A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

October 22, 2019

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, 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 Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Pastor Jeffery McNeal from the North Lake Chapel in Lisbon gave the Invocation and Commissioner Campione led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, said that after the agenda was first published, staff added some background information to Tab 32 and it was uploaded as part of the Board’s packet.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of August 27, 2019 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Terri Blessing, a Lake County citizen, stated that she used Number 2 Road and that there was an area near this road and County Road (CR) 48 which she thought was going to be annexed; furthermore, she relayed her understanding that there would be a planned unit development (PUD) in that area. She expressed concerns about the width and safety of Number 2 Road and claimed that there were no shoulders there. She indicated a concern that a second entrance to the PUD could be placed on Number 2 Road, and she claimed that an engineer was unsure if this entrance could be moved. She asked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to become involved with this issue and relayed her understanding that according to the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), there were no plans to widen CR 48 and Number 2 Road in the next 20 years. She did not think that her taxpayer dollars should have to pay for the widening or fixing of Number 2 Road if a development occurred; rather, she felt that the developer should install infrastructure there.

Commr. Breeden stated that staff met yesterday about this situation.

Mr. Cole confirmed that staff had looked at this issue. He clarified that the City of Leesburg had annexed the subject property in 2005 and that there was no pending annexation. He said that the only jurisdiction that the County had was over the driveway permit access to Number 2 Road. He commented that the Lake County Public Works Department had sent a letter to the City identifying locations where the driveway could be relocated to due to concerns about the locations in the plan. He added that it would have to be relocated according to what the County requested because the developer was required to obtain permits from the County. He said that Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, had not indicated any concerns about future road capacity.

Mr. Schneider showed maps of the area and pointed out U.S. Highway 27, CR 48, the Yalaha area, Number 2 Road, and the area of the proposed development in the City of Leesburg. He also displayed the areas which were currently annexed into the City of Leesburg, along with the proposed plan. He relayed his understanding that the plan was not being approved by the City; rather, the zoning would possibly be approved and the plan could change. He noted that the plan was showing two access locations on CR 48 and Number 2 Road. He said that the County had asked for one of the access points to be relocated to Rumford Road to provide spacing from Number 2 Road and to meet access management requirements. He elaborated that Number 2 Road did not have right of way and that the developer would have to improve the road to access it. He remarked that the County had suggested that if the development accessed Number 2 Road, it should be further north and closer to CR 48, and they would then have to widen, improve and dedicate the right of way from their property to improve Number 2 Road up to CR 48. He added that they would also be required to install right and left turn lanes at both locations on Number 2 Road and at the entrance on Rumford Road.

Commr. Breeden asked if he could identify the alternative entrance on Number 2 Road that was being considered. She also inquired if they would not be allowed to access Number 2 Road further south.

Mr. Schneider pointed this out on the map and said that they could access that location and dedicate the necessary right of way to improve Number 2 Road, which would include a 12 foot lane width, shoulders, etc. He also confirmed that they would not be allowed to access Number 2 Road further south and added that if they did this, there would be no way for them to improve the roadway in areas that did not have right of way. He indicated that they would have to improve the road from their location up to CR 48, and he did not think that this would change traffic patterns for driving south on Number 2 Road.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify the lack of right of way.

Mr. Schneider explained that many roads in the county did not have dedicated right of way and instead had prescriptive right of way. He elaborated that there was no deed or plat, that it was a longstanding road with public right of way based on use, and that the County would not say that they had a certain width other than what they maintained, such as the mow line.

Commr. Campione asked if it could be established in court that the County had those prescriptive rights.

Mr. Schneider said that one method would be to file a maintenance map and record it in the public record, though this could be challenged. He indicated that the County did not typically use these, although they claimed the pavement itself.

Commr. Campione noted that it had been annexed into the city and asked if the County maintained Number 2 Road, which Mr. Schneider confirmed.

Commr. Breeden commented that if there was an entrance near the end of Number 2 Road, then the developer would have to improve the road in a certain area because they could supply the right of way on that side.

Commr. Campione wondered if the residents would consider that to be a good resolution. She commented that the County controlled the issuance of the connection permit to CR 48 but could not unreasonably withhold it.

Mr. Schneider clarified that both roads were county roads and that the County could issue permits for both.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, explained that the driveway connection permit was an administrative process so that when a developer comes in, if they meet all of the requirements in the code, then the County would have to issue the permit. She commented that they would have to meet the County’s engineering requirements and widen part of the road up to CR 48, and the County would have to issue the permit if they met the requirements.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if they moved their entrance road to Rumford Road, then there would be enough separation between that location and Number 2 Road and the County would likely have to issue a permit there. She said that with regards to issuing a permit for Number 2 Road, the County would not have to issue a permit there because they would not meet the right of way requirements due to the County lacking right of way.

Ms. Marsh stated that because the County had prescriptive right of way due to what was maintained for a number of years, the developer could connect closer to CR 48 because they owned the property adjacent to the road; furthermore, they could dedicate the road.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify if this could only happen after they installed the turn lanes at the sufficient widths that met the County’s code, and Ms. Marsh confirmed that they would have to improve that portion of the road to County standards and install turn lanes.

Commr. Sullivan observed that since they owned the property next to the road, there would not be any right of way issues.

Commr. Parks asked if Number 2 Road was a through road. He also expressed a concern that improvements to Number 2 Road could encourage more traffic there, and he questioned how this could be addressed.

Mr. Schneider confirmed this and added that Number 2 Road went south and then east to State Road (SR) 19 and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. He also said that cities typically required two entrances but that there could be an entrance for emergency access only on Number 2 Road; however, he thought that this would not deter individuals from using that road. He added that no improvements would be required for an entrance for emergency access only.

Commr. Campione commented that residents could still come out of the other entrance and use Number 2 Road. She questioned that since individuals could use the road regardless of improvements, if improving part of the road would benefit the individuals who currently used it.

Commr. Breeden felt that this would not impact Number 2 Road and relayed her understanding that there was an ingress and egress further south.

Commr. Parks asked about the anticipated number of trips.

Mr. Schneider commented that the development would have about 540 homes and that he had not seen a traffic study. He added that there could be up to 540 peak hour trips and that they go could west toward U.S. Highway 27, east toward the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, or south.

Commr. Breeden questioned if this could trigger a need for a traffic signal.

Mr. Schneider did not think that it would and noted that a traffic study had not been submitted to the County; additionally, there had not been a formal application at this point. He said that the County had communicated with the City when they received information about this access and then provided the City with information about their concerns regarding Number 2 Road and improvements that needed to be made.

Commr. Parks inquired if the County could work with the City due to the amount of traffic. He thought that the entire road could be improved if there was a potential for that much traffic on it.

Mr. Schneider remarked that it was a long road and that its surface was rated a seven.

Commr. Campione asked if the County should communicate with the City and possibly have a meeting of public works directors to discuss what could be done jointly for Number 2 Road and establish a long term plan.

Mr. Cole indicated that this could be done.

Commr. Parks supported this and indicated that the County could possibly have to pay for this at a later date.

Commr. Campione asked if Number 2 Road became more unincorporated on each side as it went, and Mr. Schneider commented that it was a rural roadway.

Commr. Sullivan mentioned that the area had large tracts of land and that it connected to the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills from major estates in the area.

Commr. Campione asked about the speed limit on the road, and Mr. Schneider thought that it was 40 or 45 miles per hour (MPH) but decreased when it reached the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. Commissioner Campione expressed an interest in reviewing the road and considering future traffic calming. She also indicated an interest in examining traffic patterns to determine which direction traffic was moving from certain homesites and if there was a way to calm traffic and to promote Number 2 Road as a scenic route.

Commr. Sullivan thought that another issue was that the north part of the road that connected to CR 48 was in the City of Leesburg. He supported communicating with the City to express concerns and let staff follow through. He opined that if Number 2 Road would be used as a secondary entrance, then they should improve the road and it needed to be closer to the Leesburg city limits so that it would not be an issue for the County and county residents.

Commr. Parks expressed a concern that this was a roughly 540 unit development and that a resident there could exit onto Number 2 Road and go south.

Commr. Campione asked if a traffic study had been done for the City of Leesburg for this item. She supported considering this to see how many trips they anticipated would go in the other direction and possibly use this as a mechanism to suggest if there should be improvements made.

Mr. Schneider relayed that the County would be requesting a traffic study to determine what percent of trips may go south or use that route. He said that this could also be gauged by the direction of traffic from other developments in the area.

Commr. Parks asked if staff could have this dialogue with the City before issuing a permit, and Mr. Cole confirmed this.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there was an upcoming zoning meeting.

Mr. Schneider confirmed that this would be for the City of Leesburg in November 2019. He added that they would have two public hearings including a first reading and a second hearing for adoption. He thought that the meeting on November 12, 2019 would be for the adoption of the PUD and that access locations would be subject to later discussions.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the PUD ordinance would require them to obtain approvals from the County for transportation and that it was not specific for where the connections needed to be.

Mr. Cole said that staff could reach out this week to schedule a discussion with the Leesburg city manager and the City’s public works director.

Commr. Campione thought that it would be important that the developer understand what the County would be looking for prior to the final hearing.

Mr. Cole said that any concerned residents in attendance could give their contact information to Mr. Schneider in order to stay informed.

Mr. Barry Wright, a triathlete and a resident of Yalaha, expressed concerns for the amount of truck traffic on CR 48. He said that all of his bike rides started on Number 2 Road and he thought that it was a great road because of the limited traffic and the scenery. He felt that Lake County was bike friendly by having shoulders on most of the roads, but he opined that there was limited space for bikes on Number 2 Road when a truck approached. He relayed his understanding that triathletes used Number 2 Road and other roads in the county to train for races. He said that the area was also used for special events such as the Mount Dora Bike Festival which included thousands of cyclists.

Ms. Sheri Bowersox, a resident of Lake County, felt that Number 2 Road was already unsafe and substandard. She stated that it was utilized by motorcyclists, bicyclists and walkers. She mentioned that there were blind curves and hills on the road and that she had been involved in vehicular accidents there. She supported the development having an entrance on Rumford Road rather than Number 2 Road. She also recalled that several months earlier, there was significant truck traffic in the area due to another development which created difficulty with traffic. She expressed concerns for future residents being able to drive in the area and being able to pull their vehicle out onto Number 2 Road, which was considered to be a scenic road.

