concern. She felt that voluntary annexation was good for the property owner who was requesting to be voluntarily annexed; however, she said that for those adjoining unincorporated residents who might be in the enclave or the impacted surrounding area, she wanted to make sure their concerns could be heard and considered in the development plans. She believed another item to consider was that the covenants to annex were considered by some to be voluntary annexations because they were already executed and due to the agreement being signed previously. She thought that having the opportunity to address these covenants to annex gave the Board the chance to review how this would affect people who were already in situations with covenants to annex. She wondered if the City Manager knew how many subdivisions would fall into that category of having prior agreements.
Mr. Neibert responded that there were 11 subdivisions which fell under development agreements although none of them were currently contiguous nor would be affected by the provisions of the resolution at this time; furthermore, he said the City agreed to give the map to the County Manager for review.
Commr. Campione remarked that most of them seemed to be on the west side in the Grand Island area.
Mr. Neibert confirmed this and added that another item for consideration moving forward was in regards to the joint meeting, noting that since the resolution invited three other communities to be part of the negotiation, they had the right to follow the statutory process unless they opted out of it or agreed to participate in the process agreed upon by the County and the City of Eustis. He opined that the City of Eustis did not think it was necessary to include the other cities since the provisions of the agreement were within the boundaries of their JPA.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that the County would need to discuss with the other cities if they wanted to participate, assuming they wanted to move forward with a joint meeting or facilitator.
Commr. Breeden asked which were the other three cities and Mr. Neibert replied it was the Cities of Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla. She thought that maybe the City of Mount Dora might be interested.
Commr. Campione commented that she did not see within the resolution where the County was waiving its requirements under the statute.
Ms. Marsh responded that the County was not waiving the requirements of the statute as it did not specify a process for negotiation, rather the Board was simply discussing doing something that was not specified in the statute. She indicated that what the City of Eustis was referring to was that they believed the mediation component fell under the Florida Intergovernmental Cooperation Act or Dispute Resolution Act. She said they were two separate statutes but that was not what the County intended to do as the County was simply discussing utilizing a facilitator upfront.
Commr. Campione said that she would continue to advocate addressing the Pine Meadows property and she hoped the City would consider that since it was a developer ready to come into the city limits and the City could use the tax base.
Mr. Neibert inquired how to handle any additional applications that might be submitted.
Commr. Campione replied they could be submitted to the BCC.
Mr. Neibert implied that the City of Eustis did not want city projects to be reviewed by a third party entity such as the County. He said that they understood the concerns regarding East Crooked Lake as those were addressed prior to the implementation of the ISBA and that the City had acquiesced to separating that development from the process. He requested for the County to allow the City of Eustis to govern itself and trust them to make good planning decisions.
Commr. Breeden explained that the idea of bringing developments to the BCC was while the County and City were still in the negotiating process in order for them not to be held back and not after there was an agreement.
Mr. Neibert asked Commissioner Campione to confirm that it was not the intention of the BCC to require the City to come before the Board for review of any new, noncontiguous annexation after an agreement was in place.
Commr. Campione reiterated that the idea was to have the joint meeting with a facilitator and to then address the bigger map in order to determine where there would be areas that would have applications, be contiguous and create an enclave. She opined that Mr. Neibert’s comments implied that every application that came into the City would be a contiguous parcel that created an enclave which she did not think would be normal. She said that the Board was attempting to address the exceptions that might be submitted, which she felt would be a limited amount, and was not trying to take away the City’s governing ability to make planning decisions.
Mr. Neibert agreed to address that in the negotiation stage and encouraged the Board to pass the resolution so that discussions could begin.
Commr. Campione suggested that the County present a proposal to the City of Eustis to put into place an ISBA which would address the Pine Meadows property so that development could move forward while the County and City worked through other details; furthermore, she asked for the joint meeting with a facilitator to be set up as quickly as possible.
Mr. Neibert stated that he would present the request for a joint meeting of the bodies to his city commission.
Ms. Marsh remarked that the responding resolution had to be done before the other steps could take place; additionally, she stated that once the resolution in front of the Board was approved, then they could work through what process they wanted such as the joint bodies meeting or staff meeting, etc.
Commr. Breeden asked how the Pine Meadows property could be pulled out prior to the joint meeting.
Ms. Marsh replied that the Board would do the responding resolution, then work forward quickly on Pine Meadows, noting that it would be a bifurcated process where the Board could develop a limited document which both bodies would approve for that and then continue to work on an ISBA for a bigger area.
Commr. Campione inquired about who presented the first document as far as an ISBA agreement as she thought the County had an agreement they suggested in the past.
Ms. Marsh responded that the process started with the South Lake ISBA and that everyone met and created that document and that once that one got approved, it was circulated to the other cities who came in at that same timeframe. She indicated that there was a base document which was approved as part of other ISBAs; however, she stated that the question now was what did the Board want to start with as their base, noting that they could use the previous one and negotiate off of that or it could be tailored to handle these specific items approved in the responding resolution. She added that typically staff worked off of what had already been done.
Commr. Campione suggested that if the Board approved the resolution as presented, then they would direct staff to prepare two proposed agreements with one being a fast-track ISBA for the Pine Meadows property to address the items in section three of the resolution such as road ownership and maintenance, stormwater, ground and surface water quality, solid waste, parks and trails, public safety, and fire rescue; furthermore, the second proposed agreement would be for an ISBA for the larger area and would address the other items discussed in this resolution.
Commr. Breeden inquired what might happen if the County and the City of Eustis agreed upon the ISBA with the Pine Meadows property but then the negotiations for the other ISBA did not reach an agreement.
Commr. Campione explained that the base ISBA was a template and then the Board could add specifics.
Ms. Marsh responded that for drafting purposes, staff would take the last ISBA created and would work off of that document to tailor it to Pine Meadows and then circulate it to the City of Eustis and the other cities if they wanted to participate. She elaborated that once the Board approved that document in order to move that development forward, then the Board could start to establish the larger one. She relayed that she would envision that if the Board got to the point where the larger area ISBA was in a form that everyone agreed to, then the two could be merged together so that there was only one document.
Commr. Breeden clarified that the initial ISBA would only be for that one property and Ms. Marsh confirmed this.
Commr. Sullivan added that it could be more properties and Ms. Marsh confirmed that it could include other applications that the City might want to expedite.
Commr. Campione thought the two could be merged together once the second larger one was created or there could be an addendum added to it.
Commr. Parks asked if the larger one would be discussed at the face-to-face meeting.
Commr. Campione confirmed that was what the Board was considering; however, she wondered if the Board should develop an agreement and send it to the City to see if it would be accepted without having to have the face-to-face meeting.
Mr. Neibert remarked that if the two bodies could come to a total agreement at the face-to-face meeting in a few weeks so that Pine Meadows could get started, then both bodies could continue the process; however, he indicated that if there was an effort to accomplish everything at once then he would support that.
Commr. Breeden commented that having a facilitator was not mentioned in this proposed resolution.