Commr. Campione wondered if it would make more sense for the County to indicate that they did not want any access on Number 2 Road. She felt that having access could promote the use of the road if it was not an emergency entrance.

Commr. Breeden asked if it would be possible for the County to require the developer to add a shoulder where they owned property next to the road.

Mr. Schneider replied that one of the items that they would be considering was to require the developer to widen the road to 12 feet and add paved shoulders.

Commr. Breeden inquired if this would be for anywhere the road touched the property.

Mr. Schneider said that this could be something the County could request and that there could be a requirement for right of way dedication up to 40 feet from centerline to pavement. He thought that this had to be made clear to the developer to avoid a conflict between where the right of way and the lots were.

Commr. Parks asked if this would include right of way and improvements of the road for the portion of Number 2 Road that they owned property adjacent to.

Mr. Schneider reiterated that if they accessed Number 2 Road, the County would typically require them to improve their access north of CR 48; however, this would not generally be required if they did not access Number 2 Road.

Ms. Marsh explained that to require a dedication of property from a private property owner, the County must meet the Nollan-Dolan Standard and public works would have to perform that analysis to determine if the County could legally require it.

Commr. Campione noted that this would only be for the property adjacent to the road and that the County could not require them to widen all of Number 2 Road.

Commr. Parks inquired if this decision would be based on a traffic study.

Mr. Schneider confirmed this and said that the County would request a traffic study for which way the residents would be going and use this to consider improvements and right of way dedication. He reiterated that if they accessed the road, then the County would require them to improve it up to CR 48 including turn lanes at CR 48.

Commr. Parks thought that there should be right of way dedication and road improvements from their portion of the road to the end based on the traffic study.

Commr. Campione expressed a concern that changing the road may invite traffic there unless they could make the entire road safer. She opined that if this could not be done, then the developer should not have access on Number 2 Road, with the exception of emergency access. She also encouraged Mr. Schneider to come back after a traffic study had been conducted.

Commr. Parks agreed that this would be ideal but felt that it could be different if they insisted on having an entryway on Number 2 Road.

Commr. Sullivan relayed that he could attend the City’s November 12, 2019 meeting if needed.

Mr. Cole reiterated that staff would meet with the City prior to that meeting.

Ms. Grace Duffy, a resident of the City of Eustis, expressed a concern that her home was in immediate danger of inundation from the rising water level of Blue Lake in the City of Eustis. She said that there were 21 homes around Blue Lake and that LifePointe Church was also nearby. She displayed pictures of her backyard from the year 2014 and what it looked like this year after Hurricane Dorian. She stated that there was now water up to within ten feet of the back of her house and that the lake level had risen about six feet in the past three years; furthermore, she had lost about 110 feet of her backyard from the rising water. She mentioned a berm for stormwater runoff and commented that it was now completely inundated so that road runoff was going into the lake. She then remarked that there was an emerging landmass from recent runoff that was displacing additional water and that another property was experiencing erosion issues. She claimed that she had called City and County agencies but the calls had been unanswered or redirected somewhere else. She asked the BCC for their assistance.

Commr. Campione asked how long she had lived there, and Ms. Duffy replied that it had been five years. Commissioner Campione recalled that eight to ten years prior, there had been a significant amount of rain and a high water table, along with Blue Lake experiencing similar effects. She noted that there was not an outfall and that the area contained springs and bubbling water for a considerable amount of hydrologic activity. She mentioned that the lake level increased with rainfall and thought that when this happened previously, there were efforts to find a location to pump water out of the lake.

Ms. Duffy remarked that her preferred short term solution was similar to this and she thought that a more permanent solution could be to work with County and City engineers to maintain the lake water. She believed that the lake was originally maintained because it was sprinkling the orange groves around it; however, as houses replaced the orange groves, no one was removing water from the lake. She indicated an interest in financially supporting this and she expressed a concern for losing her house.

Commr. Campione said that Ms. Duffy could talk to Mr. Schneider and Ms. Mary Hamilton, Chief of Operations for the Public Works Department. She commented that the lake could potentially be pumped and added to the city’s alternative water supply.

Ms. Duffy relayed that LifePointe Church had agreed to provide access to their property so that the pumping could occur closer to the lake.

Mr. Cole requested that Ms. Duffy talk with Mr. Schneider and Mr. Nicholas McRay, with the Public Works Department.

Ms. Chantel Buck, with New Vision for Independence in the City of Leesburg, thanked the Board for their service, for being open to new information and change, for their willingness to serve and learn more, and for ensuring that every voice in Lake County was included. She also thanked Commissioner Parks and Ms. Jill Brown, Director for the Office of Transit Services, for keeping the conversation regarding transportation open, along with thanking Mr. Cole. She expressed gratitude for the Board’s investment in public transportation and social services for agencies such as hers. She shared a story about two visually impaired women from The Villages who received services from New Vision for Independence and were able to use a ride sharing application and the LakeXpress fixed bus route to meet in downtown Leesburg. She said that these individuals had contributed to the economy and that this defined independence. She thanked the Board for investing in the community, for their service, and for contributing to independence.

Ms. Nancy Hurlbert, a concerned citizen, said that on October 12, 2019, over 2,000 delegates convened in the City of Orlando for the Florida Democratic Convention 2019 State Convention. She read a resolution that was adopted at this event which opposed symbols of racism and hate speech, along with supporting justice and equality for the LGBTQ+ community. She added that the resolution condemned the import, display and glorification of all Confederate statues within the state, and she believed that this was a condemnation of a Confederate statue that was being brought to Lake County.

Mr. David Serdar, a concerned citizen, recognized White Cane Day. He expressed concerns for first responders having to respond to domestic incidents and for pollution. He advocated for prohibiting plastic straws and plastic bags, along with a possible beverage bottle container law, and he mentioned a possible cigarette butt deposit idea.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 10, 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.

Central Lake Community Development District FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2020 meeting schedule for the Central Lake Community Development District in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes.

Founders Ridge Community Development District FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2020 meeting schedule for the Founders Ridge Community Development District in accordance with Chapter 189.015, Florida Statutes.

City of Clermont Community Redevelopment Agency Resolution 14

Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 14 from the City of Clermont’s Community Redevelopment Agency adopting their FY 2019/2020 budget. This is being submitted in accordance with Section 163.387(6)(b), Florida Statutes.

Cascades at Groveland Community Development District FY 19/20 Final Budget

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Final Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 approved by the Board of Supervisors of the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District. Transmittal of the Final Adopted Budget is being made pursuant to Section 189.016, Florida Statutes.

Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District FY 19/20 Final Budget

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Final Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2019/2020 approved by the Board of Supervisors of the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District. Transmittal of the Final Adopted Budget is being made pursuant to Section 189.016, Florida Statutes.

City of Eustis Annexation Ordinances 19-17 and 19-18

Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinances 19-17 and 19-18 from the City of Eustis.

Arlington Ridge Community Development District FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2020 annual meeting schedule for the Arlington Ridge Community Development District in accordance with Section 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Bella Collina Community Development District FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2020 annual meeting schedule for the Bella Collina Community Development District in accordance with Section 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Deer Island Community Development District FY 2020 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2020 annual meeting schedule for the Deer Island Community Development District in accordance with Section 189.015, Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Breeden indicated an interest in pulling Tab 12 for discussion.

Commr. Blake requested to pull Tabs 3 and 4 for a separate vote.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 28, pulling Tab 12 for discussion, and pulling Tabs 3 and 4 for a separate vote as follows below:

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 3.

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 4.

Commr. Blake voted no.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Court Case No. 2018-CA-2268, Lake County vs. Oak Valley DLSU, LLC, et al., (Parcel Number: CG-15) for the needed right of way on the Citrus Grove Road Project. The fiscal impact is $81,746.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.

Request approval of a Mediation Settlement Agreement of an eminent domain case concerning the Citrus Grove Road Project: Lake County vs. Edward Kleiman, et al., Case No. 2018-CA-2124 (Parcel Number: CG-16). The fiscal impact is $1,201,155.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.

Request approval for Lake County to continue to participate as a class member in the multidistrict ligation against opioid makers and distributors. There is no fiscal impact from this action.

Request approval regarding the following County-Owned properties:

1. Accept an Offer to Purchase on Alternate Key 1514711.

2. Accept a bid to purchase Alternate Key 1337933.

3. Authorize the Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents.

The fiscal impact is $2,601.00 (revenue). Commission District 5.

COUNTY MANAGER

Request approval of letters of support for:

1. The Lake County School Board's legislative priority to address the school funding formula.

2. The Lake Technical College and City of Tavares legislative priority to co-locate the College's transportation cluster of programs to a new location in Tavares.

There is no fiscal impact to Lake County.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Information Technology

Request approval of an amendment to an existing service exchange and lease agreement with Summit Broadband Inc. (Orlando, FL) to provide two dark fiber connections to the new Animal Shelter on County Road 448 in Astatula in exchange for Summit Broadband running its fiber through a County conduit, which is located over the Dora Canal on State Road 19 in Tavares. The fiscal impact is a savings to the County of approximately $75,000.00 and up to $12,000.00 a year. Commission District 3.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Request:

1. Approval of a $175,000.00 settlement for claimant injuries sustained in a vehicle accident on October 20, 2017.

2. Acceptance of a $174,790.29 payment from the County’s insurer as reimbursement on expenses incurred that were greater than the County’s self-insured retention of $50,000.00.

The total net fiscal impact from this action is $209.71 (expenditure of $175,000.00 and receipt of $174,790.29). The County also incurred $49,790.29 in prior expenditures relating to this claim, for a total fiscal impact of $50,000.00.

AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Request approval of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Clermont regarding consulting services for the Wellness Way Urban Services Area, and approval of a budget transfer moving the funds into the appropriate account. The fiscal impact is up to $155,000.00 (expenditure - $110,000.00 in year one and $45,000.00 in year two). Commission District 1.

Request approval to apply for and accept a Florida Job Growth Grant through the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and Enterprise Florida for the installation of a natural gas line extension to the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park in Groveland, and authorization for the Chairman to execute all related documentation. The estimated fiscal impact is up to $1,274,715.00 (revenue). Commission District 1.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Request approval of an agreement with the University of Florida Board of Trustees for Medical Director and Associate Medical Director Services, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute the subsequent renewals. The annual fiscal impact is $250,000.00 (expenditure).

Public Safety Support

Request approval for the Chairman to execute a letter to the Mayor of the City of Apopka requesting permission for the County to locate its communications equipment on the City’s planned telecommunications tower site. There is no fiscal impact.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Facilities Management

Request approval of Contract 19-0425 with Westbrook Service Corp. (Orlando, FL) for HVAC, ice machine, and walk-in cooler preventative maintenance and repair services, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $98,148.00 (expenditure).

Request approval of a Guaranteed Maximum Price and Date of Substantial Completion of May 31, 2022, for the Lake County Courthouse Renovations, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The fiscal impact is $2,573,009.45 (expenditure). Commission District 3.

Housing and Human Services

Request approval of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Sub-Recipient Agreement with Habitat for Humanity for Lake-Sumter, Inc. for the Tavares Community Cottages project. The fiscal impact is $392,000.00 in federal funds (expenditure). Commission District 3.

Public Works

Request approval to execute a Local Agency Program Agreement (FPN #439415-1-58/68-01) with the Florida Department of Transportation, and approval of supporting Resolution 2019-137 for construction and construction inspection services of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Citrus Tower Boulevard and Mohawk Road in the Clermont area. The fiscal impact is $472,093.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100% grant funded). Commission District 2.

Request approval of Contract Q2020-00006 with Trademark Metals Recycling, LLC (Ocala, FL) for the recycling of scrap metal and white goods, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $100,000.00 (revenue).

Request approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Montverde for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of County Road 455 and Ridgewood Avenue. The fiscal impact is $67,992.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $300,478.22 associated with Right-of-Way Utilization Permit #8748 and Commercial Driveway Connection Permit #53205 issued to construct a water main on Hancock Road for the Hills of Minneola subdivision in Minneola. The fiscal impact is $800.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 2.

Request approval of a Right of Entry Agreement with Center Lake Properties, LLLP and Pineloch Management Corporation (Orlando, FL) to allow Lake County access to property for the purpose of evaluating environmental and stormwater conditions in conjunction with the design phase of the Citrus Grove Road project, located in the Montverde area. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Request approval and execution of a Release of a Temporary Non-Exclusive Easement located on Duval Farms in the City of Leesburg. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

Request approval to:

1. Accept the final plat for Tiger Paw Estates, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Tiger Paw Estates final plat, located south of Groveland.

2. Execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements with Clemson Skiers LLC (Bartow, FL).

3. Accept a Cashier's Check of $49,401.00.

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

Request approval of Resolution 2019-138 to establish a speed limit of 25 MPH on Orange Blossom Road in the Howey In The Hills area. The fiscal impact is $100.00 (expenditure - sign materials). Commission District 1.

Request approval of Resolution 2019-139 authorizing the installation of a "stop" sign and an "all way" plaque on Whitney Road, where it intersects with Pennbrooke Parkway, in the Leesburg area. The fiscal impact is $100.00 (expenditure - sign materials). Commission District 1.

Request approval to amend the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Groveland for traffic signal maintenance and emergency repairs. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $1,202.38 (revenue). Commission District 1.

Transit Services

Request approval:

1. To provide free LakeXpress bus rides on October 31, 2019, as part of Lake County's participation in the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) "Try Transit Day" during 2019 Mobility Week.

2. For LakeXpress to provide free bus rides annually as part of FDOT's "Try Transit Day" during Mobility Week.

The estimated annual fiscal impact is $600.00 in uncollected farebox revenue.

Tab 12 - wolf branch innovation district implementation plan

Commr. Campione noted that this was a request to approve the Wolf Branch Innovation District Implementation Plan and initiate the associated recommended actions; additionally, she had received a comment card from Mr. Greg Beliveau, with LPG Urban and Regional Land Planners.

Mr. Beliveau said that he had submitted comments which addressed two pages in the report from Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, and that he had presented the same comments to the City of Mount Dora. He stated that on page 110 of the report, Dr. Levey had singled out the Summer Lake-Grace Groves PUD and recommended that the requirements for a traffic analysis be prepared in later stages due to the traffic impacts. He agreed with this due to Summer Lake-Grace Groves PUD being a large project within the Wolf Branch Innovation District and because the traffic impacts could be significant; however, he wanted it to be recognized that the connection to CR 437 could not be funded by this project alone. He felt that they did not have the resources to make this connection and that they wanted clarification language that there would be a partnership made with the City of Mount Dora, Lake County and the Lake-Sumter MPO to help assist with the connection due to it being across county lines. He elaborated that the ownership would also be across county lines and relayed his understanding that the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) owned the parcel adjacent to the development which connected to CR 437. He reiterated his request for this coordination for the road connection to be placed in the document to recognize the parties and to allow the coordination to occur, and he said that two planning documents had already been prepared by the Lake-Sumter MPO and the City of Mount Dora which showed the road connection being made through that property. He indicated that his second comment pertained to page 136 of the report for the capital improvements program where it was identified that the roads in the projects were all to be private. He expressed an interest in having an option for the roads to be private-public partnerships because one of the developments in his project was an education component where they had initially donated land to Lake-Sumter State College. He added that they would be installing stormwater offsite, that the property would be pad ready for the college, and that the permitting would be done at the developer’s expense. He supported having an option for a private-public funding partnership to connect the road to the college. He added that this would only be a possibility and that the City of Mount Dora would have an option to pursue Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funds or federal funds. He relayed his understanding that the City would be pursuing FDOT funds for roads in this project and he expressed a concern that the document would have to be amended prior to them filing for the application.

Dr. Levey stated that Mr. Beliveau’s first comment pertained to language in which the report called for a condition on the traffic from the Summer Lake-Grace Groves PUD which was a large PUD with a 20 year, 2055 buildout which went beyond the life of this plan. He clarified that the report called for a traffic study to identify a trip threshold, beyond which no more development could occur on the project due to traffic on SR 46 and the need for a corridor to CR 437. He explained that this did not preclude any combination of public or private parties coming together to fund this and that the language focused on identifying a trip threshold to determine how much traffic SR 46 could accommodate. He felt that using this as a platform to seek inclusion of language that would engage potential public partners could be the correct action to take at the right time, though he felt that it was premature to commit any public agency’s involvement until the circumstances were known.

Commr. Campione stated that the Summer Lake-Grace Groves PUD was likely the largest contiguous property in the Wolf Branch Innovation District and that if a certain threshold was exceeded, there would have to be those connections with multiple access points. She relayed her understanding that the report indicated that this threshold would be established at some point.

Dr. Levey thought that Mr. Beliveau’s comments pertained to making a statement in the plan about engaging potential public partners to build roadway infrastructure.

Commr. Campione expressed her understanding that there would be language in the plan to acknowledge that there could and likely would be multiple parties participating in such improvements.

Dr. Levey clarified that the report did not preclude public partners from working on roadways. He said that he was unsure of the timeframe of the circumstances for this and remarked that if a company providing numerous high tech jobs came forward, he would encourage the Board to participate with the private land owner to build infrastructure to facilitate economic development. He expressed that there was uncertainty over these conditions and the economics, and he opined that for prudent public policy, if there was no language in the plan that precluded public involvement, overtly stating an intent to become involved would be premature.

Mr. Cole noted that the condition to require a roadway extension to CR 437 did not identify how this would be accomplished and by whom because it was too early in the build out process for Summer Lake-Grace Groves.

Commr. Breeden thought that Mr. Beliveau’s comments made sense; however, if there was a planning document and a desire for grant funding but the possibility of a public-private partnership could not be identified, then it could be more difficult to apply for grants. She asked if “Roads – Private” in the report could be changed to “Roads – Private and/or Private/Public.”

Dr. Levey agreed with this and explained that when the plan was constructed, staff from the City of Mount Dora did not want to be responsible for funding those roads. He said that the word “private” could be removed but that this would not change the document. He stated that the word “private” identified the road obligations and that under normal development review and obligations, they would be private obligations unless a public agency desired to build the roads. He related that this was the intent and that while the roads would be publicly dedicated, they would be private funding obligations; furthermore, this was a capital funding program. He was unsure if this affected eligibility for future grants.

Commr. Campione recalled an early concern from the City of Mount Dora that, because they would be annexing this property on these large tracts, they were not obligated to develop the roads and the developer had the right to build their own roads. She mentioned that there could be an opportunity for the private developer to cooperate with the City. She noted that this could be a simple modification to indicate that the plan was referring to roads on private property and did not preclude a public-private partnership or the opportunity to apply for grants.

Commr. Parks agreed with this and thought that there could be a sentence indicating that nothing precluded public-private partnerships.

Mr. Cole said that they could make any changes the Board desired and that they could work with the City of Mount Dora to adopt the plan as amended. He said that he did not foresee this as being an issue.

Commr. Sullivan also agreed with these comments and noted that they wanted to explore every option.

Dr. Levey clarified that the Board wanted to say that there is no obligation for the public to build those roads, but there is no prohibition on public-private partnerships, and Commissioner Campione confirmed this. He thought that the City would be amenable to this and noted that it could be included as an asterisk and a footnote.

Commr. Campione added that this would be the County’s request to the City rather than Mr. Beliveau’s request. She asked if there was agreement about the threshold requirement wording for the Summer Lake-Grace Groves PUD, and Mr. Beliveau indicated that there was no issue with this wording.

Mr. Cole inquired if the Board wanted to see this item again for a vote or if they wanted to approve the request with the changes, with staff coordinating this with the City of Mount Dora.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt the Wolf Branch Innovation District Implementation Plan and initiate the associated recommended actions, with the modification to include language indicating that there is no obligation for the public to build those roads, but there is no prohibition on public-private partnerships.

presentation – east central florida regional planning council

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, said that this item would include a presentation from Ms. Jenifer Rupert, with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), to describe the council’s Regional Resilience Collaborative, along with a request for the Board to approve a memorandum of understanding with the Council to confirm Lake County’s commitment to the East Central Florida Regional Resilience Collaborative. He explained that in September 2018, the Council had formalized their commitment to regional resilience through Resolution #03 2018, and work began with the eight counties and 78 municipalities in the east central Florida region to develop and create a structure and framework for a regional resilience collaborative. He detailed the following information pertaining the timeline of work to support the resilience collaborative in 2019: a survey for county and municipal managers was conducted through May 31; staff engagement workshops were conducted on June 18 and 19; Ms. Rupert had met and continued to meet with local governments to provide information and answer questions about the resilience collaborative; and a signing ceremony was scheduled for October 23.