Ms. Marsh responded that was part of the agenda item but did not need to be part of the resolution.
Commr. Campione felt that if they could accomplish this process without one then that was good, but if they reached an impasse, then they could bring someone in to facilitate a group meeting.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2019-112, as amended, responding to the City of Eustis’ request to initiate the process specified in Section 171.203, Florida Statutes, and inviting the Cities of Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla to negotiate an interlocal service boundary agreement.
public hearing – ordinance 2019-51
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; CREATING ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 3, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TO BE ENTITLED “HUMAN TRAFFICKING;” PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS SIGNAGE TO BE POSTED IN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES; 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. Parks opined that this ordinance was consistent and in line with what was needed with the statewide effort to address human trafficking, noting that he was in support of it. He thanked the Florida Association of Counties for assisting with providing some of the language for the ordinance.
Commr. Blake inquired about line 19 in the ordinance which stated that one of the establishments where signs would be displayed was at bodyworks services. He asked if that would include a salon which had massage therapy as a service.
Ms. Marsh responded that any facility which was licensed under the state was excluded from this and that this ordinance was only for those establishments that were not licensed by the state.
Commr. Campione asked if it was a requirement under state law to have a license.
Ms. Marsh replied that she was not familiar with all of the requirements for those types of facilities, such as massage and bodyworks, but that the county only had one adult entertainment establishment in unincorporated Lake County that she was aware of.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2019-51 creating Article IX, Chapter 3, Lake County Code, to be entitled Human Trafficking.
public hearing – 2020-2024 transportation construction program
Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, presented the FY 2020-2024 Transportation Construction Program which covered the areas of funding sources, major projects under construction, the details of the program, and a public hearing. He relayed that the funding sources included legislative appropriations and grants, road impact fees, public-private partnerships, sales tax, and the County Transportation Trust also known as the gas tax. He then displayed a bar graph depicting the amount of transportation revenue from each of these sources from FY 2014 through the FY 2020 proposed budget, noting that the FY 2020 proposed budget did not include the loan amount discussed by the Board but did have significant legislative carryover funds. He reported that the road impact fee collections fund balance totaled $10,555,685 as of mid-August 2019; furthermore, he said that while that seemed like a large amount of funding, he gave the example that the Citrus Grove Phase 3 was a $14 million project and was less than a mile. He reiterated that the impact fee could only be used for new capacity and not for resurfacing or maintenance. He then showed a map of the Citrus Grove Road project phases with phase one under construction, phase two under a developer’s agreement for Founders Ridge to build, phase three recently approved in August 2019 with construction to start in October 2019, and phases four and five still in design.
Commr. Breeden asked if there was a projected start date for phase two.
Mr. Schneider replied that there was not a projected start date yet due to some issues the developer had been experiencing. He continued his presentation by showing pictures of several of the current projects under construction which included Citrus Grove Road Phase One, County Road (CR) 466A Phase 3A, and the CR 455 extension. He then presented the FY 2020-2024 Transportation Program project lists for the various funding categories to include: federal and state grants projects such as safety and sidewalks for State Road (SR) 44, traffic signals at Citrus Tower Boulevard and Mohawk Road, sidewalks on East Orange Avenue and Hancock Road, safety projects on Lake Ella Road and Lake Louisa Road, sidewalk and safety project on Lakeshore Drive, and Round Lake Road; road impact fees projects for the south district such as Old Highway 50, CR 455, Citrus Grove Road Phase III, Hancock Road, and Hooks Street; road impact fees projects for the central district such as CR 466A Phase IIIB and two scheduled for the year 2022; road impact fees projects for the north central district such as Dead River Road and SR 19 intersection, David Walker Drive and US 441 intersection, and SR 19 intersections at Alfred Street and Main Street; road impact fees projects for the northeast Wekiva district such as Round Lake Road and SR 437 which were slated for 2022; sales tax projects for roads and intersections such as a right turn lane on SR 44A at the SR 437 intersection, CR 455 intersection with Ridgewood Avenue, Hancock Road and Greater Pines Boulevard intersection, various Lake Ella Road intersections, and traffic signal and road safety improvements; sales tax projects for sidewalk projects such as CR 25A, SR 437, CR 473, CR 48 , CR 561, Abrams Road, and Treadway School Road, noting that many of these were near schools; one sales tax water quality project on Morningside Drive in the City of Mount Dora area; and one county transportation trust special assessments for Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive. He then displayed a transportation construction expenditure summary for the five year work program for the areas of federal/state grants, road impact fees, sales tax, county transportation trust, and the total program expenditures. He concluded with a summary that the presented program was funded through various stages of design and permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of sidewalks, traffic signals, stormwater and water quality improvements, widening and resurfacing, adding new lanes and building new road corridors.
Commr. Parks inquired about sidewalks on Lakeshore Drive from Hooks Street to Hammock Ridge Road, noting that he thought that was an item on the Lake-Sumter MPO list for a future date.
Mr. Schneider replied that staff had requested it to be on the Lake-Sumter MPO list and that it was not on the County five-year program.
Commr. Parks asked when it would be placed on the County’s list.
Mr. Schneider responded that it could be put on the list next year if that was the Board’s desire; however, he did not think it was going to be paid for out of sales tax. He implied that staff requested Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funding. He added that the County had a number of projects on the MPO priority list but that not all of them were funded.
Commr. Campione asked when the traffic light at Estes Road and CR 44 would be operational. She also inquired about the timing of Britt Road and the right-of-way acquisition and if there was a backup plan if property on any of the corners was not able to be obtained.
Mr. Schneider replied that the traffic light would be functioning soon and was merely waiting on the power company; additionally, he shared that staff was hoping to only need two corners for Britt Road but would still need property owners who were willing to sell property for pole placement. He said they were in the appraisal process currently and then would approach the property owners.
Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Schneider for the great job he does leveraging funding and for his work with FDOT to utilize some of their funds.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the FY 2020-2024 Transportation Construction Program.
public hearing – solid waste assessment resolution 2019-111
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director for Administrative Services, commented that the solid waste assessment was used to fund the collection, management, and disposal of residential solid waste and recovered materials in unincorporated Lake County; additionally, assessment rates must be set annually, are included on the Truth in Millage Law (TRIM) notice, are based on the area and service level, and cannot be used to fund countywide services such as landfill operations, convenience centers, or hazardous waste disposal. She added that vacant lots were not assessed and that rates were based on area and service level with the estimated revenue for FY 2020 being $14,484,062. She reported the following proposed FY 2020 solid waste assessment rates for each area: North (Area 1) was $196 for once a week service of household disposal, yard waste and recyclables and $242 for the twice a week household garbage disposal collection with once a week yard waste and recyclables service; Central (Area 2) was $188 for the once a week service and $227 for the twice a week service option; and South (Area 3) was $209 for the once a week service and $251 for the twice a week service option. She noted that these rates were status quo and the same as what was adopted the previous year.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Barker concluded with the requested action for approval and execution of the resolution for solid waste assessments for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2019, approval of the rates of assessment, and approval of the assessment roll.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 2019-111 for solid waste assessments for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2019, approval of the rates of assessment, and approval of the assessment roll.