Ms. Rupert said that in the six months prior to this project being initiated, her organization had heard about several projects throughout the region that illustrated communities’ responses to resilience to shocks and stressors, such as affordable housing and aging infrastructure. She said that the Council begin reviewing these issues collectively, that they decided to consider them on a regional scale, and that they examined what a framework could look like for a regional collaborative. She commented that this occurred in 2018 and that they developed a council subcommittee which Commissioner Parks participated in. She added that there was a steering committee which was a multidisciplinary effort that brought experts together from around the region to understand how resilience was affecting their operations. She related that the steering committee had made recommendations for a possible framework and wanted to maintain the pillars of people, places and prosperity. She elaborated that people included the health and equity of the people that lived there, places included built infrastructure and the natural environment, and prosperity included economic resilience. She added that throughout these pillars would be a focus on reducing the carbon footprint, risk and vulnerabilities in the region, and increasing sustainability goals. She stated that within the memorandum of understanding, they tried to maintain those pillars and bring them forward by providing perspective on what the region looked like currently and what the future conditions could be, and by working together on the issues with the intention of increasing their collective impact to become more resilient as a region. She explained that the memorandum of understanding requested regional coordination and that if the County planned regionally, they could act locally based on recommendations of a regional scale. She commented that the Council was going to develop a regional resilience action plan after developing a baseline of information and that to date, they had about 24 partners that had signed on to the collaborative including Stetson University, the University of Central Florida (UCF) and Rollins College which would provide scientific knowledge, alongside other jurisdictions. She said that the collaborative was starting to engage staff to determine how to work together to amplify existing efforts and find revenue sources to allow activities to continue in a responsible manner in the region.

Mr. Carpenter read the requested action for approval of the memorandum of understanding with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to formalize the County’s participation in the resilience collaborative.

Commr. Breeden noted that both she and Commissioner Parks were the Board’s designees for the Council and that Commissioner Parks also sat on the committee.

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Rupert and felt that she had worked to get all of these agencies together. He also thanked her for working with Lake County staff. He relayed his understanding that resiliency began with businesses being resilient and being able to recover and adapt. He thought that it was interesting to bring this idea into government and he opined that a government could never plan to be too resilient when considering hurricanes, disasters, and the growth that Lake County was going to have over the next 10 years. He said that this memorandum of understanding did not obligate the County to change anything but that they would be working together rather than alone. He thought that it was always important to reaffirm this and he supported the request.

Commr. Breeden expressed support for the request and noted that some cities in other counties had also adopted this. She thought that it would be positive if Lake County’s cities could learn more about this item, and noted the County’s need to be resilient with water flow and water levels and she thought that the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) could be a good partner as part of the collaborative.

Commr. Campione asked about the County’s financial obligations from this agreement.

Ms. Rupert clarified that there was no financial obligation to join but that depending on what regional initiatives were defined by the partner communities, there could be staff time where it was appropriate for the County to participate at the staff level to help define those efforts. She noted that they conducted business by trying to obtain grants to continue moving the work forward.

Commr. Campione inquired if the other regional planning councils had a similar program throughout the state. She also asked if this would be similar to a think tank.

Ms. Rupert responded that there was one other council with a similar program and that her council was the nineteenth across the country to implement this. She added that it was a newer way to conduct business and that there were three of these groups so far in the State of Florida. She also commented that it was a think tank for how they could respond to issues and how they could work together more effectively with items such as roadways. She noted that depending on who different jurisdictions worked with in FDOT, they received different standards that they needed to pursue. She also felt that there needed to be local responses to local conditions.

Commr. Campione expressed that she liked the concept of individuals sharing information and identifying best practices, though she felt that many of these issues were local issues and that there had to be funding for them. She expressed a concern that ideas coming from the collaborative may have a high price, but thought that part of the collaborative could be coming up with solutions that were not overly expensive. She also indicated a concern for redundancy and noted that Lake County was part of other groups such as the Central Florida MPO Alliance where they discussed FDOT issues and how to address regional transportation issues.

Ms. Rupert clarified that she had mentioned this as an example and that it was not necessarily the focus of the issue. She expressed interest in avoiding redundancy and gave an example of the collective compact in the City of Miami where there was an infrastructure project that the City needed to complete due to rising sea levels which cost a large amount of money; furthermore, they were able to secure the highest amount of funding for an infrastructure project in the state because every county signed on as a partner to support the City’s funding requests.

Commr. Campione commented that Lake County was doing this now through the Central Florida MPO Alliance and within their own MPO.

Commr. Breeden recalled that other counties in the proposed resilience collaborative were localizing their needs and she thought that Lake County could also do this.

Commr. Parks added that he had heard that the governor was looking for a regional approach for funding larger issues such as algae issues and nutrient loading in water. He felt that the requested action could support this.

Ms. Rupert said that the governor had been interested in resiliency to understand local needs. She thought that better organization in the region would allow them to more effectively communicate activities, needs and issues.

Commr. Blake agreed with Commissioner Campione and expressed an interest in avoiding creating unnecessary layers of government; however, he did not feel that this would apply to this request. He recalled that he had previously been involved with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council and that he saw some areas where there was a need for the discussion that occurred. He opined that it was a good place for elected officials to exchange ideas and he supported not having additional layers of government without there being a goal in mind.

Commr. Parks commented that planning councils did not have a significant amount of regulatory authority and that there would not be any regulations or additional approvals; rather, it would be strictly collaborative. He also pointed out that Lake County could choose which issues to involve itself with, such as hurricanes and evacuees from south Florida.

Ms. Rupert recalled that many individuals moved to the State of Florida from Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Harvey, and much of the Spanish speaking infrastructure in schools had to be improved. She said that it could be considered how to set the county up for success based on past experiences and possible future conditions.

Commr. Campione indicated support for this request as long as the County was not committing funding, if the County could leave the collaborative if they felt that it was an inefficient use of staff time, and if the focus was how they could work together on issues that impacted their ability to address items such as affordable housing and infrastructure. She expressed a concern about climate change being mentioned in the presentation as an issue.

Commr. Breeden commented that they would only be sharing best practices.

Commr. Parks clarified that the County did not have to choose to prioritize items such as climate change or sea levels rising.

Ms. Rupert confirmed this and said that it was a large region with eight counties.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to formalize the County's participation in the Resilience Collaborative.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes. He said that there were six cases on the agenda which included a plat due to the timing mechanism on the Serenoa PUD Amendment. He relayed that staff requested the Board’s approval of the rezoning consent agenda as presented.

Commr. Parks asked to pull Tab 4 for a separate vote due to a voting conflict. He shared that he sat on the Board of Directors for United Southern Bank, that his banking was there, and that he owned stock in the company.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 6, pulling Tab 4 for a separate vote as follows below:

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0, the Board approved Rezoning Consent Agenda Tab 4.

Commr. Parks abstained from the vote.

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2019-56

Rezoning Case # CP-19-03

Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - Adoption

Amend multiple policies in the Comprehensive Plan.

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2019-57

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-01-1

Hansen Property Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment - Adoption

Amend the Future Land Use Map on 0.613 +/- acres from Rural Transition to a site specific Future Land Use Category to facilitate the development of a single family residence.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2019-58

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2

Lake Susan Lodge Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment – Adoption

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 5.1 acres from Green Swamp Rural to Yacht Club at Lake Susan Future Land Use Category, a newly proposed land use designation, and amend comprehensive plan policies to incorporate the proposed future land use category.

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2019-59

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-17-5

United Southern Bank Property Rezoning

Amend Planned Commercial (CP) Ordinance #1987-40 with a new replacement CP ordinance to allow for boat repair limited to safety and electronic component assembly, establish an alternative setback, and rezone 0.82 acres from Agriculture (A) to Planned Commercial (CP).

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2019-60

Rezoning Case # RZ-19-18-1

Serenoa PUD Amendment

Amend PUD Ordinance #2016-20 by establishing a new ordinance with new development conditions regarding the phasing program for the residential and non-residential uses and configuration of the associated parking.

Tab 6.

Rezoning Case # Plat

Serenoa Phase 1B-2

Request approval to:

1. Accept the final plat for Serenoa Village 1 Phase 1B-2, and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Serenoa Village 1 Phase 1B-2 final plat, located near Clermont.

2. Execute a Developer's Agreement for Construction of Improvements with VK Avalon Groves LLC (West Palm Beach, FL).

3. Accept a Performance Bond of $870,955.58.

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

public hearing – ordinance 2019-55 for special master

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 8-2, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED JURISDICTION AND POWERS; CREATING SECTION 14.00.13, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, TO BE ENTITLED ACTION BY THE LAKE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER; CLARIFYING THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER HAS AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIONS ON ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPROVED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2019-55 amending Section 8-2, Lake County Code, entitled Jurisdiction and Powers, creating Section 14.00.13, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, to be entitled Action by the Lake County Code Enforcement Special Master.

public hearing – 2019 infrastructure sales tax capital financing

loan for road resurfacing

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director for Administrative Services, said that the purpose of this presentation was to hold two public hearings for the 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax bank loan for road resurfacing projects and for the refinancing of the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax bank loan. She began reviewing the 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan and recalled that in August 2019, PFM, who were the County’s financial advisors, issued a request for proposal (RFP) to identify a financial institution to provide a tax-exempt fixed rate bank loan to accelerate some of the County’s road resurfacing projects which included all of the county’s four rated roads and major collector roads that were rated a five. She added that the County received 12 proposals by the September 13, 2019 deadline and that at the October 8, 2019 BCC meeting, PFM had provided the results of the procurement process; furthermore, following Board approval, the Chairman executed the non-binding proposal letter to SunTrust Bank for a $10 million loan at a fixed tax-exempt interest rate of 1.85 percent, pending Board action at the public hearing today.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Campione mentioned that the Board had a list of the roads that would be financed for resurfacing and thought that this helped to illustrate what could be accomplished. She added that the County could be able to address these roads within a 12 to 24 month period.

Mr. Cole confirmed that this would be the goal over a 24 month period and that they expected to be able to resurface all of the four rated roads and the major collector five rated roads.

Commr. Campione indicated that the County could post a list of the roads on their website so that residents could look to see if their roads were in the four or five rated categories. She then asked about how many miles that the County could resurface and the cost of resurfacing a mile of a four rated road.

Ms. Barker responded that the County could resurface about 90 miles.

Mr. Schneider explained that the cost per mile varied depending on the width and type of roadway, though the average was about $110,000 per mile. He also commented that milling and resurfacing a four lane road could cost about $170,000 per mile but that some local roads may only cost $80,000 or $90,000 per mile.

Commr. Campione said that the factors could fluctuate depending on the price of materials.

She also expressed an interest in providing as much information as possible for this item and relayed her understanding that if the four rated roads deteriorated further, the cost of resurfacing them would increase significantly and could be exponential. She supported preventing those roads’ condition from worsening and for addressing as many of the five rated roads as possible. She noted that for the rating system, a ten would be a new road and a one would be a road which was crumbling and falling apart; furthermore, four and five rated roads were the tipping points where further worsening would cost a significantly greater amount to repair. She recalled that over the past few years, the County had been considering how to address this issue at a time where they could lock prices in and be as cost efficient as possible. She relayed her understanding that the cost of the debt service would be less than if the County waited and paid as they went because the cost of fixing the roads would increase.

Mr. Cole explained that the County’s intent would be a $10 million expenditure over two years and that currently, they were including about $2 million in sales tax budgeted for road resurfacing; furthermore, the debt service related to this would be deducted from what the Board was already planning to devote to roads and this would leave the County with about an additional $1 million. He commented that it would consume about half of that money each year and that by the third year, the County would have built up an additional fund to continue with road resurfacing projects.

Commr. Sullivan opined that this item made sense when applying all of the factors which must be considered when spending or borrowing money. He felt that it could cost exponentially more if the County continued to wait to fix the roads because of funding, and he relayed that the most significant concern he received from residents was for roads. He thought that this was a good faith effort by the Board to move the project forward, address the roads in the worst condition, and continue considering other options as they move forward.

Commr. Parks felt that this was an optimization of the penny sales tax and that locking in the price would be key for residents as opposed to waiting 10 or 12 years later when costs could be higher.

Commr. Breeden agreed and thought that a 1.85 percent interest rate could not be improved upon.

Commr. Blake said that he was glad that the Board was focusing on the roads, though recalled that his suggestion was a 30 percent reduction in other expenditures over two years to increase funding of road resurfacing. He indicated that he would be voting against the motion for this reason.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had spoken to a county commissioner from another county about maintaining roads and infrastructure, and their county required a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) on all new approved subdivisions. She elaborated that funding would be captured for that subdivision to maintain its internal roads. She thought that Lake County could explore this with the Lake County League of Cities and their City partners and suggested that if this was implemented countywide, then new subdivisions would have their resurfacing funding captured within them. She commented that many complaints that the County received were about roads within neighborhoods and subdivisions.

Commr. Parks noted that there was going to be an MSTU or another funding mechanism for the landowners in the Wellness Way area to contribute to building the roads there. He commented that the County had made clear that the landowners would build the roads there and that there had to be a way to maintain those roads.

Commr. Sullivan remarked that impact fees could only fund new construction and that they did not help the County for resurfacing and normal maintenance.

Commr. Campione added that impact fees could only pay for collector and major roads rather than smaller neighborhood projects.

Commr. Sullivan and Commissioner Breeden both expressed interest in considering MSTUs for this purpose.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan for road resurfacing projects.

Commr. Blake voted no.

PUBLIC HEARING – REFINANCING 2018 INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX CAPITAL FINANCING LOAN

Ms. Barker then presented information regarding refinancing the existing 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan. She recalled that in 2018, the County secured a $19.9 million bank loan with an interest rate of 2.89 percent to fund the construction of the new animal shelter, along with purchasing all of the public safety radios. She also stated that the County was currently repaying this debt service with the Infrastructure Sales Tax revenue. She related that as part of the 2018 loan documents, the County had an option to prepay at any time without penalty; furthermore, when the County went forward with procuring institutions to provide the funding for the 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax loan, they asked SunTrust Bank if they would be interested in refinancing the 2018 loan. She said that SunTrust Bank indicated that they would be amicable to this and that refinancing the loan from an interest rate of 2.89 percent to 1.85 percent would provide the County and the Cities which were participating in the funding for the public safety radios an estimated savings of about $1 million over the rest of the life of the loan. She added that following Board approval on October 8, 2019, the Chairman executed a non-binding proposal letter with SunTrust Bank to refinance the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan that was currently held with Citizens First Bank.

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. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to refinance the 2018 Infrastructure Sales Tax Capital Financing Loan for construction of a new animal shelter and the purchase of public safety radios.

Ms. Barker said that supplemental Resolution 2019-135 was associated with the 2019 Infrastructure Sales Tax loan and that staff was requesting approval of this resolution. She also requested approval for the Chairman to execute all of the closing documents with SunTrust Bank.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved supplemental Resolution 2019-135.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for the Chairman to execute all closing documents with SunTrust Bank.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:59 a.m. for 10 minutes.

regular agenda

presentation – transit services operational analysis

Ms. Jill Brown, Director for the Office of Transit Services, presented the transit operations analysis update and recommendations from the final report. She recalled that the County had partnered with Neel-Schaffer to perform a comprehensive operations analysis of the County’s transit and paratransit services. She said that the analysis began in October 2018, that Neel-Schaffer presented updates to the Board in February and May 2019, and that the County received the final report at the end of July 2019. She explained that this study was to evaluate the overall performance of the Lake County transit system and included the following items: evaluating the efficiency of the current system; analyzing each of the fixed routes; reviewing current budget and financial operations and recommending new revenue sources; identifying new trends in transit and mobility and assessing their applicability to Lake County; and developing realistic options for future transit services. She listed the following strengths that were reported: LakeXpress had good coverage that provided service in the two most densely populated areas of the county, including routes north and south along with regional connectivity on two routes that connected with LYNX in Orange County; Lake County continued to upgrade technology on the buses and vans to improve data collection, real time bus information, and meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; on-time performance for LakeXpress was at 94 percent; the vehicles were being maintained at an above satisfactory level as determined by a low number of vehicle breakdowns and failures; high affordability for riders; and while transit ridership had decreased nationally in recent years, LakeXpress’ ridership had increased which showed both need and customer satisfaction. She then listed the following areas for improvement and recommendations from the report: though ridership for the LakeXpress routes met the average for their peers, there were some unproductive areas on certain routes; bus stop locations should be reviewed and consolidated, with 46 of the 500 bus stops having no boarding activity during the review period; reduce ticketing costs, noting that Lake County spent thousands of dollars printing paper tickets and transfers for riders; review service contracts with LYNX and agencies purchasing transportation in the paratransit system, as well as continue to seek new contracts for services; increase revenue through advertising on buses and partnering with other municipalities for expansion of services or special events; maximize grants, apply for different grants and leverage grants differently to maximize resources; paratransit trips were continuing to rise along with the cost for the door to door transportation; and in their peer analysis, LakeXpress rated below average in regards to having late night and weekend service. She then provided a fixed route overview and noted that LakeXpress was a relatively new system that started in 2007. She added that there were seven routes that were operated by ten buses Monday through Friday, and the majority of the routes ran from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; additionally, the Routes 50 East and 50 West started earlier at 5:00 a.m. and ended closer to 8:00 p.m. She related that the ridership on LakeXpress had been steadily increasing and that there was a five percent increase between fiscal years (FYs) 2018 and 2019, with a close to 17 percent increase from 2015 to 2019. She said that some of the recommendations for fixed route improvements included developing cost savings options if the County needed to reduce its budget for fixed route service in the event of a budget shortfall, which included eliminating the last trip on each route and/or reducing the frequency of the routes; furthermore, these recommendations would reduce overall costs to the County but also significantly reduce ridership and the system’s reliability. She commented that the recommended cost neutral options aimed to improve on time performance and overall cost efficiency by removing unproductive parts of existing routes and removing or consolidating underutilized bus stops. She remarked that the cost neutral options included a realignment of Routes 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4, along with bus stop consolidation on Routes 50 East and 50 West; additionally, these recommended changes would have little impact on ridership. She related that the next recommended improvement was reducing ticket costs, noting that Lake County spent thousands of dollars annually printing paper tickets for riders. She listed the options to reduce printing costs included eliminating free transfers, commenting that the County currently charged a $1 fare to board the bus initially and allowed transfers from bus to bus for free. She elaborated that if a passenger needed more than one bus to complete their trip, they could ask the driver for a transfer ticket which could be given to the next bus driver. She remarked that approximately 14 percent of the County’s ridership had been from transfers and that the County printed over 250,000 transfers per year. She suggested that if transfers were eliminated, riders would be encouraged to purchase an all-day pass if they planned on making more than one trip in a day or needed to make transfers. She said that another way to reduce costs was to procure a new mobile application to allow drivers to purchase bus fares on their smartphones or online. She commented that the next recommended improvement was to review the possibility of renegotiating the County’s LYNX contract for service on Route 55 and determine if it would be more cost effective to provide the service through LakeXpress. She added that the contract with LYNX for the Lake County portion of Route 55 increased this year by $34,646. She explained that it was recommended that the County should seek new financial relationships to increase revenues, and she mentioned that Lake County provided fixed route services between and within communities. She suggested that within municipalities, Lake County should seek funding from these cities to maintain the level of service provided to their residents; additionally, the County should seek maintenance agreements for shelters located on municipal rights of way. She noted that the County could also explore partnerships with employers as potential service contract partners, remarking that they may offer transit services as a benefit to their employees and purchase monthly bus passes. She recommended recruiting sponsorships for special events such as Leesburg BikeFest, and increasing advertising revenues. She mentioned that Lake County had a current contract for advertising on buses and vans, and that it could include the shelters for additional opportunities for advertising and possibly increase revenues. She said that the County had the opportunity to apply for different grants or leverage grants differently to maximize the resources. She explained that one way the County could leverage grants differently would be the implementation of capital costs of contracting on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants. She stated that in order to meet the need of the community and expand transit services, service development grants could be considered; furthermore, these grants were state-funded and required a 50/50 match. She noted that service development grants were a three year contract and that if the expansion was successful, new funding would be required to continue the services.