public hearing – fire assessment resolution 2019-110
Ms. Barker remarked that the fire assessment was used to fund fire protection services such as fire suppression, fire prevention, fire building inspections, and basic life support (BLS) services, noting that it could not fund advanced life support (ALS) services. She said that tax exempt institutional properties would receive a discount of 64 percent; additionally, the assessment rates were calculated based on call data and the annual distribution of incidents, the allocation of resources and budget, and the proportionate share allocated to each land use. She reported that the total estimated revenues for FY 2020 was $22,091,159. She mentioned that Tindale Oliver presented the fire assessment study results to the Board at their May 21, 2019 meeting which included stable property units by land use, a slight change in the incident and resource distribution, and the calculated maximum rates for all land uses. She then displayed a chart of Tindale Oliver’s calculated fire assessment rates to fully fund the fire protection services, which she noted reflected a $13 increase for residential land uses; furthermore, she stated that within the Institutional Land Use category, there was a 21 percent increase and that the not-for-profit buildings within that land use received a 64 percent discount which was covered by the Lake County General Fund.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Barker concluded with the requested action for approval and execution of the resolution for fire assessments for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2019, approval of the rates of assessment, and approval of the assessment roll.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the execution of Resolution 2019-110 for fire assessments for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2019, approval of the rates of assessment, and approval of the assessment roll.
Commr. Blake voted no.
regular agenda continued
ambulance mstu funding
Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), provided an update on the Office of EMS transition which included their accomplishments, efficiencies, operational growth, funding sources, and proposed enhancements. He displayed a list of accomplishments and noted that establishing an operational reserve was one of the reasons for the proposal and that cost savings accomplished through the transition went into building the reserve. He also showed a list of efficiencies such as instituting a new hiring process and mentioned that three new Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) were currently going through orientation and 17 current EMTs were in paramedic school. He commented that EMS always participated with the County for emergencies even when they were an independent agency; however, he shared that during Hurricane Dorian, they were able to identify more efficiencies in regards to response times and planning and were able to contribute more to the Emergency Operations Center staffing. He also shared that by now being located within the County Administrative Building (CAB), staff was able to save time traveling to meetings which allowed them to focus more time on operations, noting that the acceptance from County staff at the CAB had been a tremendous support to the Office of EMS leadership team. He then showed a bar graph depicting their operational growth in regards to the population and number of incidents as well as the incidents and transports ratio. He pointed out that while the call volume and population was increasing, the proportionate population which reflected the population that used their services was also increasing and he felt would continue to increase; additionally, he reported that the transport ratio had stayed fairly level at 75 percent. He then displayed two pie charts regarding workload and hours of operations for EMS ambulances and commented that over 40 percent of the call volume for the 24-hour ambulances was between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. with 21 percent of the busiest units being after midnight. He explained that unit hour utilization (UHU) was a measurement calculated for time on task which covered from the time a unit was assigned to a call until the time they were available after a call, noting that this did not include time to write reports or drive back to the station. He reported that they had 15 units that provided 24-hour coverage, six units that provided 13-hour coverage, that nine of their busiest 24-hour units currently had a UHU of 0.36 to 0.41 with the lowest unit at 0.30 UHU, and that an EMS operations and deployment study performed by Fitch and Associates in December 2017 recommended that a 24-hour unit not be higher than 0.25 UHU. He then shared the following FY 2020 proposal for changes to staffing and deployment: to add five full time employees (FTE) to consist of two EMTs and two paramedics for the scheduling rotation with one paramedic to serve as a floater to cover leave; to purchase one additional ambulance; and to transition four ambulances from the 13-hour to 24-hour staffing. He indicated that these changes and enhancements would increase nighttime coverage and increase 24-hour coverage by 11 percent, decrease overall UHU by 10 percent, decrease the usage of South End units for North End area coverage, reduce response times by utilizing the primary unit, and decrease overtime with the utilization of the new float position. He then showed two funding charts and noted that the ad valorem funding from the County was around $6 million and had stayed the same for the past five years which related to the fact that ad valorem funding per transport had decreased over those years since their call and transport volume had increased.
Ms. Barker then explained the various funding sources for EMS. She remarked that the ambulance municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) was a countywide millage and currently was 0.4629 mills. She indicated that this MSTU generated approximately $9.5 million in ad valorem revenue which was disbursed as follows: $6 million transferred to the Office of EMS to fund operations; $350,000 transferred to the Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs); $2 million transferred to the Lake County Office of Fire Rescue and municipalities that provided advance life support (ALS) services; and $1.15 million was for administrative fees and reserves, noting that the current reserve level was about $985,849. She relayed that the second funding source was the EMS fund which generated approximately $15 million in revenue annually from user fees and had an estimated operational reserve balance for FY 2020 of about $987,419. She shared that since the transfer of Lake EMS into the County function the identified efficiencies had provided increased reserve balances and the opportunity for enhancements to the operational services that were previously discussed by Mr. Smith and included the purchase of an additional ambulance unit and related equipment for $300,000 as a one-time expense and the addition of five FTEs which would result in a $300,000 recurring expense, noting that the $6 million transfer from the ambulance MSTU would then increase to about $6.3 million annually to cover the additional FTEs.
Mr. Smith concluded the presentation with the requested action for approval to utilize accrued ambulance MSTU funding to add an ambulance unit and the related staff to further enhance service with an estimated fiscal impact of a $600,000 expenditure.
Commr. Campione thanked staff for the presentation and expressed appreciation for the use of the Fitch and Associates report in order to benchmark and identify any deficiencies which needed corrected. She shared support for the proposal as it would be a benefit to employees and the service that they provided.
Commr. Sullivan opined that these changes would provide better service at the time the units were most needed as well as reduce the workload which would equate to better efficiency, safety, and retention.
Commr. Parks remarked that the benefit and resulted savings of bringing Lake EMS into the County was now being realized which he felt was good for the County. He specified that this was another example of the long-range planning by this Commission to make changes and reinvest savings to make the system better in a growing population.
Commr. Breeden stated that she was pleased by the efficiencies identified by bringing Lake EMS into the County government which resulted in the ability to provide more service.
Mr. Smith reiterated that this reflected a reinvestment of those savings from the efficiencies back into the organization and its service which was the original intent of the transition.