Ms. Brown continued her presentation by presenting the paratransit overview. She said that Lake County Connection provided door-to-door transportation for persons with disabilities who are unable to use the regular fixed route system independently. She elaborated that to qualify for the ADA program, the rider must have a disability or medical condition that prevents them from accessing the regular bus, and that they must travel within three-quarters of a mile of the regular fixed route system and must travel on the same days and the same hours as the LakeXpress system. She said that Lake County was also the community transportation coordinator for this area and managed the transportation disadvantaged program, which offered countywide services to individuals with no other means of transportation due to age, disability or income. She noted that both of these services required an application process. She displayed an overview of the five year paratransit ridership, remarking that the ridership had increased by eight percent from 2018 to 2019 and about twelve percent from 2017. She began discussing the recommendations for the paratransit program and noted that this service was the most expensive portion of the transit budget. She said that identifying strategies to reduce demand for paratransit service while not reducing mobility for riders was essential to decreasing expenses. She related that there were currently many transportation disadvantaged paratransit riders who received Medicaid benefits that would allow them to have cost free transportation to and from medical compensable services. She suggested that shifting these riders to a Medicaid provider would reduce demand on the transportation disadvantaged program, and that another way to reduce demand was to encourage paratransit riders to use the fixed route system when possible and allow the paratransit riders to use the system for free. She said that this could be implemented with an ADA and transportation free bus pass identification (ID). She mentioned that the next recommendation was to consider transportation disadvantaged trip prioritization to limit non-essential trips, and this would require the Lake-Sumter MPO Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board’s approval. She related that to meet budget constraints, it was recommended that Lake County consider a ceiling amount of funds that would be allocated for the paratransit trips and cap trips at that amount. She remarked that the next recommendation regarded renegotiating service contracts and said that Lake County Connection currently had two service contracts that both provided service to meal sites and adult day training. She elaborated that the Mid Florida Community Services contract was for transportation to three meal sites located within Lake County, and the County was reimbursed $9.50 per trip for this service. She said that the contract with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) funded transportation to Medicaid waiver eligible clients that received adult day training. She explained that these trips were reimbursed at rates based on the average miles of the trip and that the County reimbursed the contractor $28.78 per trip, with the balance of the expense being paid through other grants and local funds. She shared that it was recommended that the County should renegotiate these contracts. She stated that the next paratransit recommendation regarded maximizing available grants and that Lake County had the opportunity to apply for additional grants to meet the needs for the transportation disadvantaged. She said that FDOT had grant opportunities for operating assistance and funding trips for the disabled and the elderly in urbanized areas; furthermore, this could be an annual grant and required a 50/50 match. She mentioned that the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) had innovation and service development grants available annually and that these were competitive grants for the purpose of providing cost effective, door-to-door, on-demand and scheduled transportation services that would increase a transportation disadvantaged person’s access to and from job training, employment, healthcare and other life-sustaining services, along with enhancing regional connectivity and reducing difficulty in connecting transportation disadvantaged persons to a transportation hub and from the hub to their final destination. She commented that Lake County also received funds from the state for transportation services in non-urbanized areas and that the funds had historically covered 30 percent of the County’s annual paratransit trips; however, the funds only covered eight percent of the paratransit trips in FY 2019. She added that changes in the requirements for use of these funds caused this reduction in the qualified expenses that were billed to the grant.

Ms. Brown then went over possible implementation strategies for each of the fixed route recommended improvements. She said that for service change options for low productivity routes, the County would be further evaluating the recommended cost neutral options with the least impact on ridership and would perform an analysis on the impact on minority and low income populations that would normally be serviced in the areas that the County could consider cutting, as required by their Title VI policy. She said that regarding bus stop consolidation, data from passenger counters and bus stop spacing would be reviewed and unused bus stops would be flagged and removed from the system. She stated that for testing later service hours and Saturday service if funds became available, the County could initiate discussions with municipalities and other possible funding partners to help fund any additional services, and once the 50 percent match requirements were secured, the County would apply for service development grants. She remarked that for the recommendation of reduced ticketing costs, the County could recommend eliminating free transfers on the LakeXpress service and that this proposal would include a public hearing request as required for proposed fare changes in the Title VI policy; furthermore, she reiterated that they would conduct an analysis of the fare change’s impact on minority and low income populations. She said that a new mobile application for riders would be procured and staff would also incorporate a photo ID system for students and riders who qualified for reduced fare. She remarked that the next recommendation under fixed route was for reviewing service contracts, and she reiterated that the contract with LYNX for the Lake County portion of Route 55 had increased this year. She added that they would proceed to enter into the agreement while reviewing alternatives, and the Lake County portion of the route was approximately three miles long and currently had no connectivity with other LakeXpress routes. She elaborated that this service was operated seven days per week by LYNX until 10:00 p.m. at night, that this was more service than the County currently offered on any other LakeXpress routes, and that those additional costs would be evaluated. She commented that additional hours were added to the RATP Dev maintenance contract for possibly bringing that route in-house later this year. She said that for the recommendation of developing new service contracts, with the construction of the new shelters in the City of Groveland area, the County was working on an agreement with the City to maintain the shelters in their rights of way to help lower the County’s maintenance costs. She said that for increasing revenues, the Board had approved a contract to provide advertising on LakeXpress buses and Lake County Connection vans and they estimated over $200,000 in revenue from this in the current year. She stated that regarding maximizing grants and service contracts for a fixed route system, the purpose of their capital cost of contracting was to identify a set percentage that an FTA recipient could charge back to FTA for work that the contractor performed on behalf of the recipient. She mentioned that Lake County contracted with RATP Dev to provide operations, maintenance and fuel, and that 40 percent of that cost could be claimed at the 80 percent capital rate; furthermore, the remaining 20 percent of the costs would be matched with transportation development grants. She added that less of a match from the County would be required for operating costs and that this would begin this year with the County’s federal grants. She said that FDOT non-urbanized grants would now be used to fund fixed route and paratransit operations, and that Route 55 and sections of Route 4 were in non-urbanized areas so that the County could use Section 5311 grant funds for them.

Ms. Brown continued her presentation by presenting the paratransit recommendations and implementation strategies. She said that the first recommendation was maximizing grants, and she indicated an intent to apply for additional state grants to cover operational costs and implement innovative transportation solutions for serving the transportation disadvantaged community. She stated that they would continue to shift Medicaid ridership to the Medicaid providers, and she noted that they had mailed out notices to known Medicaid recipients, that they checked for Medicaid eligibility when screening eligibility applications, and that they continued ongoing education about Medicaid benefits for passengers and agencies. She remarked that for developing new service contracts and renegotiating the two existing contracts, staff had reached out to Mid Florida Community Services and the APD to renegotiate the contracts and the cost that was being paid for trips. She mentioned that they were currently a cash only paratransit system and that they would implement alternatives to cash fares such as prepayment and use of tickets, and a mobile app could allow both paratransit and fixed route riders to pay using their phones. She relayed that due to the continued increase in paratransit demand, it was recommended that the County develop service policies and budget commitment to meet the ongoing increase in paratransit trips. She added that there was an increase in trips for FY 2019 and that an estimated 24,000 trips were over the paratransit grant allocations and were unfunded. She said that the County was applying for additional FDOT operating grants and would apply for the CTD innovation grants to meet the needs of the community. She remarked that they would continue the effort to reduce paratransit demand by improving the eligibility screening, being stricter with fare requirements, and allowing eligible passengers to ride the LakeXpress system for free. She mentioned that they had also been working with Tindale Oliver, a consulting firm, to perform a thorough budget analysis and ensure that they were utilizing their grants efficiently and meeting requirements. She said that they would closely monitor revenue and expenditures to proactively identify any needed adjustments and that the paratransit operating budget was based on an estimated number of trips: additionally, if the number of trips increased over the budgeted amount, the budget would also have to increase. She stated that with this year’s grant and with incorporating the capital cost of contracting, since the County’s paratransit program was under that contract, more of their paratransit costs were being covered by federal funding.

Commr. Parks asked about the amount of savings from cost savings options one and two from page 59 of the Neel-Schaffer report. He also inquired if it would be in the range of $30,000 to $48,000.

Ms. Brown clarified that this was not recommended; rather, she was recommending the cost neutral approach which would be about $35,000. She added that this would include removing the unused bus stops and cutting some circular service so that the service would be straighter. She said that this would also provide service on both sides of the roads.

Commr. Parks asked about the discussion on the vehicle size.

Ms. Brown indicated that they had purchased 29 foot long Gillig buses which were approved at the previous BCC meeting, and they were looking at smaller buses. She mentioned that their other buses were 35 feet long and that they were considering the possibility of using a paratransit vehicle to provide service on Route 55.

Commr. Parks inquired if they were still moving forward with the bus identifiers mentioned on page 89 of the Neel-Schaffer report, and Ms. Brown confirmed this and said that it was part of the marketing process. Commissioner Parks then asked about partnerships with Cities and major employers, and he opined that they should share in the cost of that. He thought that the County had to make a concerted effort and that there could possibly be a forum regarding the sharing of increased costs as the County grew. He felt that the Board should meet with the Cities in the coming year. He also asked about the status of the partnerships with some of the Cities.

Ms. Brown commented that they were currently working with the City of Groveland to help maintain their bus shelters. She added that they planned on reaching out to the Cities to possibly attend some task force meetings.

Mr. Cole said that staff could make a concerted effort to reach out to every municipality in Lake County over the next few months to identify opportunities for partnership funding.

Commr. Campione felt that the County should focus on the cities with the most riders and bus stops and who would be the most likely candidates to want to partner with the County. She also thought they would have to discuss how much each city would have to contribute proportionately, and she asked if the County had a list of the large employers that were using the system. She relayed her understanding that hospital employees tended to use the bus service and felt that the County needed data as a starting point.

Ms. Brown thought that the County could obtain this information from Rethink, who could survey large employers. She said that she could contact the County’s representative for this area and work with them to determine who the employers were.

Mr. Cole remarked that staff could bring an implementation request back to the Board.

Commr. Parks proposed possibly having a placeholder on a future agenda a few months after the data was gathered, and Mr. Cole confirmed this.

Commr. Campione recalled that this had previously been a challenging discussion when it was brought up through the Lake-Sumter MPO and that the Cities had considered it to be a countywide system. She added that there had not been significant interest in participating more than they did already with their residents contributing to the overall countywide tax base.

Commr. Parks felt that the cities could benefit from this the most and that the County could not afford having more frequent stops. He also suggested possibly talking to the Cities about land use along the major roads where stops were.

Commr. Campione questioned if the ask would be for the the County to increase the level of service as opposed to requesting assistance to keep the system running.

Commr. Breeden thought that the County could consider bus stop consolidation and present their recommendations to the Cities to determine if they wanted to maintain the current level of service rather than reducing the number of stops.

Ms. Brown said that the County had initially considered if they wanted to increase service such as on Saturday to Lake Square Mall. She commented that the County had presented its numbers to the City of Leesburg and to the mall, though they had not found this to be amicable. She recommended to go to these entities with studies that showed the need, such as for employment on Saturdays, and she felt that the County could gather data and ask municipalities for assistance.

Commr. Campione suggested that after gathering the data, they could possibly have meetings between district Commissioners and city councils or staff.

Commr. Blake inquired about bus stop consolidation and what official passenger count triggered that designation.

Ms. Brown replied that there were 45 bus stops that had no activity during roughly six months of data collection. She mentioned that they paid a company to maintain the bus stops and that if they were not being used, they would be flagged and presented to riders so that they would be aware of stops that the County was recommending to remove.

Commr. Campione mentioned a bus stop near a shopping center at S.R. 19 and C.R. 44 in the City of Eustis. She recalled that she had seen people at the sign for this stop who had to sit on the ground due to the lack of a bench, and she asked if staff had considered any plans to have a shelter there.

Ms. Brown indicated that she could consider this, and she added that the County would be installing 20 new shelters and 40 ADA pads. She noted that they also had funding for the next year for another 20 bus shelters and 40 ADA pads, and their goal was to have all of their bus stops be ADA accessible with a 20 foot concrete pad. She noted that these would be large enough that as ridership grew, they could install a shelter or bench on them, along with trash cans.

Commr. Breeden mentioned the possibility of placing a ceiling on paratransit trips depending on the budget and mentioned that the County would likely want to avoid this.

Ms. Brown clarified that the County was trying to reduce the paratransit demand by offering for eligible riders to ride the fixed route system for free with their personal care attendant and that they would not have to plan this two days in advance. She also said that the County was applying for more grants to help cover trips.

Mr. Cole stated that the County had not contemplated placing a ceiling on paratransit trips; rather, they had been looking for ways that they could creatively accommodate individuals that needed those trips and those that were using paratransit but could use the fixed route. He recalled that the last statement made under the implementation strategy was specifically in reference to if the County had more demand than what was anticipated for paratransit, then any fiscal impacts would come back before the Board. He reiterated that staff was not contemplating any ceilings or reductions for paratransit.

Commr. Breeden asked about how the Medicaid riders could be transferred to Medicaid providers.

Ms. Brown explained that they had Medicaid eligible riders under their transportation disadvantaged program and that the County had been reviewing its eligibility criteria to see who was eligible for Medicaid services. She elaborated that the County had sent them letters with the information of who they could contact to book their Medicaid trips, and she said that they would not have a co-pay with Medicaid. She thought that with Medicaid, the rider had to call their provider up to two days in advance, and this was similar to the County’s service.

Commr. Breeden questioned if the Medicaid provider was obligated to provide the trip, and Ms. Brown confirmed this.

Mr. Cole mentioned that the County had been working on this transition process for six to nine months and that they did not want to disrupt anyone’s service. He related that the County had sent letters and reached out directly to educate them on what they could receive to transition them off these trips, though the County had not cut anyone off from service.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the possible elimination of free transfers and if there was any workaround. She expressed concerns about individuals not being able to afford this.

Ms. Brown said that several agencies no longer offered transfers and they required a person to pay $1 each time they boarded the bus. She commented that the County’s fare box return ratio was at five percent when most agencies were up to twelve percent, and she thought that this related to the County’s free transfers. She mentioned that as part of this recommendation, there would have to be a public hearing and the County would have to assess how the fare structure change would affect minority and low income individuals.

Commr. Breeden expressed support for an application where individuals could purchase tickets online.

Commr. Campione asked if the County would implement free fares for paratransit riders on the fixed route relatively soon.

Ms. Brown confirmed this and said that the County was purchasing the information to do the photo IDs for the individuals to board the bus so that the driver could determine if they could ride for free. She mentioned that the County could possibly also offer some training.

Commr. Campione remarked that they could possibly get a family member to get them to a bus stop so that they could board the fixed route. She stated that at the Lake-Sumter MPO Executive Board meeting on the previous day, the Water Oak Country Club was getting a space to park their golf carts and then board a bus.

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Brown for reviewing the system and trying to find ways to improve it.

Commr. Breeden thanked Ms. Brown for identifying additional grant opportunities.

Mr. Cole mentioned that prior to Ms. Brown becoming the Director for the Office of Transit Services, there were leadership gaps and the County was not taking advantage of partnership funding opportunities or identifying and implementing efficiencies. He thanked Ms. Brown and Mr. Ron Russo, Deputy County Manager, for working to identify deficiencies and implement changes to result in a solid FY 2020 budget. He felt that transit was moving in a positive direction.

reports

county attorney

city of eustis isba update

Ms. Marsh updated the Board on a proposed City of Eustis interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) and explained that the County had heard that the invited Cities of Tavares, Mount Dora and Umatilla were not going to participate. She commented that staff had a draft that they could possibly send to the City of Eustis this week. She elaborated that the County’s plan was to send this to the City in hopes that it would be something they could agree to in order to quickly place it in front of their City Commission before bringing it back before the Board so that the few developments which were interested in moving forward could begin. She said that the County could then work on a larger ISBA unless the Board provided different direction.

Commr. Sullivan expressed support for this as long as progress was being made.

county manager

citrus grove road phase 1 ribbon cutting

Mr. Cole shared that there would be a ribbon cutting on the following day for Citrus Grove Road Phase 1 at 10:30 a.m. at the intersection of Citrus Grove Road and North Hancock Road. He added that the following speakers were scheduled to be at the event: Commissioner Parks; Mr. Mike Shannon, FDOT District 5 Secretary; and Mr. Pat Kelley, Mayor of Minneola. He noted that the event was open to the public and they welcomed anyone to come.

Commr. Parks added that the other Commissioners could speak at the event.

commissioners reports

commissioner sullivan – district 1

christopher c. ford commerce park natural gas grant

Commr. Sullivan remarked that on the consent agenda, the Board approved to move forward with a Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) grant to provide natural gas to the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park. He relayed that he went with staff to meet with the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District but that he was unsure if they would move this item forward. He relayed his understanding that if the County did not receive the approximately $1.275 million to do this, then the district would not be open to the idea of cost sharing. He said that he could informally reach out to other individuals in the marketplace and he indicated his understanding that Kroger was in need of this service. He noted that there were multiple inquiries around the commerce park and he thought that this item needed to be addressed quickly. He stated that if the grant came forward, there would be a short window of time to use that funding.

Commr. Parks asked if the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District had to provide natural gas, and Commissioner Breeden inquired when the grant would be awarded.

Commr. Sullivan clarified that natural gas could be provided by them but if they were not willing to participate, something else could be done. He also relayed his understanding that the grant could be awarded as early as the end of the year; furthermore, the grant had to be implemented within a certain time or the funding would be lost.

commissioner parks – district 2

agriculture meeting

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, and staff for conducting a great meeting on Friday, October 18, 2019 with some representatives from agriculture and related industries around the county along with Ms. Helen Miller, who was a direct representative of the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture. He said that they had some good discussions such as how to regulate medical marijuana, the mining loophole, and some challenges that the industry was facing in Lake County.

affordable housing advisory committee recommendations

Commr. Parks remarked that he was the liaison to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) and that they made two recommendations to come directly to the BCC. He explained that the first recommendation regarded a map of the County complex with the landfill and the renaissance faire area which also included the existing Office of Animal Services. He mentioned that Mr. Beliveau was the Chairman of the AHAC and he asked Ms. Marsh to read the motion and first recommendation.

Ms. Marsh summarized that the motion was for the AHAC to recommend that the Board consider making some arrangements for an affordable housing complex next to the new animal shelter. She pointed out the area designated for the animal shelter, the 41 acres that the County was under an agreement with the fairgrounds with regarding the new fairgrounds location, the 27 acres that the renaissance faire used every year due to a five year license agreement with the County, and the existing animal shelter site of approximately 3.21 acres. She noted that this would give the Board a visual representation of the property layout in the event that the Board would be interested in trying to place affordable housing there and so they would be informed of how it could impact other uses in the area.

Mr. Beliveau explained that the thought process was that it seemed prudent to provide an affordable housing option since the County had so many employment generators within walking distance. He noted that people could live there and walk to work and that the County could put this out to bid, put the property up for sale, or do a long term lease. He felt that the County would not want to be an operator but that they could provide an available area. He relayed his understanding that there were major employment generators there including the fairgrounds and an animal shelter which would be open twenty-four hours per day and seven days per week. He thought that this was something the Board could consider.

Commr. Parks thought that this was consistent with the discussion of the County identifying sites around the county for these types of projects. He felt that it was an interesting site due to what was nearby.

Commr. Campione opined that this was creative but felt that the County had never provided public land to be utilized for affordable housing. She said that the County had tried to facilitate this with good regulations and mechanisms such as impact fee waivers. She relayed her understanding that there was a need for transitional housing that came between when someone had been at a homeless shelter and when they were moving into the next phase of housing. She indicated that if the County ever tried to facilitate an actual housing structure or small housing community, she would be more inclined to develop transitional housing. She added that the County would not be the operator but that they could possibly facilitate funding. She also said that she did not see permanent housing being at this location.

Commr. Parks felt that the site had some challenges and that it possibly was not the right location.

Mr. Beliveau clarified that the AHAC did not consider size but that when employment generators were there, it could be something to consider.

Commr. Breeden commented that there was very little staff at the fairgrounds and she expressed a concern for promising employment when the County was trying to get the best employees. She agreed that the County was placing as much as they could on the property now; however, she relayed her understanding that The Salvation Army wanted a location close to the 3.21 acres where the existing Office of Animal Services was. She expressed that after the existing office was torn down, she could be open to donating that property to someone who wanted to develop it for affordable housing.

Commr. Parks felt that this site could be considered for transitional housing. He said that for workforce housing or housing for all, the Board’s leadership role could be working with a city to find a site closer to mass transit along a corridor such as in the Cities of Clermont or Leesburg.

Mr. Beliveau relayed his understanding that a bus went through the proposed area.