Mr. Cole shared his appreciation for Mr. Smith, Mr. John Molenda, Deputy County Manager, and Mr. John Simpson, with the Office of EMS, who had worked diligently on this transition over the last year and a half to make sure it worked efficiently.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to utilize accrued ambulance MSTU funding to add an ambulance unit and the related staff to further enhance service with an estimated fiscal impact of a $600,000 expenditure.
groveland four monument
Ms. Elisha Pappocoda, Director for the Office of Communications, presented the final design, content and proposed vendor contract for the Groveland Four monument to be placed outside the Lake County Historic Courthouse. She recalled that in January 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis and the Clemency Board pardoned Mr. Earnest Thomas, Mr. Charles Greenlee, Mr. Samuel Shepherd, and Mr. Walter Irvin, known collectively as the Groveland Four; additionally, Lake County representatives went to Tallahassee, Florida to support the four men and their families, and the BCC as well as each Lake County Constitutional Officer wrote letters of support for the pardon. She remarked that on January 29, 2019, the BCC discussed installing a monument outside of the courthouse on behalf of the Groveland Four. She then displayed a mockup of the proposed monument, noting that the BCC worked closely with the families of the Groveland Four, who provided photographs for the monument, as well as authors Mr. Gary Corsair and Mr. Gilbert King on the design and content on the monument. She specified that the monument verbiage was within the Board’s packet for their review.
Mr. Falanga reported that County staff was directed to issue a request for proposal for construction and installation of the monument, that three responsive vendors submitted five proposals, and that on August 23, 2019 a selection committee chose Monument Warehouse, LLC out of the State of Georgia. He then read the requested action for approval of contract 19-0446 with Monument Warehouse, LLC for the construction and installation of the Groveland Four Monument, approval of the monument design, approval of the monument content, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
Commr. Blake remarked that the monument looked great and the verbiage was perfect as it reflected a good summary.
Commr. Campione thanked the Groveland Four families for their assistance in formulating the language and shared their desire to attend the dedication of the monument. She suggested a possible reception after the dedication.
Commr. Breeden was pleased that the families had input.
Commr. Sullivan asked how long it would take for the monument to be constructed and installed and Mr. Falanga replied that 90 days was the contractor’s estimate.
Commr. Campione thanked staff for their facilitation of this process as well as the County Commissioners as she felt this was important for the County.
Commr. Breeden suggested leaving extra space at the bottom of the content in case further action might be taken in the future.
Mr. Cole indicated that the monument had been designed in such a way that the overlay could be replaced.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved contract 19-0446 with Monument Warehouse, LLC for the construction and installation of the Groveland Four Monument, the monument design, the monument content, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
Commr. Campione mentioned that due to the difficulties this year regarding historical presentation of information, she shared an idea for the possibility to create a display of Lake County Black history and civil rights. She described that this would be an endeavor initiated and overseen by the BCC rather than the Lake County Historical Museum and be done in a way that was inclusive and engaged community members.
Commr. Breeden said that while she thought it was a great idea, she did not personally think that she could support it as long as the Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith statue was coming to the museum.
Commr. Parks stated that his vote was still consistent with Commissioner Breeden’s in regards to the statue; however, he said he would be interested in this process and recalled that a year ago he had mentioned doing something in the rotunda of the County Administration Building since it has many visitors. He expressed support for this idea especially if within this building.
Commr. Campione suggested that the libraries could be a possibility or even the library advisory committee could oversee the project.
Commr. Breeden relayed that many of the libraries have special collections on local history which would include African-American history.
Commr. Sullivan liked doing something with the libraries since it would be all over the county and not just one central location, noting that the libraries are frequently used and often act as community service areas. He specified that whatever was created could even be moved from one location to another.
Commr. Campione thought maybe the libraries could be the holding ground for the history in their area but that different displays could also be displayed in the rotunda of the County Administration Building for a certain period of time.
Commr. Parks reiterated that what he felt was significant with the County Administration Building was that it was where local government was conducted including other Boards besides just the BCC.
Commr. Breeden indicated that most of the libraries participated in Black History Month in February with special programming as well.
Commr. Campione conveyed that due to the budget public hearing at 5:05 p.m. that evening, she wanted to get the Board’s thoughts in case there was consensus and then funds could be set aside so that the County Manager could prepare a proposal for this. She reiterated her desire for it to be done in such a way that people who might want to submit information or items to be on display would have a process for doing that, noting that maybe something could be created on the County website to receive input and suggestions or share inspirational stories of Lake County residents. She shared that Mr. Lionel Richie from the Commodores graduated from Eustis High School and that was an example of an interesting story that could be told.
Commr. Blake inquired about the amount Commissioner Campione was desiring to set aside for this project.
Commr. Campione mentioned possibly $15,000.
Commr. Parks cautioned to make sure who would be involved and how it might be accomplished was very important and for the Board to be sensitive to that and the overall process.
Commr. Breeden suggested that the staff present a proposal and that funding for it could come out of reserves later if approved.
appointment to the library advisory board
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Robert “Doc” Jones as the Town of Lady Lake Municipal Representative to the Library Advisory Board.
commissioner sullivan – district 1
four corners meeting
Commr. Sullivan stated that he was amazed at the statistics he had heard from the Four Corners Council meeting which he had recently attended, especially regarding the high number of building permits in that area for District 1, noting that building permits for June and July 2019 for District 1 had exceeded all the other districts’ building permits combined together.
september 11th recognition
Commr. Sullivan remarked that in memory of September 11th, he wanted to recognize all of the first responders for their accomplishments and sacrifices over the years, including many soldiers who were also affected for years following this tragedy.
commissioner parks – district 2
letter to the u.s. environmental protection agency
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Tower Chemical Superfund Site in the City of Clermont.
housing for all summit
Commr. Parks mentioned that the annual Housing for All Summit which was supported by the South Lake area was happening on Thursday, September 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., and he encouraged the Commissioners as well as County staff to attend.
Commr. Breeden relayed that she would be attending and Mr. Cole mentioned that Ms. Allison Thall, Director for the Office of Housing and Human Services, and her staff would also be attending.
commissioner breeden – vice chairman and district 3
hurricane dorian preparation
Commr. Breeden thanked all County staff and agencies who assisted in the preparation for Hurricane Dorian.
commissioner blake – district 5
hurricane dorian preparation
Commr. Blake commented that he appreciated how professional the County staff was in their preparedness for Hurricane Dorian and how thankful he was that they were ready to assist if the hurricane had hit Lake County.
commissioner campione – CHAIRMAN AND district 4
canvassing board appointment
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 Ms. Jennifer Hill as the alternate Canvassing Board member.
letters for agriculture mass grading
Mr. Cole stated that there were two letters, one to the property owner and one to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWD), and that staff had made a few revisions to the versions which were in the Board’s packet. He explained that both letters had the incorrect property location which had been corrected to state the east side of County Road 437; additionally, the contact information had been changed to Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning. He mentioned that changes to the letter for the property owner included adding this sentence to the beginning of the bottom paragraph, “failure to immediately discontinue the operations taking place on the property and obtain the proper permits may be grounds for the County to pursue any and all available legal remedies.”
Commr. Breeden asked if the SJRWMD was copied on the letter to the property owner and Mr. Cole replied that had been done.
The Chairman addressed that there was a speaker comment card for this item.
Ms. Kim Williams, a resident on Walkabout Ranch Road, shared her concerns regarding this borrow pit, noting that she had been actively writing opposing letters since 2012. She said she was pleased that the County was taking action and indicated that she had sent suggestions to the Chairman.
Commr. Campione acknowledged receipt of Ms. Williams’ information and relayed that she had passed it along to the County Attorney who had taken it into consideration.
Ms. Williams thanked the Board for sending the letters and said that she hoped that the SJRWMD and the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning might implement some better practices and policies so that a more thorough review of applications and their actual intent might be addressed rather than simply approving something just because it said it was mass grading and agriculture. She relayed that homeowners in the area were still concerned and had formed an informal task force to provide input on items such as the Right to Farm Act, the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), land development regulations and the Wekiva basin. She also expressed a desire for reclamation to happen on the property.
Mr. Cole responded that the County’s process had been changed.
Commr. Campione thanked Ms. Williams for her input and suggestions and indicated that the County’s goal was to get the property reclaimed and back to an attractive condition.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved letters to the SJRWMD and the property owner regarding the Agriculture Mass Grading for West Langley project on the Walkabout Ranch property owned by Mr. Tom West, Inc., located along the east side of County Road 437.
letter to the sjrwmd regarding white water farms
Commr. Campione indicated that there was a change to this item because the County was notified that the applicant had withdrawn their application to the SJRWMD; therefore, no action was needed at this time for Tab 48. She further explained that there was another situation on SR 44 where there was an alleged fish farm for which staff was investigating allegations that had been made.
100th anniversary of lifepointe church
Commr. Campione mentioned that she had attended the 100th anniversary celebration of the LifePointe church in the City of Eustis and that she presented a recognition letter to them. She shared that the church held their first church services in the pavilion on the pier of Lake Eustis for a year before building their facility.
Commr. Breeden added that a fundraiser for The Open Door was being held there that evening.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 3:50 p.m. until the 5:05 p.m. Budget Public Hearing.
5:05 p.m. budget public hearing
presentation of millage rates and tentative budget
Ms. Barker announced that this was the first of two public hearings on the FY 2020 budget which was required by the Florida Statutes, noting that this was for the millages and budget overseen by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners. She remarked that the purpose of this meeting was to present the proposed millage rates and their change from the rollback rate as well as the tentative budget for FY 2020. She explained that by the State’s definition, the rollback millage rate is a rate that when applied to the next year’s tax base, excluding new construction, would generate the same revenue as was raised in the previous year. She explained that the four Board actions for this meeting would include approval of the FY 2020 tentative millage rates, approval of changes to the recommended budget, approval of the FY 2020 tentative budget, and approval of the public hearing date for final adoption. She then displayed a chart of the certified property values and stated that the final values for FY 2019 were certified on October 1, 2018 and that the FY 2020 certified values were certified on July 1, 2019. She explained that the countywide millages, including the General Fund, the Ambulance MSTU, and the Public Lands-Voted Debt, had an increase of 8.56 percent, that the Stormwater, Parks, and Roads MSTU had an increase of 6.97 percent, and that the Fire Rescue MSTU had an increase of 7.2 percent. She announced that the final property values for FY 2020 would be available on October 1, 2019. She explained that Chapters 129 and 200 of the Florida Statutes, which outline the procedures for the annual adoption of tax rates and budgets, required that the proposed millage rates be identified for FY 2020 as well as any adjustments that the Board might consider. She then displayed a chart with the proposed FY 2020 millage rates and reported the following: the Lake County General Fund proposed FY 2020 millage was 5.1180 mills which was equal to the FY 2019 rate and a 5.16 percent increase over the rollback millage rate of 4.8670 mills; the Ambulance MSTU proposed FY 2020 millage rate was 0.4629 mills which was equal to the FY 2019 rate and a 5.16 percent increase over the rollback rate of 0.4402 mills; the Stormwater, Parks, and Roads MSTU proposed FY 2020 millage rate was 0.4957 mills which was equal to the FY 2019 rate and a 4.95 percent increase over the rollback rate of 0.4723 mills; the Fire Rescue MSTU proposed FY 2020 millage rate was 0.4704 mills which was equal to the FY 2019 rate and a 5.14 percent increase over the rollback rate of 0.4474 mills; and the public lands-voted debt proposed FY 2020 millage, which did not figure into the rollback calculations since it was approved by a referendum, was 0.1324 mills which was equal to the FY 2019 rate. She mentioned that based on the calculation by the Department of Revenue (DOR) on the DR-420 Certification of Taxable Value form, the current year proposed aggregate rate was 5.82 percent over the rollback rate. She reported there had been 17 budget workshops to date with the following strategy used to develop the FY 2020 budget: all millages were kept at the FY 2019 rates; wage increases were included which were comprised of a one percent across the board increase with up to an additional three percent for performance based increases; funding had been included for additional wage adjustments in targeted areas to enhance recruitment and retention; County departments and offices continue to identify and implement efficiencies; maintain a status quo General Fund County operating budget; fund mandated increases such as the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and Medicaid expenses; and increase General Fund reserves. She summarized that the proposed tentative FY 2020 budget as presented incorporated the approved project list for the Infrastructure Sales Tax, included employee wage adjustments, fully funded the Judicial Support, the Clerk of Courts, the Property Appraiser, the Tax Collector, the Supervisor of Elections and the Medical Examiner, provided an additional $3.3 million of the original $6.7 million requested by the Sheriff’s Office, included the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) approved approximate reimbursement of $8,591,642 related to Hurricane Irma, and provided an additional $2.8 million added to the General Fund reserves which was 9.01 percent of the operating budget. She added that after these adjustments, there was an additional $4,965,499 from FEMA and DEM reimbursements that remained in surplus. She relayed that the proposed budget comprised an additional ten positions to include one in judicial support for a general magistrate in order to reduce the amount of time needed for family law cases to be brought to resolution, one limited term probation officer as requested by the Board, one senior building inspector and one plans examiner for building services, and six new firefighter positions. She added that the budget also included the deleted positions of one library assistant and an environmental program associate; furthermore, she said these changes resulted in a net increase of eight positions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Nancy Hurlbert, a Lake County resident, shared that she wanted to discuss the line item in the budget labeled grants and aids, specifically the amount of funding for the Lake County Historical Museum. She implied that she had asked about the total expenses for items provided by the County to the museum as listed in the agreement between the County and the Historical Museum but had not received a response. She opined that it might total about $18,000 a year and noted that there was a budgeted line item for an office manager for the museum of $18,100. She asked the Board to not fund this position and to not support the Lake County Historical Society since their membership had increased and she felt they could support themselves.
Mr. Cole clarified that while Ms. Hurlbert did not yet have the information she had requested, he had responded to her email that she sent the previous day.
Mr. Rick Hankey, Executive Vice President for LifeStream Behavioral Center, opined that society was profoundly affected by mental illness and substance addiction and that treatment for mental health and substance abuse disorders was important for Lake County’s future, noting that as the population grew, so did the need for behavioral health services. He felt that adequately funded treatment for these disorders resulted in a positive impact on societal costs and public safety; furthermore, he reported that studies demonstrated that the cost benefit ratio for treatment and prevention programs yielded two to ten dollars savings in health, criminal justice, and educational costs for every one dollar that was invested. He remarked that LifeStream valued its partnership with Lake County, was considered a leader in providing quality and integrative behavioral health care, had played a major role in the county since 1971, and with a budget of over $60 million its economic impact was substantial. He reported that LifeStream provided services to over 24,000 individuals on an annual basis. He said that in order to meet the growing demand for behavioral health services, LifeStream was respectfully requesting an additional $150,000 annual allocation from Lake County to meet the 40 percent local match requirement for the new ten bed crisis stabilization unit that was being built for the benefit of south Lake County and the Sheriff’s department. He indicated that the State was providing $1.1 million for the operation with a total match requirement of $374,545. He relayed that this proposed increased funding would restore LifeStream’s total funding to $1.223 million next year, noting that their funding was close to $1.3 million in 2008 prior to the recession. He stated that the County’s current allocation to LifeStream was approximately two percent of their total revenue and he opined that it was lower than the majority of similar agencies across the state. He also asked for a one-time allocation of $500,000 towards the construction of their new $7 million South Lake Service Complex since the County had contributed $500,000 towards the $7.5 million cost of renovation when LifeStream built the Hope and Recovery Center in the City of Leesburg 12 years ago. He summarized that with the additional resources requested of $150,000 to their annual allocation and a one-time contribution of $500,000 for their new complex, LifeStream would be in a better position to meet the growing need for behavioral health services in the county.
Ms. Grace Arnold, a concerned citizen, expressed her opposition to the grant to the Lake County Historical Society as she was disappointed with how they handled their membership, meetings and overall business.
Mr. Jochim shared the following concerns: that the supporting documents for this meeting were posted with the morning meeting’s agenda items and were not with this separate meeting online; that the handout for this budget meeting did not have any comparisons to the prior year’s numbers; that there should be criteria for the Constitutional Officers to have a full performance audit every three years to make sure they were being efficient; and why the Sheriff was asking for additional funding if the cities were annexing more properties as he felt the city police should then be covering those areas.
Ms. Patti Drake, a Lake County citizen, relayed that she and her husband had recently met with the Sheriff to discuss his budget and that he had done a thorough and complete job explaining it by going over every line item. She said his budget seemed very logical and made sense to her; additionally, she was amazed at how much his office covered and indicated a willingness to pay higher taxes in order to fund the Sheriff’s needs.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks addressed Mr. Jochim’s question regarding the Sheriff’s Office and city police coverage and indicated that the sheriff deputies were the first responders and were often needed in addition to the city police. He indicated that these deputies were extremely busy and were driving anywhere from 500 to 600 miles per shift which was equal to traveling to Miami, Florida and back. He clarified that even with the cities annexing, there was still the need for the sheriff deputies to respond in these areas.
Commr. Breeden added that the Sheriff’s Office also had special task forces that the city police departments did not have and were providing countywide services that might not otherwise be available.
Commr. Campione remarked that the Sheriff was present in the meeting and that he could help explain how the cities and his office worked together if needed; furthermore, she said that having the countywide services was more efficient than each city providing these services. She then shared that residents had asked why the County was not adopting a full rollback rate with all the new construction happening in the county. She recapped that the presentation reflected that new construction brought in about $3.4 million which if subtracted out of the revenue would leave approximately $5.4 million to utilize for funding if a full rollback was adopted. She remarked that the Board had to address what the Constitutional Officers needed as well as the County’s budget; additionally, she relayed that the County was a using a little over one million in order to add the additional positions referenced and to address merit pay increases, that the Supervisor of Elections was requesting about a million dollars more since it would be a presidential primary year, and that they had to provide the additional revenue for the Community Redevelopment Areas as a result of values increasing regardless of whether the Board adopted a rollback rate. She explained that the Sheriff was a primary part of the General Fund budget, and that the previous year he had a large request to implement a salary study but the Board was not able to fund that 100 percent and had discussed the possibility of trying to accomplish that over a three year period which would mean this year was the second of the three year period. She indicated that the Sheriff had reduced his original $6.7 million request significantly to $5.1 million in order to fund employee salaries, add personnel, take care of inmate medical care increases, and address operational needs for the jail. She commented that there was $3.3 million currently allocated to the Sheriff and that the Board would need to find the difference in order to meet his reduced request. She shared support for utilizing some of the FEMA reimbursement money to help meet this difference, and said that she was hoping there was still a way to have a reduction to the millage even though a full rollback was probably not possible since it would not allow all the services needed for residents.
Commr. Parks commented that a reduction might put the County in a position to not be fiscally prepared for disasters, noting that the county was spared being hit by Hurricane Dorian the previous week which could have resulted in the need for funding for cleanup. He expressed a desire to build reserves back up to the 12 to 16 percent but felt that could not be fully accomplished this year; furthermore, he said he was not advocating a millage increase but rather he did not believe that lowering the millage was the right action to take when reserves were low and the Board desired to fund road projects as well as operational costs for certain programs. He recapped that the County had made a great effort to continue to reduce costs and be more efficient, referencing the Office of Fleet Management presentation earlier in the meeting which would be saving the County a million dollars. He explained that even though the County was adding a few employee positions, six of them were for the Office of Fire Rescue which was much needed, and he explained that the county was at the same employee levels as they were prerecession and yet the population had grown by 100,000. He added that Lake County’s millage rate was the second lowest within the region which he felt kept the county competitive. He said that he respected the taxpayer’s desire for a lower millage rate but cautioned the Board on deciding the amount.
Commr. Breeden thought that the County could consider a full rollback rate since the economy had been good the last few years. She said the County had approximately $5 million that could be utilized with a rollback rate being about $5.6 million. She thought that the $1.2 million gained from selling the County fleet instead of placing that in reserves could help with a reduction. She also suggested giving the Sheriff an extra million instead of $1.8 million which she said would reduce the additional amount recommended for reserves by $400,000 to $500,000. She noted that considering these options might mean that there would not be funding available for road resurfacing, the homeless shelter or LifeStream’s request.
Commr. Sullivan expressed concerns for allocating the FEMA funding prior to receiving it unless it was going to be used for one-time expenses such as to restore reserves. He referenced that in the August 29, 2019 budget memorandum from Mr. Cole, approximately $1,025,000 of the $7 million increase in the budget over the prior year was to restore reserves. He suggested using that $1,025,000 to add to the Sheriff’s budget if the FEMA reimbursement went to reserves, which would get the Sheriff to $4.3 million. He also noted that the $1 million requested by the Supervisor of Elections would not be needed again for another four years; therefore, he explained that amounted to about $2 million which he felt would be a good use of the FEMA funding since they were one-time expenses. He relayed concern for a rollback rate and noted that the county had been at the 5.118 mills for several years. He added that this was the fifth year at this millage rate and that the County continued to look for efficiencies; additionally, he hoped that by granting funding to the Sheriff, it would assist with turnover. He said he agreed with $150,000 being added to LifeStream since it would be a benefit to the county as often officers have to Baker Act individuals who then go to LifeStream and not the County jail. He remarked that he did not want a millage rate increase, and that the five-year proposal for road construction showed that while impact fees were helping, the County was working hard on funding to get roads built and to address resurfacing projects. He reiterated that the FEMA reimbursement could address the items he mentioned and that the other funding could be put towards the Sheriff’s budget and the Constitutional Officers.
Commr. Campione asked for clarification that Commissioner Sullivan was suggesting that the million dollars which was recommended to go towards increasing reserves to now go towards the Sheriff’s budget, that the additional million for the Supervisor of Elections was a one year expense and would not occur the following year, and to use the FEMA reimbursement to make up the rest of the difference for the Sheriff’s budget to get him to the approximate $2 million additional in order to help get him to the $5.1 million. She added that by taking those two actions, it would address the Sheriff’s needs and that in regards to other FEMA funds, he wanted to utilize them to increase reserves and then consider giving $150,000 to LifeStream.
Commr. Sullivan confirmed that was what he was suggesting; additionally, he recommended the extra funding for LifeStream happen at the mid-year adjustment.
Commr. Campione commented that if the Board did decide to place the extra funding into reserves then road resurfacing could be addressed mid-year as well as possible funding for the homeless shelter if asked to assist with the operation, noting that it might be premature to actually allocate a specific amount for the homeless shelter operation since the details were unknown at this point.
Commr. Breeden and Commissioner Sullivan added that whether the funding for the homeless shelter was a one-time contribution or if it would be for operational or capital expenses should also be considered.
Commr. Campione stated her understanding that The Salvation Army was looking to receive operational funding as they thought they could raise money for the construction of the homeless shelter. She emphasized the need for the County to better understand operational costs and to ensure it was accomplishing the desired purpose in order for them to participate.
Commr. Parks recommended waiting till after October to finalize in order to make sure the hurricane season had passed. He said that he was in support of utilizing some of the General Fund for the resurfacing of roads but suggested that decision could possibly wait till mid-year.
Commr. Blake shared that he was also concerned about the possible effects if a hurricane had hit the county. He stated that since he ran for office based on a promise to lower taxes, he suggested a possible rollback millage budget. He relayed that he had drafted a proposed budget spreadsheet and then shared the following components of it: allocate $4.6 million to reserves which would bring them up to $13.4 million which was 9.76 percent of the General Fund; provide $2 million in additional funding to the Sheriff over the previous year’s adopted budget; and utilize the FEMA reimbursement along with the new construction revenue, to pay for the Supervisor of Elections and the other Constitutional Officers’ requests. He added that he desired for the budget to be reduced even further, but created this proposal as a starting point to gain Commissioner support.
Commr. Parks inquired if this proposal was only giving $2 million to the Sheriff, and Commissioner Blake confirmed that it was the $2 million over last year’s budget.
Ms. Barker remarked that it was reflecting an increase of about $4 million on Commissioner Blake’s spreadsheet since the Sheriff did receive increased revenue from the renegotiation of contracts with the school board; therefore, she said the net result was $2 million.
Commr. Campione shared her concerns with the Sheriff’s requested amount not being provided since he had already implemented salary changes, noting that about $4 million of his request was related to salaries. She said her other concern with this proposal was how to meet ongoing expense the next year as this could result in a millage increase.
Commr. Blake stated that was the first time it was identified that $4 million was related to salaries as the breakdown of the Sheriff’s request was not presented during prior budget discussions. He relayed that he was suggesting the $2 million for the Sheriff as he felt this amount was meeting half way for both parties.
Commr. Breeden stated that she would support a rollback rate but her approach might be different. She relayed that according to Mr. Cole’s August 29, 2019 budget memorandum, there was still about $5 million to work with over his original proposed budget; therefore, she recommended to utilize at least $1.5 million to reduce the millage rate, about $1.8 million to go to the Sheriff in order to get to his $5.1 million request, delay funding of the homeless shelter until mid-year, set aside possibly $500,000 to $1 million for road resurfacing, allocate $500,000 for LifeStream’s one-time capital expense, and then the rest could go into reserves.
Commr. Parks opined that they would not be able to accomplish what had been discussed with a rollback rate. He then made a motion for the current 5.1180 millage rate and Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion.
Commr. Sullivan expressed a desire to assist homeowners but he felt it could not happen this year. He reiterated his concerns that the FEMA reimbursement had not yet been received and he desired to utilize it for one-time expenses and stay within the budget at the current millage rate of 5.1180 mills.
Commr. Campione inquired if there was any indication on when the FEMA reimbursement would be received.
Ms. Barker shared that about 50 percent had been validated and that she was just informed that the County had received $3.9 million that day.
Commr. Campione relayed that she would not support the motion as she felt that a reduction could be accomplished. She then suggested a million dollar reduction based on the fact that the Supervisor of Elections’ request was not a reoccurring expense. She understood that many citizens wanted a full rollback rate but she opined that services for the county could not be funded at a full rollback rate. She reiterated that all County Departments continued to look for ways to cut costs and that over the last few years, this Board had decreased the budget by $2.9 million; furthermore, she remarked that the Board was currently attempting to fund employee merit pay increases and address much needed additional positions. She recapped that even in this meeting, the County reduced expenses by another million dollars by choosing a different option for fleet management. She felt that it was important to let taxpayers know that this Board was attempting to lower the millage while also being responsible.
Commr. Breeden opined that it was important to reduce the millage some since this Board was considering a millage reduction two years prior before Hurricane Irma hit and the Board said that once the FEMA reimbursement was received, they would replenish reserves and consider a millage reduction.
Commr. Sullivan then withdrew his second to the motion; therefore, the motion failed due to lack of a second. He inquired what the millage would be if the total was reduced by $1 million.
Ms. Barker responded that the millage rate would then be 5.0734 mills.
Commr. Parks indicated that he did not want to budget by millage rate but preferred to budget based on needs; however, he said in order to be sensitive to the taxpayer, he made a motion for a 5.0957 millage rate, which was not the full one million but would equate to about a $500,000 reduction.
Commr. Campione recapped that the motion was for a 5.0957 millage rate which was a $500,000 reduction to revenue as opposed to the $1 million reduction to revenue.
Commr. Sullivan stated that he would not second this motion because he desired the million dollar reduction and that he felt that by moving those items he discussed it would not affect the FEMA reimbursement as much and would follow his budget practices.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved a tentative Lake County General Fund Countywide millage rate for FY 2020 of 5.0734 mills, which was a reduction from the current millage rate of 5.01180 mills.
Commr. Parks and Commr. Blake voted no.
Mr. Cole clarified that there were several millage rates that needed to be considered along with the budget and that staff would ultimately need Board direction regarding the surplus.
Ms. Barker indicated that there was currently $4,965,499 in surplus, noting that the vote just captured would take $1 million of that amount.
Commr. Breeden asked how much the Sheriff needed and Ms. Barker replied that $3.3 million was budgeted over the adopted budget, and that $1.8 million would take him to $5.1 over the adopted budget. Commr. Breeden summarized that would then take $2.8 of the surplus with the homeless crisis shelter, road resurfacing, LifeStream, and reserves still needing to be addressed.
Mr. Cole asked for a moment to clarify with the Sheriff that the $1.8 million over the adopted budget was indeed the amount needed beyond the $3.3 million since the Sheriff had referenced numbers as over the “amended” budget while the Board had stated over the “adopted” budget.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 6:10 p.m. for 5 minutes.
presentation of millage rates and tentative budget continued
Mr. Cole clarified that beyond the $3.3 million already in the budget for the Sheriff which was additional from the adopted budget, the Sheriff indicated that he needed an extra $2 million above that amount which would make the total $5.3 million.
Commr. Breeden remarked that if the Sheriff’s $2 million was funded from reserves as suggested by Commissioner Sullivan and the millage was reduced by utilizing $1 million then that would leave approximately $3.965 million.
Ms. Barker clarified that would leave $1.965 million since $2 million was used for the Sheriff and $1 million was used for the millage reduction which resulted in a $3 million reduction.
Commr. Breeden noted that it did depend on how it was viewed and where the amount for reserves came from, and Ms. Barker said that was correct.
Commr. Sullivan also suggested funding the $150,000 for LifeStream and Ms. Barker replied that she could also add that if that was the Board’s consensus.
Mr. Cole recapped that the Board wanted to utilize a million dollars for a millage reduction, $2 million for the Sheriff, and $150,000 for the LifeStream operational request.
Commr. Campione added that then the rest could be held in reserves so that road resurfacing or other items could be addressed in January 2020 during the mid-year adjustment.
Mr. Cole referenced page two of his memorandum where it mentioned bringing the reserves to $12.5 million which was nine percent of the operating budget, and then said that the additional funding left over which was not being allocated from the $4.9 million surplus from the FEMA and DEM reimbursements could be placed in a separate reserves so those funds could be decided upon at a later time.
Commr. Parks asked if that would be in January 2020 and Mr. Cole responded that it could be anytime and did not have to wait until January since the funds would be in a separate reserves.
Ms. Barker added that if at any time during the year outside of the mid-term timeframe the Board decided they needed the funding, she would need a resolution approved by the Board to take it out of that reserves.
Commr. Breeden also brought up the request to have a placeholder for LASER, and Commissioner Campione stated it was for $50,000.
Mr. Cole indicated staff could do that as part of that funding too.
Ms. Barker asked if the Board wanted $50,000 total or in addition to the $5,000 they currently receive.
Mr. Cole explained that $5,000 annually was currently budgeted within the Office of Emergency Management’s budget so he assumed it would be $50,000 total. He relayed that during Hurricane Dorian, LASER requested $50,000 but he provided them with $25,000 under his signature authority.
Commr. Breeden mentioned that LASER had provided to her a budget of $60,000 and suggested funding them up to that $60,000 amount with staff directed to review.
Commr. Campione suggested that be done while working on an agreement to address supplies and such.
Mr. Cole implied that staff had asked for an accounting of how the $25,000 had been or would be spent.
Commr. Campione indicated consensus from the Board for the items discussed.
remaining tentative millage rates
Ms. Barker remarked that the next item was the approval of the tentative millage rates for FY 2020, noting that the Board had just approved the Lake County General Fund Countywide millage of 5.0734 mills. She relayed that the remaining Lake County millages included the Ambulance MSTU at 0.4629 mills, the Stormwater, Parks, and Roads MSTU at 0.4957 mills, the Fire Rescue MSTU at 0.4704 mills, and the Public Lands-Voted Debt of 0.1324 mills.
Mr. Cole indicated that if the Board desired, the Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt millage rate could be reduced.
Commr. Campione asked how much it could be reduced to and Ms. Barker replied it could go to 0.1100 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved a tentative Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt millage rate for FY 2020 of 0.1100 mills, which was a reduction from the current millage rate of 0.1324 mills.
On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved the remaining tentative millage rates for FY 2020 as follows: Lake County Ambulance MSTU at 0.4629 mills, Lake County Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU at 0.4957 mills, and Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU at 0.4704 mills.
Commr. Blake voted no.
summary of changes to the FY 2020 recommended budget
Ms. Barker commented that since the recommended budget was approved in July 2019, the County Departments and Offices changes included the following: updated fund balance and revenue projections which included the FEMA and DEM revenue projections related to Hurricane Irma as well as a reduction to address a transit shortfall; incorporated funding for security enhancements in the County facilities; additional funding for the General Fund reserves; re-budget of capital projects which had not been completed; incorporated purchase order (PO) carryforward estimates; and other miscellaneous changes and adjustments. She shared that changes for the Constitutional Offices included additional funding to extend the Lake County Tax Collector’s building lease in the City of Clermont; additionally, she said that the Tax Collector submitted his budget on July 29, 2019, with a $570,712 increase in excess fees provided to the County and a $300,000 increase in expenditures which resulted in a net decrease of $270,712 to the General Fund for FY 2020. She concluded with the requested action for approval to adopt the changes to the FY 2020 recommended budget totaling $22,241,850.
On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks, and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to adopt the changes to the FY 2020 recommended budget totaling $22,241,850.
Commr. Blake voted no.
FY 2020 tentative budget
Ms. Barker remarked that the requested action was approval to adopt the FY 2020 tentative budget totaling $464,220,564.
Commr. Campione asked Ms. Barker to explain why the General Fund budget was only a portion of the total tentative budget in order for citizens to better understand.
Ms. Barker explained that there were many funds within the County’s purview with a majority of them being outside of the General Fund, noting that the General Fund was about $160 million. She mentioned that there were capital project funds such as the construction of the animal shelter, road resurfacing, sales tax funded projects such as the purchase of the tax collector building, the resort tax fund for tourist tax dollars and projects, the gas tax fund which funded a majority of public works, and PO carryforwards. She noted that PO carryforwards were current year projects which were already encumbered and since they were a carryforward were added to the total budget, and encompassed about $13 million of the changes just approved for $22,241,850. She summarized that all of these additional funds made up the difference between the General Fund amount and the budget total of $464,220,564.
Commr. Campione asked her to also explain the different millages.
Ms. Barker elaborated that the General Fund Countywide millage addressed the General Fund budget, that the Stormwater, Roads, Parks MSTU funded parks with a portion going to stormwater projects and was outside of the General Fund, that the Ambulance MSTU was outside of the General Fund, and the Public Lands-Voted Debt was a separate debt service fund.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried by a 4-1 vote, the Board approved to adopt the FY 2020 tentative budget totaling $464,220,564.
Commr. Blake voted no.
final budget hearing
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the public hearing for the final adoption of the FY 2020 millage rates and budget on September 24, 2019, at 5:05 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible in the Board of County Commission Chambers, 315 West Main Street, Tavares, Florida.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
leslie campione, chairman
GARY J COONEY, CLERK