Commr. Campione thought that other locations could be considered such as on U.S. 441 or SR 27 for larger manufacturing or healthcare related concentrations of employees. She said that she did not see there being a large pool of employees at that site.

Mr. Beliveau indicated that he had thought that the new fairgrounds would be larger, would have more staff, and would have a permanent workforce to maintain it, along with the staffing of the animal shelter. He thought that these employees could live onsite instead of commuting.

Commr. Campione clarified that it was getting larger as an expo center but that there were few employees, and Commissioner Breeden relayed that they currently only had two employees.

Commr. Parks suggested considering the existing Office of Animal Services site as a transitional housing opportunity.

Commr. Campione added that with the adjacent property and the old Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), there could possibly be a way to situate a small transitional housing village. She also noted that since it would be near industrial usage, there could be less opposition when compared to placing it in a residential area. She reiterated that if The Salvation Army became operational with their proposed concept, there would have to be a next step between a shelter and permanent housing.

Mr. Beliveau agreed that it would be a good location for this due to the surrounding area.

Commr. Campione noted that there would be a great presentation later that day with Habitat for Humanity showing their template for turning a cargo shipping container into a housing unit. She thought that the County could receive similar ideas.

Commr. Breeden opined that the County could possibly do a better job of encouraging affordable housing by reviewing their regulations and seeing what could be done.

Mr. Beliveau commented that he had approached the Lake County School Board planners about a program in Orange County where they would not collect school impact fees for accessory structures under 500 square feet, which had been successful there. He elaborated that the planners liked this idea and would discuss this with their superiors.

Commr. Campione felt that this would support a previous Board discussion about trying to promote family members living on properties together and to accommodate aging in place.

Mr. Beliveau relayed that Orange County had implemented this to support aging in place and for college students to live at home, and they also allowed available units to be rented out as long as they were under 500 square feet. He added that they hoped that this option would also be available for the inner city and existing neighborhoods; however, it was utilized by new developers who offered it as an option for new subdivisions. He added that the units would architecturally match the house and the neighborhood.

Commr. Campione observed that deed restrictions would typically prohibit this but that if it was documented, then everyone would have that expectation for the neighborhood. She commented that if the County could facilitate more affordability, the Board could consider having a workshop with the Lake County School Board. She wondered if the Board could approach the school board to discuss scenarios where they might be willing to waive impact fees under a statute in situations where it was less likely to be a family with small or school age children.

Mr. Beliveau indicated that this was why their planning staff was comfortable with ADUs under 500 square feet and that there was a lesser chance of families with this size home. He also said that they just finished conducting two analyses on apartments which were predominately studios and one bedrooms, and typically children were not being found there.

Commr. Parks thought that if affidavits were signed, then there could be liability for breaking the law; however, he thought that most people would be honest about this.

Commr. Campione stated that this could be presented to the school board and that a few scenarios could be provided for them to consider, such as studio apartments, one bedroom apartments, the aging in place concept of an ADU of 500 square feet or less, and designated locations for true affordable housing such as for the elderly or the workforce. She said that there could be a certain number of waived fees per year for the workforce with the knowledge that there would be children there.

Mr. Beliveau thought that why Orange County had a cap of 500 square feet was because they did not think that any children would be living in a unit of that size. He relayed his understanding that there had not been any issues with this.

Commr. Blake said that alternative impact fee studies had been conducted in the City of Seattle, Washington, and the data showed that these residents were young couples or parents whose children had moved away. He noted that once a couple had children, they would typically move into a larger unit and that there would be almost no impact to the school system in this range.

Commr. Parks asked if the Board’s consensus was to consider this site for transitional housing.

Commr. Campione responded that if the County was on track to complete the new animal shelter in 2020, then this could be something that the County could consider for transitional housing. She mentioned that the County would not build the housing but that there could be a partnership if another entity wanted to develop it. She commented that the County could possibly use it as a designated location for people coming from a homeless shelter.

Commr. Parks stated that the second recommendation from the AHAC was for a multifamily market analysis. He opined that this was necessary from a standpoint of updating the County’s data inventory analysis and as a tool for a possible future zoning project where there would be multifamily apartments that residents may be concerned about.

Mr. Beliveau relayed that Sumter County had performed this analysis about two years prior due to pressure from the employment generated by The Villages. He elaborated that the analysis discussed the market spectrum from affordable housing to the open market, and they analyzed all of the apartment complexes in Sumter County for their occupancy rates, waiting lists, rent structures, etc. He said that they conducted the analysis to determine their multifamily housing needs, if there was an issue, and how significant the issue was. He related that an issue was discovered and that it was documented that there was a multifamily housing need in Sumter County. He indicated that he had received opposition from The Villages each time he had proposed an apartment complex in Sumter County, but that for the previous two times that this occurred, the Chairman of the Sumter County Board of County Commissioners had this study and quoted it due to a need for apartments for workers; furthermore, his requests were approved. He felt that Lake County was in need of single family, multifamily, and other housing needs due to a lack of inventory. He noted that there had been opposition to these approvals and that the documentation in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) was dated. He indicated his understanding that some residents and city commissioners felt that there was no need for this housing and that it would bring in more people; however, he relayed his understanding that the people in need of this housing were already county residents. He also relayed that the City of Clermont had a current moratorium against multifamily housing.

Commr. Campione asked if the City of Clermont thought that they had too much multifamily housing. She also asked if the City felt that people were moving there from outside of the city and that the housing was not addressing the existing community’s need.

Mr. Beliveau thought that they had too many applications at one time and wanted to reevaluate the need for multifamily housing. He also responded that people had been moving to the City of Clermont for the past 20 years.

Commr. Campione opined that this was because of the city’s location, that it was cheaper than living in the City of Orlando, and that many of the city’s residents commuted to the City of Orlando.

Mr. Beliveau confirmed this and stated that employment statistics showed that over 60 percent of South Lake residents worked elsewhere. He opined that the City of Clermont was a bedroom community but that the City was trying to change this and create more employment opportunities to shift that percentage.

Commr. Campione thought that the rental rates were higher in the City of Clermont than other areas in Lake County.

Mr. Beliveau confirmed this and clarified that it was due to market demand. He commented that building more units could reduce the rental rates and that there were large markets in Lake County. He felt that the County needed the documentation and statistics to compensate for this. He mentioned that Sumter County government had done this so that it would be unbiased, and noted that there had been concerns that studies from developers could be biased.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was an approximate number that optimizes this type of land use, though land use would not necessarily have to be changed.

Mr. Beliveau clarified that Sumter County had adopted a new multifamily land use for 25 and 34 units per acre as a result of their study; furthermore, the City of Wildwood would be adding the same densities. He opined that they were taking individuals from Lake County by providing densities that Lake County did not offer and also due to impact fees that Lake County had which Sumter County did not.

Commr. Campione inquired about which impact fees were being referred to, and Mr. Beliveau remarked that Sumter County did not have school impact fees and that this would be about $10,000 off the cost of a house when compared to Lake County. Commissioner Campione noted that this would impact multifamily apartments and that it was a significant cost of building.

Mr. Beliveau said that there were differences in development costs between the two counties. He felt that Lake County needed to be competitive and that the county could be receptive to people coming there. He opined that Sumter County was becoming more welcoming and receptive, along with allowing higher densities, not having school impact fees, and being willing to stand up to residents who opposed these developments.

Commr. Parks thought that a multifamily market analysis for Lake County could help them find the right number of what the county needed and would support making changes to attain the number to support the businesses in need of workforce housing, along with different age groups that wanted to live in multifamily homes. He noted that analysis would include data that could support a multifamily project.

Commr. Breeden thought that this study could be positive for the County.

Commr. Sullivan agreed and felt that multifamily housing was a need. He expressed interest in knowing these numbers and mentioned that it could also allow the County to update its Comp Plan.

Commr. Breeden inquired if condominiums were considered as multifamily, and Commissioner Parks thought that they were.

Commr. Campione wondered that since this would be a countywide study, would cities be rezoning to higher densities to accommodate this. She added that the County did not provide water and sewer services, that this would typically come from a city, and that the property would typically be annexed. She thought that the study could be a tool used by cities.

Mr. Beliveau confirmed that it could be used across jurisdictions and that it could also be used in areas in the county where the cities could provide utilities but were unable to annex until a later date. He also felt that the data could cause concern due to the significant need for housing. He opined that the county had reached critical mass and that the issue would worsen if it was not addressed.

Commr. Parks thought that the City of Clermont would be appreciative for a study if they had a discussion about this type of project. He said that there was a connection between the larger cities and this type of housing, and he mentioned an issue when businesses have a lack of workers due to the inability to live nearby.

Mr. Beliveau added that there were employers who were unable to recruit because housing could not be found.

Commr. Campione stated that if someone applied and they indicated that there was a need for this type of housing, then they could prepare this analysis and submit it; however, Mr. Beliveau’s suggestion was that if the County performed an objective analysis, then there would not be a debate over if an applicant’s study found a desired result.

Mr. Cole asked to clarify if Board was requesting for staff to perform a solicitation for a multifamily market analysis.

Commr. Campione expressed support for this and said that it would also need to update the Comp Plan.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

transportation funding options presentation

Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, Mr. Cole, and staff for going to the City of Clermont in the previous week to give a presentation to a group of businessmen regarding the County’s transportation funding options.

mosquito control ride along

Commr. Blake acknowledged Ms. Hamilton and mosquito control staff who let him go on a ride along to check sites and gather samples. He said that he learned a lot and gained a new appreciation for what the mosquito control staff had to do, such as sending specimens to the state and monitoring diseases.

commissioner campione – CHAIRMAN AND district 4

canvassing board training

Commr. Campione shared that she attended canvassing board training in the previous week and that it was very informative. She elaborated that there was training for canvassing boards throughout the state and that she and Ms. Marsh had learned important information while attending.

white house program

Commr. Campione related that she had recently been in Washington, D.C. and attended a program that the White House had developed for elected officials from the States of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. She said that it was informative and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a drug czar who discussed the opioid crisis, and Ms. Betsy DeVos, United States Secretary of Education, were in attendance; furthermore, disaster preparedness and highway administration were also discussed. She said that it provided overarching information about how local governments could receive assistance from the federal government and that it was helpful to hear the experience of other communities. She expressed that there were concerns about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) process and that Lake County was similar to other counties in the time they had to wait and the steps that had to be taken to receive funding.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK