A Special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
february 19, 2020
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 4:00 p.m., for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) meeting at the Lake County Emergency Communications and Operations Center, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Leslie Campione, Chairman; Wendy Breeden, Vice Chairman; Timothy I. Sullivan; Sean Parks; and Josh Blake. Other County staff present were: Jeff Cole, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Diana Johnson, Deputy County Attorney; John Molenda, Deputy County Manager; Tim McClendon, Office of Planning and Zoning Director; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Michelle Wilkinson, Paralegal, County Attorney’s Office; and Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk. City of Eustis Commissioners present were: Michael Holland, Mayor; Karen LeHeup-Smith, Vice Mayor; Marie Aliberti; and Robert Morin. Other City of Eustis staff present were: Ronald Neibert, City Manager; Cecelia Bonifay, attorney representing the City of Eustis; and Mary Montez, City Clerk.
welcome and call to order
Commr. Campione called the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) into order and welcomed the City of Eustis Commissioners and staff. She mentioned that since this was a joint meeting, the Eustis Commission would also need to call their Commission to order.
Eustis City Mayor Michael Holland thanked the BCC for hosting and then called the Eustis City Commission into order, noting that four of their Commissioners were present with Commissioner Emily Lee not present due to attending a function at the Governor’s Mansion regarding her reappointment to the Lake-Sumter State College Board.
Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement discussion
Commr. Campione mentioned that much had happened since their last joint meeting in December 2019 in an effort to move forward with items. She remarked that before they began to take Commissioners’ comments and review the changes made as a result of the previous meeting, she desired to read the legislative intent of the Florida Statutes chapter which allowed the County and Cities to enter into Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements. She then read Section 171.201, Florida Statutes. She asked for the Commissioners to keep in mind the purpose of these agreements such as good planning, efficiency of services, and reflecting the desires of the community and residents. She indicated that since the last joint meeting, the BCC had unanimously approved a limited purpose, site specific ISBA which would facilitate the annexation of the Pine Meadows property, which was off of County Road (CR) 44A, if the City of Eustis chose to move forward with that agreement. She relayed that this agreement had been transmitted to the Eustis City Manager, and noted that it did not contain any conditions. She said that the idea behind this agreement was that since there was a limited enclave created as a result of annexing this property, it was vacant land, and the densities proposed for that property were consistent with the surrounding densities, then it was an easy situation which they could move forward with. She related that the City of Eustis also had a fire station close to the Pine Meadows property, and that once a road was developed from this property to CR 44A, fire trucks would be able to reach the property in a short amount of time; additionally, she believed the City also had water and sewer in the area. She pointed out that if the City of Eustis chose to move forward with annexation of this piece of property, and had their Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) completed by the end of the current year, then this property would go onto the City’s tax rolls. She noted that it currently had an agriculture exemption due to being utilized as a sod farm in the past; however, once it was rezoned and if there were not agricultural uses on it, it would go on the City’s tax roll at a much higher rate than it was currently. She then gave the example that if the property was developed into a 500 unit subdivision, built out with an average price of $285,000 per house, then the taxes to the City would be approximately $890,000 annually. She opined that was a large amount of revenue for the City which was positive for the City; furthermore, she felt that timing was important because if the City moved forward with obtaining this property on their tax roll as of December 31, 2020, and it was within their city limits by January 1, 2021, then they would be able to receive revenue into the City.
Commr. Breeden requested that a copy of Lake County Ordinance 2020-1, which reflected the Pine Meadows ISBA mentioned by Commissioner Campione, be passed out to the Eustis City Commission. She recalled that after their joint commission meeting in December 2019, it had been identified that there was one condition which the City was not in favor of, noting that it was on page two of exhibit A, and that it was the last paragraph of item two which read “Eustis shall not annex any other areas within the proposed boundaries of the ISBA, as such boundaries are currently set forth in City of Eustis Resolution No. 19-43, without the approval of the County, until a final Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) is negotiated and approved by both parties.” She inquired if the City would agree to move forward with this agreement if that one condition was removed and only the last sentence remained which stated “The parcels identified in the above, once annexed, shall not be used as a means of annexing additional properties unless the additional properties meet all requirements of Part I Chapter 171, Florida Statutes.”
Commr. Parks asked if the City of Eustis had approved this ISBA, and Mr. Ron Neibert, Eustis City Manager, replied they had not approved it.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, attorney representing the City of Eustis, reiterated that at the previous joint meeting, the City had made it clear that their desire was not to approve a Phase I ISBA which would only address the Pine Meadows property. She indicated their understanding that the BCC had moved forward with this Phase I ISBA with the rest of the ISBA to follow, noting that she felt that would require a larger amount of negotiation. She recalled that they had also expressed this same desire at the BCC meeting on January 14, 2020, in which this Phase I ISBA was approved by the BCC. She shared her understanding that the Eustis Mayor and City Manager had not received a copy of this ISBA prior to their last city council meeting; therefore, no city vote was taken on it. She felt that the city commission did not want to change their position on this ISBA, although she noted that the four Eustis Commissioners present could comment regarding this.
Commr. Campione expressed a desire to make sure everyone understood what the language in this section was expressing. She explained that it simply meant that the City of Eustis could not move forward with other annexations that did not meet the Florida Statutes. She elaborated that the Pine Meadows property could be annexed, but the City could not utilize that property to then annex adjacent properties until the rest of the master ISBA was approved.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, confirmed that was correct.
Commr. Breeden thought that the City was concerned that this language would mean that they could not perform any other annexations within the Joint Planning Area (JPA).
Commr. Campione reiterated that the City could annex any property which met the Florida Statutes.
Ms. Bonifay remarked that the City could annex under the first portion of Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, but not under the ISBA.
Commr. Campione replied that was correct because there would not be an ISBA created yet for the rest of the JPA since that was what the County and the City were going to continue to develop. She reiterated that this agreement would allow the City to move forward with the Pine Meadows property while the rest of the ISBA provisions were negotiated. She relayed that since the previous joint meeting, the section addressing road improvements had been taken out of this simpler Phase I ISBA by the County in order for it to be addressed if added back into the master agreement.
Commr. Breeden recalled that after the joint meeting in December 2019, Mr. Neibert had mentioned that the City objected to the section which she just read.
Mr. Neibert stated that the City had concerns that this particular sentence could possibly be interpreted that the City could not do any annexations regardless of statutory authorization.
Commr. Campione relayed agreement that the City could perform any annexations that were currently allowed under Florida Statutes.
Ms. Bonifay stated that was correct as long as the annexations were contiguous and met the statutory requirements, such as not creating enclaves or any of the other prohibitions. She said they simply wanted clarification that the City had not given up its power to annex any other property which met statutory requirements.
Commr. Campione agreed with that statement.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he had voted no to the BCC’s Pine Meadows ISBA since he felt that the City of Eustis had concerns regarding it; however, he thought that if that was now clarified, then they could possibly move forward.
Commr. Campione reiterated that what the BCC was attempting to accomplish was to move this item along and place it before the Eustis Commission so that if they wanted to move ahead with the Pine Meadows property, they would be able to do that without any attached conditions.
Eustis Commr. Robert Morin opined that incrementalism in government was successful; therefore, he indicated that his stance on this had changed and that he did not believe that the entire project should be placed on hold due to larger issues. He thought that the Eustis Commission should move forward with the Pine Meadows ISBA and then work on the larger ISBA for the rest of the areas. He reassured everyone that the Eustis Commission would make the best decisions for any future annexations, noting that he did not desire to have what happened with the subdivisions of Red Tail and Sorrento Springs when he was mayor. He felt that it was appropriate to receive comments from neighbors as well as unincorporated residents who might be annexed into the city as part of the process. He indicated that the Eustis Commission had not had any discussions on this and opined this was a good chance to do so at this meeting; furthermore, he believed that incrementalism was the correct option in this case.
Eustis Commr. Marie Aliberti asked that if they utilized this agreement and based actions on this agreement, then would any property annexation after this have the same criteria. She expressed an understanding that there was not any specific criteria at this point except that it was a development. She remarked that she had concerns with setting aside everything that would be required of any other property that might annex for development, although she relayed that she understood the feasibility and economics of the Pine Meadows property. She thought that the process needed to be fair, and that any rules in place for this annexation should be in place for other annexations, noting that she did not think there were any rules in this agreement for criteria except that the City would accept the annexation and the County would expect the City to follow their ordinances. She asked for clarification that the County trusted the City to make the decisions on the ordinances for the development if they approved the Pine Meadows project.
Commr. Campione replied that was correct; additionally, she added that the County had not had any opposition from unincorporated residents with regards to Pine Meadows, noting that she felt there was an assumption for many years that this property would be developed. She stated that the County had received requests from residents in that area for the road to be improved; additionally, the County had worked with that property owner who agreed to lease the tennis court for a dollar a year in order to reopen it and make it available for the community. She said that the County was not concerned about impacts on surrounding properties as they believed that there was a level of consistency between what was there currently and what would possibly be developed.
Commr. Sullivan opined that the ISBA process was not easy, and shared that the one with the City of Groveland took two years to accomplish. He felt that this Pine Meadows agreement was one that the City of Eustis could go ahead and act on especially since there were developers interested in this property and it was a good economy for development, noting that government was incremental at best. He thought that this was an agreement both entities could agree on and then they could work to develop the larger ISBA.
Ms. Bonifay opined that what bogged down the process at the previous meeting was the County’s requirement that other properties within the ISBA and JPA which were deemed special properties by the County would need to have conditions, requirements and be developed with specific plans, even though the City of Eustis was proposing an ISBA boundary which was the same as the JPA. She reported that the City had recently received two annexation applications from Mr. John Keating, noting that one was clearly contiguous and should not be an issue; however, his other application, given its location in relationship to the Pine Meadows property, raised a question among the City of Eustis staff as to whether an enclave might be created which would need to be reviewed. She reiterated that without an ISBA, the City could not annex this unless it was contiguous. She then shared an email from Mr. Keating regarding these properties and his opinion of how an ISBA would affect his property. She said that while this Pine Meadows ISBA appeared to be an easy fix, she did not think that the City of Eustis had received any proposal for development. She believed what was prevalent during the joint meeting in December 2019 was that there would be specific requirements needed for properties that were in the larger, master ISBA area; furthermore, she opined that these conditions would be problematic for the Eustis Commission from a legal perspective.
Commr. Campione asked if Ms. Bonifay had analyzed whether Mr. Keating’s property would create an enclave.
Ms. Bonifay responded that it was filed on this day and that she had not reviewed it, noting that City staff had concerns and needed more time to consider.
Commr. Campione relayed that the Keating property had been reviewed earlier in the process as she believed it was going to be included.
Ms. Bonifay relayed that Mr. Keating had two separate pieces of property and two applications.
Commr. Breeden thanked Ms. Bonifay for her comments; however, she opined that Ms. Bonifay was speaking as if the Pine Meadows ISBA was already approved. She indicated that all other points were still under negotiation, and that this was an incremental step in order to concentrate on everything else.
Mr. Neibert commented that the reason the City was addressing East Crooked Lake was because there had previously been a petition for annexation and a proposed concept plan, noting that the city commission had never even reviewed the concept plan due to an outcry from residents. He thought that this was the justification why other parcels needed to be examined for compatibility by the BCC. He indicated that the difference with Pine Meadows was that there had not been a plan submitted, and the question was at what point they should reevaluate it. He wondered what might happen if they did receive a concept plan and then residents started to oppose a development. He emphasized the City’s desire to have the rest of the ISBA under their purview.
Commr. Campione responded that the County did not see inconsistency between the neighborhood that was currently in that area and the expectations of the people in the community, noting that many in the Pine Meadows area were city residents.
Mr. Neibert opined that so were the residents of the East Crooked Lake area.
Commr. Campione replied that was not necessarily true as she believed some were unincorporated Lake County residents. She indicated that in reviewing a map of the area, there were differences between Pine Meadows and the East Crooked Lake situation, and that there were many elements that made the East Crooked Lake property unique. She related that the BCC’s desire was to make progress; however, she felt that the City’s attorney might be creating obstacles to accomplishing this. She recalled that the County had examined Mr. Keating’s property in order to ensure they were not creating a problem for him; however, if his property needed to be included in the master ISBA, then she suggested that be done as she felt it should not delay the Pine Meadows property. She expressed an understanding that the company which was desiring to develop the Pine Meadows property was Hanover Family Builders, noting that the County was familiar with this developer as they had built several projects in the unincorporated area and the County was comfortable with them.
Mr. Neibert implied that the basic issue was if the County felt that the Eustis Commission had the ability to analyze the complexities of the East Crooked Lake area and make the decisions regarding it; furthermore, he opined that the Eustis Commission did have the ability to make good decisions based on various levels of complexity of projects throughout the city.
Commr. Campione reiterated that the County was simply requesting that the analyzation of the East Crooked Lake property be done together.
Eustis Commr. Morin stated that the Eustis Commission was the body that decided if this should be approved and not the City Manager nor City Attorney. He believed that discussion should happen between the Eustis Commission and the BCC; additionally, he opined that the perspective on much of this had been lost through social media. He said that while he did not want to see large density development in the East Crooked Lake area in the future, he was fine with those discussions being delayed and believed that the County should have input. He opined that the City would not have any negative impact if East Crooked Lake was not developed; however, he thought that development of Pine Meadows would assist the City and he wanted to see that move forward and for discussions on this to happen at this meeting.
Vice Mayor Karen LeHeup-Smith opined that this was setting a precedence for whatever the City might do in the future, and that this might mean that the City would have to go through this process for every annexation. She felt that this was taking away the control of the city commission, and that the BCC was not listening to the desires of the Eustis Commission. She relayed frustration that the BCC had drafted a Pine Meadows ISBA even though the Eustis Commission had expressed a desire for the entire ISBA to be accomplished together. She indicated that the Eustis Commission could potentially discuss the proposed Pine Meadows ISBA at their next meeting.
Mayor Holland echoed Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith’s sentiments in that he felt that the Eustis Commission’s thoughts were not considered; however, he said he was willing to consider the Pine Meadows agreement due to the potential economic impact for the City. He also expressed concerns with the East Crooked Lake issue and how social media had relayed the City’s position with that property, noting that the City was only asked to approve an annexation package and that they were never presented a development plan. He mentioned that since he was born and raised in Lake County, he cared about the environment and lakes in the county, the beauty of that area, and that he hoped the residents in that area would trust the commission. He expressed a desire to move forward, to be fair, and to protect the East Crooked Lake area. He supported one house per acre near the lake, but felt that a different density level should be considered as it got closer to the road. He asked for City staff to place the Pine Meadows agreement on their next council meeting as he did not think it was right to make a decision without their full commission present.
Mr. Neibert inquired if the mayor wanted to end this meeting and hold a Eustis Commission workshop to discuss ISBA policies regarding the City as it related to the ISBA as a whole and the Pine Meadows agreement.
Eustis Commr. Morin relayed that he did not want to end this meeting and prolong decisions. He encouraged having the BCC as part of the discussion in order to hear their side of the issues, and desired to continue conversations at this meeting.
Mr. Neibert thought there was doubt among the Eustis Commission as to whether they wanted to have a separate Pine Meadows agreement, although he noted that there might be differing opinions among the Commissioners. He said that due to this, he recommended to have a discussion with the full Eustis Commission in order to make a decision on how to address the ISBA.
Eustis Commr. Morin reiterated his opinion that it needed to include both sides and his desire to obtain all the information in order to make a decision. He expressed frustration at coming to this meeting with an agenda guided by the City Manager when he felt it should be a decision made by the elected officials. He said that he did not want to have the same situation occur in two months, noting that it was important to make sure the Commissioners had all the information needed to make the right decision. He stated that he agreed with Mayor Holland regarding not wanting a high density around East Crooked Lake; additionally, he understood that the County had jurisdictional responsibilities and a role in guiding the developmental process. He thought that the Pine Meadows agreement was something that should be considered and opined that it should be a combined effort with the Eustis Commission, their staff, and the BCC.
Commr. Blake remarked that it was not his intention to undermine the Eustis Commission when the BCC voted to separate the Pine Meadows property; rather, that he felt this was a point of agreement that everyone had. He agreed that incremental steps should be taken if needed, especially in this situation where there was a property owner who had been in limbo for 15 years, noting that the BCC felt responsibility to move that property forward. He expressed understanding of the Eustis Commission’s desire to not be micromanaged in municipal annexations nor did he want to do that; furthermore, he believed that the City would make the right decisions on development. He explained that the initial discussion had to do with disclosure regarding developer agreements which they felt communities were not aware of. He thought that because of the nature of those legal documents, that was a solution which had to look forward. He reiterated that he did not desire to stop the City in terms of contiguous annexations, that he understood the Eustis Commission’s concerns, and that he believed Pine Meadows was something everyone could agree on and then move forward with the remaining properties.
Commr. Campione agreed with Commissioner Blake’s comments and emphasized that the BCC’s actions were not meant to slight the Eustis Commission. She shared concerns with the previous joint meeting in December 2019, noting that she preferred not to focus on the past but felt for transparency reasons she should address some actions. She explained that when the County was asked to move forward with an ISBA negotiation with the City of Eustis, one of the items that the County articulated to the City was that they did not want the East Crooked Lake property to be part of that boundary because they knew it would be a difficult issue to address. She indicated that the County had been informed that piece of property would not be included; however, she relayed that when the BCC arrived at the joint meeting in December 2019, they saw that this piece of property was included on the map and that was troubling to them. She felt that caused the meeting to get off to a rough start, and she asked for the Eustis Commission to consider how it felt to be told that property was not going to be included only to find at arrival to the meeting that it was included. She remarked that putting that aside, the two commissions were at this point, and that the BCC hoped that Pine Meadows could be moved forward and that the two entities could continue to work through the master agreement while the Eustis Commission decided how they want to proceed on the Pine Meadows ISBA.
Commr. Breeden opined that Pine Meadows and East Crooked Lake were very different. She relayed that she had heard from both the property owners and the residents of East Crooked Lake, noting that they all loved the area. She felt there was middle ground that could be found, whether it was placed in the ISBA or not, although she thought there should be conditions if it was placed in the ISBA. She asked for the Eustis Commission to not view the BCC’s actions as a mistrust of the City, but as an attempt to listen to concerned citizens.
Commr. Parks asked for confirmation that the Eustis Commission was expressing concerns for moving forward because there might be other properties that may not be treated the same as they were in this Phase I agreement, and that they were asking for these other properties to be treated the same as they were in the Phase I agreement.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith inquired if the City would have to come back to the BCC for consideration every time a property asked to be annexed. She asked at what point would there be a document established that could be utilized.
Commr. Breeden relayed her desire to take the East Crooked Lake property out of the agreement in order to be addressed separately, and to perform joint planning.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked what would happen if there was a contingent of individuals who did not want the annexation and the property was in the ISBA.
Commr. Campione replied that a public hearing would be held as normal for anytime there was an annexation, and that the City would have the same responsibilities that they currently do which were to listen to a variety of viewpoints and to find a balance between them.
Mr. Neibert asked for clarification that the County was offering full rights under the ISBA for contiguous annexation with enclaves for all properties in the City’s JPA, exclusive of East Crooked Lake.
Commr. Breeden added that it would be subject to joint planning.
Mr. Neibert asked for an explanation of what that meant.
Commr. Parks explained that joint planning was balancing the needs and desires of the community as pursuant to Section 171.201, Florida Statutes.
Mr. Neibert inquired if that meant that the County would give the City the rights to do the ISBA annexations, but the City had to pre-negotiate land uses prior to giving that.
Commr. Campione opined that having an agreement, merging comments from the last meeting, and reviewing additional comments provided by the City were all a part of the joint planning, noting that joint planning included items such as what was being addressed in the ISBA document. She felt that part of the workshop process was to acknowledge other pending issues inside the city limits that could possibly be addressed in this agreement. She thought that the City’s JPA land use map could be compared to the County’s zoning and land use map in order to ensure that both entities where on the same page, noting this had been done in other cities.
Mr. Neibert commented that he was not aware of any ISBAs where the County pre-negotiated and made land use changes on the ISBA, which he thought was what the County was proposing.
Ms. Bonifay commented that pursuant to the joint planning area agreement that was in effect currently, the City gives notice to the County when there is an annexation and the County notifies the City when they change their Comp Plan or other items that might affect the city. She said that when the JPA was done, when the City did their Comp Plan, and when the County did their last Comp Plan in 2011, what was to be considered was putting consistent and compatible land uses next to each other. She relayed that she did not understand why the City now had to redo the JPA especially since they were using the same boundary as the JPA and now it was an ISBA, which gave the City more authority and control since they could annex noncontiguous properties even when they created enclaves; furthermore, she wondered how they could compare their zoning in all cases with the County’s since the County is in the unincorporated area which automatically has lower density, but the City is the utility server and has to be urban in order to annex so they have to have higher densities which would make them not the same.
Commr. Campione implied that there had been questions through the years as to whether there was a JPA and if both jurisdictions had approved that JPA. She mentioned that the City went through some land use Comp Plan changes about 11 years ago, noting that much of it was done differently. She opined that because of this, the JPA and land uses should be reviewed. She thought that since the JPA and the County’s Comp Plan had been done so long ago, then they could review both and possibly improve them, noting that she was unsure if what was adopted by the City was even in effect currently. She shared that residents ask for the quality of life and unique character of Lake County to be preserved, and she believed that considering how to plan for the future would be important, especially in the JPA. She commented that if some areas would be better to stay rural, then maybe the JPA needed to be reduced in those areas or at least have agreement to nothing above a one unit to one acre density; however, there might be other places where the County’s land use may reflect low density but the City may already have utilities close by, such as the Grand Island area. She thought it made good planning sense to review the JPA, noting that it was not an intent to micromanage but that a good JPA might resolve some of these issues. She suggested that a possible next step would be to have County and City planners compare the two land use maps.
Eustis Commr. Morin asked if the two parties could review the proposed ISBA document as he felt that much of the areas of concern seemed to be about the geography of the streets and who would take care of the maintenance if they were annexed. He asked if those were items they could resolve in this meeting and if the remainder of the agreement could be addressed so that the rest of the document could be settled as he thought the only issues were the East Crooked Lake and Pine Meadows properties.
Mr. Neibert opined that one of the items of concern was that the County was making a condition for the City and the County to get together to reevaluate land uses in the planning area, which he felt was solely the authority of the City to do.
Commr. Breeden emphasized that the County was requesting this and hoping to negotiate, but was not making it a condition.
Mr. Neibert clarified that he was considering this as a requirement as part of the agreement, noting that he felt the County was asking to be involved and have input in the City’s planning decisions which were solely under the Eustis Commission’s authority He said that it was up to the Eustis Commission if they were willing to allow the County to do this.
Commr. Campione suggested it was a chance to compare the two land use maps to see if there was consistency, and if there was not, then the County and City could discuss the areas where it was not consistent. She reiterated that the County was not attempting to take away the Eustis Commission’s authority and that they could annex currently if they met all the statutory requirements; however, by putting an ISBA in place, it provided the opportunity to work on good planning.
Commr. Breeden related that the legislative intent was to encourage intergovernmental coordination and planning.
Commr. Parks relayed an understanding that the Eustis Commission was concerned that the County would get involved in every detail of the City’s planning standards, but indicated that from his perspective, the County would not do that. He shared that he was involved with joint planning on a regular basis and indicated that it could include requests to use certain standards or address issues that may not be clear when it came to infrastructure or provision of services. He stated that if the East Crooked Lake area was going to be addressed separately, then it might be good to review the details of the JPA and joint planning, noting that he realized it could take several meetings to work through this.
Mr. Neibert explained that if that was the direction the jurisdictions were wanting to take, then the Eustis Commission needed to discuss its priorities and how they wanted to proceed, noting that they did not have a full commission present at this meeting.
Eustis Commr. Morin reiterated his desire to accomplish some items in this meeting, and said he was fine with the checks and balances provided by the County. He remarked that as a resident of the City of Eustis, he liked to know that someone would safeguard what happened in the City. He recalled that some of what took place during the 1990s in the City was not positive, and he felt that the City was working to get beyond those decisions and that this commission was looking for flexibility and understanding; additionally, he believed that the commission had already made good decisions based on residents’ concerns. He encouraged having others involved in these discussions and not just the five Eustis Commissioners. He suggested taking East Crooked Lake out of the agreement with the hope that the two entities could go through the rest of the proposed agreement at this meeting to find areas of consensus.
Commr. Campione suggested doing a workshop that focused on just the East Crooked Lake area.
Mr. Neibert noted a technicality that if East Crooked Lake was taken out of the ISBA, the City would lose their legal counsel for the ISBA because Ms. Bonifay represented the owner of the East Crooked Lake property.
Ms. Bonifay identified that conflict of interest waivers had been received from the City and the client allowing her to represent both of them.
Mr. Neibert explained that if the City’s interest no longer coincided with the owner’s, then the City would not be able to have Ms. Bonifay represent the City. He explained that the common interest with the property owner’s was that both he and the City wanted his property annexed; however, if East Crooked Lake was taken out, then the interests were no longer the same.
Commr. Breeden suggested that if East Crooked Lake was left in the ISBA, then there could be conditions for that property.
Eustis Commr. Morin felt that the issues with East Crooked Lake could be solved.
Ms. Bonifay relayed that Ms. Marsh had put together the City and County’s comments from the December 2019 joint meeting onto the proposal agreement and had noted where there was agreement or suggestions for different language. She said that there were significant suggestions for changes to the road maintenance section with direction for the City to review with their staff.
Commr. Breeden opined that County staff would need to review the road section before the BCC could make decisions, and Commissioner Campione agreed.
Commr. Sullivan recalled that he had raised the question of road maintenance in the last joint meeting since the County had significant issues in other municipalities with local roads where 90 percent of the traffic was inside the city. He did not feel that the County should maintain these roads since they were inside the city, noting that the County even removed one of these type of roads from the Pine Meadows agreement in order to assist with it moving forward. He stated that the County would apply the same standards to the City of Eustis as they did to the other 13 municipalities in regards to roads.
Commr. Campione noted that the City had listed every road in the Park Place community which she thought was already an area within the city.
Mr. Neibert said that these roads were under the County’s jurisdiction.
Commr. Campione relayed that she regularly received calls from citizens regarding Lake Nettie Court. She shared that she had wanted to create a mechanism to encourage voluntary annexation into the city for some of the enclaves by which the residents’ tax dollars could be utilized for a certain number of years to bring those roads up to standards, noting that many of them may need stormwater drainage improvements which can be costly. She stated that the County had considered doing special assessments although they could be difficult to do.
Eustis Commr. Morin inquired how other cities handled this.
Commr. Campione responded that the City of Eustis was unique due to its hills and drainage issues in that area. She thought that the County’s public works department could review the list of roads and possibly suggest other ways to address some of the road issues. She added that she also wanted to address the flooding situation in the Blue Lake area of the City, and proposed the possibility of obtaining permits from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) for a way to pump water out when it reached a certain level and to utilize that water for reclaimed purposes.
Mr. Neibert indicated that the City had meetings with the SJRWMD, residents and County staff, and that the City and County were working together to develop a proposal for the residents.
Commr. Campione commented that another item she wanted to address was Lake Joanna water quality problems, noting that she had also discussed this with the Mount Dora City Manager the previous day when discussing their possible ISBA. She stated that it appeared that the water quality issues were the result of the subdivisions that were on the east side of old CR 44B which were within the City of Mount Dora area; furthermore, the County had entered into an agreement with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) and provided some funding for a water quality study in order to isolate the sources of pollution. She commented that since there was the possibility of the east side of Lake Joanna being annexed by the City of Eustis with possible sewer provided in that area, then there might be an opportunity for a joint three jurisdiction plan to address water quality. She thought this should be acknowledged in this agreement with the efforts to work towards a solution.
Mr. Neibert opined that there were too many big picture issues that had not been settled that had bearings on the details of the language.
Eustis Commr. Morin opined it was the Eustis Commission’s authority to decide and he encouraged decisions to be made at this meeting for the sake of the citizens. He understood that the premise of the ISBA was the details; however, he still thought that the two properties could be addressed and then the technical components of the ISBA could be worked through with staff in order to give the commission direction. He relayed that from his perspective, he wanted to break the big picture into the two smaller issues of Pine Meadows and East Crooked Lake. He opined that for the future of the City, the Eustis Commission needed to move quicker in order to allow development and create homes for the City’s residents. He reemphasized his desire to involve those on the other side of the situation.
Mayor Holland asked if Eustis Commissioner Aliberti wanted to continue the discussion or take items back for their commission to discuss.
Eustis Commr. Aliberti commented that she wanted to go through the proposed document to ensure everyone was on the same page, noting that they could not actually vote on anything since this was a workshop.
Commr. Parks asked for clarity that Eustis Commissioner Morin was suggesting to redo the JPA, minus the two properties.
Eustis Commr. Morin confirmed that was correct, and added that he wanted to then continue with a master ISBA. He remarked that if there were technical areas that needed to be addressed, to give those to public works for guidance.
Commr. Campione summarized that he was encouraging work on the JPA while continuing to move forward with the ISBA.
Commr. Parks opined that the JPA would need to be in place first before anything with an ISBA could be accomplished.
Ms. Bonifay expressed concerns that it would be a huge undertaking to start over with a JPA, noting that there was a JPA in place currently that had been recognized and used through the years. She reiterated that the biggest issue with ISBAs was that Cities did not have the ability to annex properties which were not contiguous nor created enclaves, and was the reason there was a part two to the legislature which allowed the Cities to obtain joint agreements or ISBAs with the County to be able to annex.
Commr. Parks understood that the process could take time; however, he thought that addressing each property individually could also take a long time. He thought if the JPA was done first, then it could include several of the properties and the result might be an ISBA which would be governed by the JPA.
Commr. Breeden inquired if the ISBA could be accomplished first and then have the JPA reviewed within a certain period of time.
Commr. Campione thought that was what Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith was concerned about as it would require the BCC to review each time a property desired to be annexed.
Mr. Neibert asked if Commissioner Breeden was proposing to develop the ISBA with the promise that the JPA would be reviewed, without reviewing individual properties as part of the ISBA process as he had concerns with that.
Eustis Commr. Morin understood there would be public input, and opined that even if the County did not have the jurisdiction, the City would seek County input.
Commr. Breeden specified that reviewing the JPA would include the County.
Commr. Campione made a suggestion that if the City had specific properties which created enclaves, then they could develop site specific ISBA amendments or a specific ISBA. She felt that this could be a mechanism to be utilized while other items were being accomplished since working through a JPA and a master ISBA would take some time. She opined that this would allow the bigger picture to be considered while addressing the properties that were looking for closure and certainty, noting that there were property owners who wanted to move forward and needed closure. She thought it was a practical approach and served both of Ms. Bonifay’s clients’ interest.
Mr. Neibert commented that there were some very broad conceptual processes being proposed and felt that it would be prudent for the Eustis Commission to hold a workshop to discuss the processes they might want to take prior to discussing specific language at this meeting.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith requested to go through the document to identify items that were agreed upon. She then referenced page two of the document and the track change note that stated “the City would like this language removed and replaced with their proposal below,” which was Section 3.a.ii.2.
Ms. Marsh clarified that this was the draft she had put together after the joint meeting in December 2019. She indicated that the Commissioners could scroll through the document to review changes and that additional ones could be added in track comments.
Commr. Campione clarified that there were items agreed upon at the December 2019 joint meeting, and that the County Attorney had merged the two proposed documents into one document with the agreed upon language, noting that was what was displayed on the screen.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that was correct.
Commr. Campione then inquired what the document they had received at this meeting was.
Ms. Marsh responded that the document just received was what the City presented at this meeting with additional changes.
Commr. Campione asked if these changes presented at this meeting had gone before the Eustis Commission.
Eustis Commr. Morin replied that this was the first time the Eustis Commissioners were seeing that document.
Mr. Neibert remarked that it was drafted based on the understanding of the policies and procedures that the Eustis Commission wanted as a broad picture; additionally, he said they had prepared the specific language based on what was understood at that time to be the Eustis Commission’s desires for an overall ISBA.
Ms. Bonifay complimented Ms. Marsh for the excellent job she had done of putting all the information into a total document which included the language that the City had proposed at the December 2019 meeting, what the County had proposed, and notes on the side as to what was agreed upon or what additional language was suggested. She thought that scrolling through this document would be beneficial.
Ms. Marsh then began to scroll through the document and note input by the Commissioners. She identified that the City had proposed some changes to the whereas clauses which the County had no objections to.
recess and reassembly
Mayor Holland requested a break at 5:30 p.m., and the meeting resumed at 5:45 p.m.
isba document review
Commr. Campione asked regarding the whereas clause which addressed the JPA agreement, for a note to be made that parties would review the JPA since it was dated 1987.
Ms. Bonifay stated that it was simply a whereas clause which identified that there was a JPA agreement under the Eustis resolution which was executed by the County in 1987 and was agreeable at the last meeting. She thought it might be more appropriate to note that comment in another part of the document.
Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, suggested adding a note that “the City and County agree to evaluate.”
Mr. Neibert said this was just a recital section.
Commr. Campione opined that if everyone agreed that both parties were going to evaluate the JPA agreement, then a whereas clause would be an appropriate place for this comment.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith inquired if that was appropriate for an ISBA.
Ms. Marsh asked if the question was whether the agreement was approved by the County in 1987 or just to note that moving forward, it should be reevaluated.
Commr. Campione felt that it was both, and should serve as a check of what was done in 1987.
Ms. Marsh indicated that the language could be accepted and then that one sentence could be highlighted with a note to verify the date.
Commr. Campione commented that the other question was if they were going to relook at the JPA as part of the ISBA agreement, then should the whereas clause acknowledge that.
Ms. Marsh said that comment could be added.
Ms. Bonifay remarked that by saying that the parties would agree to revisit the content, then she thought that they needed to limit the scope of what might be done with the JPA since it already existed.
Commr. Campione explained that it would entail a combination of examining what the JPA said and looking at the Comp Plans with the idea being that if both jurisdictions could reach an agreement on the JPA, then it would take care of particular properties within the ISBA as far the County’s review for land use purposes.
Eustis Commr. Morin asked if it was from 1987 on.
Commr. Parks explained it was a revision to the JPA because once that was revised and both jurisdictions agreed on it, then there could be other properties within the ISBA which could be annexed without any County input.
Mr. Neibert commented that if that language was agreed upon, then they were agreeing to a policy as part of the ISBA which said that they agree to review and revise the entire JPA, which he noted could be an expensive and lengthy undertaking.
Eustis Commr. Morin opined that it might be time to do so since it dated back to 1987.
Commr. Breeden suggested placing this language in the document temporarily as a point for further discussion.
Commr. Campione recommended to simply write a note that both parties would continue deliberating on whether the entire JPA needed to be reopened, instead of changing the whereas language. She thought this would give a chance for both jurisdictions to review after this meeting and determine if it would truly be a long, costly endeavor, noting that both City and County staff could examine and make any recommendations to their commissions.
Ms. Marsh mentioned that the next proposed change was in the last whereas clause where the City had requested for the additional Chapter 335.0415(3), Florida Statutes, to be added. She indicated that both parties agreed to it; therefore, she added that to the document.
The parties then referenced Section 3, Annexations, which was the next part of the document with suggested changes from the City at the December 2019 joint meeting.
Mr. Neibert remarked that the City’s initial position on this was that they wanted to have the entire JPA be the ISBA and be allowed to perform the contiguous annexation with enclaves.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith stated that she would like to discuss this with the Eustis Commission at their workshop.
Ms. Marsh noted that this section tied into the County’s Pine Meadows specific language, and she had not made any changes to it at this point.
Commr. Campione confirmed that if the City approved moving forward with Pine Meadows, then their suggested language in this section would not need to be considered.
Ms. Marsh reported that Section 4.a. of the document was proposed language by the City at the December 2019 meeting, and noted that there was no agreement on this language.
Mr. Neibert remarked that this section went along with their issue on policy and which roads the City would take over for maintenance.
Commr. Campione felt that roads needed to be identified.
Mr. Neibert replied that this dealt with all roadways within the JPA, which was the policy in terms of what annexation of the rights-of-way (ROW) would be done; furthermore, he implied it did not relate to the maintenance of roadways discussion.
Commr. Campione added that would mean the City would have police jurisdiction, and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct. She indicated this had created issues in other areas where law enforcement had to determine who was patrolling the roadways. She asked what this proposed language would accomplish.
Mr. Neibert responded that it would give the County justification to say that a road was a city road or open up discussion regarding the road. He mentioned that if the City was annexing one side of the road, then it would establish contiguity to the other side of the road if the City wished to annex other properties, noting that if they did not annex the ROW then the City could not establish contiguity.
Commr. Breeden commented that possibly there could be discussion if the City would maintain any roads that they desired to have the ROW to.
Eustis Commr. Morin inquired about State Road (SR) 44, and asked if it was a county or state road.
Mr. Neibert replied that it was both as there was both SR 44 and CR 44. He reiterated that what they were attempting to designate was that if the City annexed to one side of the road, that they agreed to annex the ROW which was contiguous to that boundary which they annexed on the other side.
Commr. Breeden asked if the City then wanted to maintain those roads.
Mr. Neibert responded that the City may not want to, and that the maintenance discussion would be addressed under the maintenance section of the agreement.
Commr. Campione clarified that Mr. Neibert was stating that this would allow the City to use the road for contiguity, and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct. She asked if the County could take that under advisement.
Mr. Neibert implied this was language which was consistent with other ISBAs.
Commr. Campione indicated that the County had problems with this, and Commissioner Parks stated that the City of Clermont was an example of this.
Mr. Neibert thought there were issues with maintenance and not the annexation.
Commr. Parks responded that it was not with maintenance, and noted that the City of Clermont would allow the other side of the road to be utilized.
Commr. Campione reemphasized the problems they had with law enforcement, and noted that the City of Leesburg had issues between the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) and the Leesburg Police Department.
Ms. Marsh relayed that it had been an issue in the City of Leesburg since the City had only annexed certain parts of a road and then the LCSO received calls for segments of roadways which were in between parts of the road that had been annexed by the City. She explained that this particular language which was in other ISBAs was problematic for that reason because it did not put an affirmative duty on the City to take the road once they annexed the adjacent property. She said it was more of a permissive statement that causes the City to do it if they so desire to and it had created issues in other cities.
Mr. Neibert stated if the County wanted to make it mandatory to annex the road, then the City did not have a problem with that, noting that they would provide police service for any roads within their jurisdiction.
Commr. Parks inquired if the City would provide service even to the parcel which might be across from the one the City annexed. He relayed that his experience with law enforcement was that they always respond. He asked if it might be more of an issue with fire service.
Mr. Neibert opined that the issue was that the city police were not deputized and did not have authority in unincorporated areas; therefore, they could not go into unincorporated areas and exercise police powers. He said if the Sheriff was willing to deputize their police then they could.
Commr. Campione suggested taking this under advisement and speaking with the Lake County Sheriff regarding it.
Mr. Cole remarked that what Mr. Neibert was suggesting might resolve law enforcement coverage but did not address the road maintenance issue, noting that if the road was annexed by the City, it was still maintained by the County.
Commr. Campione specified that from a maintenance perspective, if the road was a non-collector road that would continue to be maintained by the County, then were they agreeing that if a certain percentage of a road was annexed that it would then become the City’s responsibility for maintenance.
Mr. Neibert implied that the City had proposed that language; however, the County responded with a specific enumeration of roads which the City still needed time to evaluate. He felt that the discussion on road maintenance needed to be put on hold.
Commr. Campione summarized that the County would discuss with the LCSO for clarification on law enforcement as well as evaluate from a maintenance perspective.
Mr. Neibert indicated that Sections 4 and 5 would need to be evaluated relating to that. He then asked for clarification on Section 5.b. regarding Pine Meadows, if it was the County’s proposal that if there was a separate Pine Meadows agreement then that provision would be eliminated.
Ms. Marsh replied that this section was not included in the separate Pine Meadows agreement which the BCC approved; therefore, the BCC would still want this addressed.
Mr. Neibert wondered if it would be prudent to place this in the Pine Meadows agreement rather than splitting up conditions of one piece of property into two agreements.
Ms. Marsh responded that would be a BCC decision.
Commr. Breeden asked if that would be problematic for the City.
Mr. Neibert opined that would be the crux of the whole Pine Meadows agreement as the City was informed that it was an agreement with no conditions, yet now there were conditions as part of a follow-up agreement.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked if that meant this Section 5.b. needed to be removed from the document.
Mr. Neibert replied that it was a point of consideration if the City decided to do a separate Pine Meadows agreement, noting that the City had not decided on that yet.
There was discussion as to whether Mr. Neibert was referencing Section 4.b. or 5.b. and he confirmed he was referring to Section 5.b.
Ms. Bonifay clarified that under Section 4.b. there was a portion referring to the transfer and acceptance of maintenance. She asked if the road addressed in Section 4.b. was the Pine Meadows Road.
Mr. Neibert explained that there were two different items, and that there was Pine Meadows Road as well as the ROW which came off of the CR 44 bypass which was a separate platted ROW.
Ms. Marsh elaborated that Section 4.b. was included in the Pine Meadows agreement as giving the City the ability to annex that; however, this document had additional language which went further to state that the City would accept jurisdiction for operation and maintenance of said roadway, noting that this language in the last line of Section 4.b. was not in the Pine Meadows agreement which the BCC approved.
Mr. Cole added that it was not included in the Pine Meadows agreement in an attempt to simplify that agreement so that there were no complications relating to that agreement in order for it to move forward.
Mr. Neibert said he understood that; however, he opined that the County was adding complication to a follow-up agreement which related back to the first agreement. He remarked that the issue with Section 4.b. was that there was the Pine Meadows Road, which came off of CR 19 which the City agreed to annex, and then there was a ROW from the CR 44 bypass that was part of the Pine Meadows development which the City was willing to annex, noting that discussion was part of the annexation.
Mr. Cole specified that the County’s interest was in the City maintaining Pine Meadows Road.
Mr. Neibert said that he understood, and noted that related to Section 5.b.
Commr. Campione indicated that Section 5.b. stated that no later than three months from the effective date of this agreement, that the City shall accept it into its maintenance system.
Ms. Marsh clarified that Section 5.b. referred to Pine Meadows Golf Course Road and was not the same as the parcel identified in Section 4.b., and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct.
Commr. Campione recalled that the parcel in Section 4.b. was property that the Pine Meadows owners had purchased from the City of Eustis about 15 years ago, and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct and was the parcel on CR 44. She then acknowledged that this was a small section which went down to CR 44A, and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct.
Ms. Marsh inquired if the BCC wanted to leave this language in the document, or if the City was asking for it to go into the Pine Meadows agreement which the BCC had approved.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith did not think it needed to be in this agreement.
Mr. Neibert responded that it needed to stay in this agreement if the City chose not to agree to a Pine Meadows only agreement.
Commr. Campione recommended making a note that the first sentence in Section 4.b., which referenced this parcel, would be removed if the Pine Meadows agreement was approved by the City, and Mr. Neibert confirmed that was correct.
Ms. Marsh noted that Section 5.a. was the next section to discuss.
Mr. Neibert reiterated that the City would need to evaluate the County’s list and make a decision regarding road maintenance.
Commr. Campione mentioned that Section 5.b. meant that no matter what the outcome of the Pine Meadows agreement, road maintenance for Pine Meadows Golf Course Road would not be required until the effective date of the master agreement.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that was correct, and said that if the parties agreed to that language without any changes, then it could be accepted at this point.
Commr. Campione recalled that at the previous meeting, there was discussion that Pine Meadows Golf Course Road was already within the city limits.
Ms. Marsh responded that she believed it was deeded to the City around 1978.
Mr. Cole asked if the City was in agreement with Section 5.b.
Mr. Neibert replied that was language the City had proposed; therefore, they were comfortable with the language in 5.b.
Ms. Marsh then referenced Section 6, explained that this language was within other ISBAs, and stated that the City of Eustis had proposed to replace this entire section with their suggested language written in the track note.
Mr. Neibert elaborated that this was a big picture issue in terms of reviewing policy and said that the City would need to place this section on hold at this point.
Eustis Commr. Morin indicated that the City did this as part of their normal routine; furthermore, he remarked that they did have audience participation and open meetings where individuals could express their concerns regarding potential developments. He thought this section was instructing the City to do something that was their normal procedure.
Commr. Parks specified the importance of unincorporated county residents being notified.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith asked to confirm that Section 6 was waiting for the City to consider.
Mr. Neibert responded that the City had proposed their language for this section, which was noted in the track changes; however, they were not in agreement with the County’s proposed language. He reiterated that the City needed to make a policy decision regarding what the County had proposed.
Commr. Parks inquired if the BCC was comfortable with the language proposed by the City as he thought both parties had agreed to the City’s proposal at the December 2019 meeting.
Commr. Campione felt that there was not agreement based on the current notation on the document.
Commr. Parks recalled that Commissioner Campione’s concern was to ensure that unincorporated residents could attend the community meetings, and Eustis Commissioner Morin reiterated that the Eustis Commission would listen to anyone who expressed concerns.
Commr. Breeden clarified that the City’s proposed language for this Section 6 was for the developer to hold the community meeting, not the City.
Mr. Neibert remarked that they could establish a procedure that must be followed which would require notification of all residents regardless of jurisdiction. He reiterated that the County’s proposed language for this section addressed the base issue of discussion and review of their current JPA and amending boundaries.
Commr. Campione suggested for the Commissioners to review Sections 6.b. and 6.c. She then read Section 6.b. as follows: “Eustis and the County shall work together to compare their respective Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and where there are inconsistent regulations, work towards eliminating such inconsistency, to the extent possible. When regulations are inconsistent, Eustis and the County shall strive to jointly amend the regulations with a goal to eliminate unnecessary conflict. Eustis and the County recognize there may be regulations that a party cannot amend for purposes of consistency due to factors beyond the party’s control, for example, consumptive use permit requirements. It is estimated that this process shall take up to thirty-six (36) months.” She thought this was similar to the JPA issue.
Commr. Parks confirmed it was the JPA language, noting that it allowed up to 36 months although he did not believe it took that much time.
Commr. Campione commented that the concept in this section was that they were not holding up the ISBA but were including this as something that would be accomplished.
Eustis Commr. Morin opined it was good government and something that should be done anyway. He felt it was obvious that the City would review LDRs and create a plan that would make sense for neighborhoods.
Commr. Campione inquired if this should be done concurrently, prior to approving a master ISBA, or after the ISBA was approved. She opined that this tied into the previous conversation regarding working on the JPA.
Commr. Breeden expressed support for having language which stated there was a certain number of months to accomplish this work after the ISBA was complete.
Commr. Campione asked what would be done if the work was not completed within the timeframe. She believed it was more sensible to work on the JPA and if there were properties that desired to be annexed, then to complete an ISBA for those properties.
Mr. Neibert stated that would put it back to the case by case process.
Commr. Campione replied it would be case by case only until the JPA was complete. She opined that having an incentive would assist with getting the work accomplished so that things were not delayed.
Vice Mayor LeHeup-Smith suggested continuing to work through the document, noting that the City would discuss the JPA.
Commr. Campione recapped that the parties where not in agreement to the language for Section 6.
Commr. Blake inquired where the 36 month timeframe came from.
Ms. Marsh responded that language was within all the other ISBAs, and was an estimate on the time length.
Commr. Breeden asked if it was accomplished in every case.
Ms. Marsh replied that the only city she was aware of in which the County had joint LDRs was the City of Clermont; furthermore, she was not aware if it was a process in the other cities when their ISBAs were done.
Commr. Parks reiterated that he did not believe it took 36 months, although that was probably the timeframe listed to allow enough time to accomplish; furthermore, he believed that the two staffs could work together to create a new JPA.
Commr. Breeden opined that reviewing and simplifying Section 6 would be good.
Commr. Campione reiterated that this section and working on a joint planning area was the heart of the entire conversation and the consternation with an ISBA because when a city is allowed to go outside of the Florida Statutes in order to annex properties which they could not otherwise annex, then it is important to know if the LDRs and Comp Plans are consistent. She explained that different City and County zonings which allow varying densities was what was making the East Crooked Lake property difficult, noting that the County had concerns with the City’s zoning which could allow up to five units per acre.
Mr. Neibert commented that the Eustis Commission would review adjacent land uses and compatibility when considering a development application.
Commr. Campione suggested going through that process and reviewing that piece of property in terms of what it could possibly look like if developed.
Mr. Neibert responded that would be asking the City to specify a specific authorized density for a piece of property that under the City’s LDRs was allowed a density between one to five units per acre; furthermore, he felt that this was asking this without acquiescence of the property owner, and without a public hearing to negotiate a density on a piece of property that was not allowed under an ISBA.
Commr. Campione opined that land uses could be negotiated and could be done under a 163 agreement, or a developer’s agreement, or a three party agreement; additionally, she felt this would create certainty for the property owner and those residents who were concerned about the property. She expressed frustration that the City kept saying it could not be accomplished, but she felt that it could be done and would solve several problems. She shared that she had analyzed that piece of property at one unit per acre in an attempt to determine if this could work for the property owner and still have water and sewer. She remarked that if the City was agreeable to serving that property with water and sewer, then there was a possibility that this density would work for everyone.
Ms. Bonifay inquired how it could work if there was no ISBA and it created an enclave.
Commr. Campione responded that there would be an ISBA which would reference the 163 agreement.
Ms. Bonifay asked if it would be a separate ISBA for East Crooked Lake similar to the one drafted for the Pine Meadows property.
Commr. Campione confirmed that was correct, and opined this would accomplish what was desired by both Ms. Bonifay’s clients, the City and the property owner.
Ms. Bonifay commented that she was attempting to be impartial, noting that she had not received direction from the City to initiate an application on the property owner’s behalf nor had she received any direction from the property owner to negotiate a deal for them. She remarked that she was trying to operate within these boundaries. She felt that from the viewpoint of what the ISBA was supposed to create, this suggestion was the antithesis of having the ISBA in place to address noncontiguous annexations and enclaves, and was intended to deal with surface delivery and not land use regulations on a case by case basis. She opined that the entire City and County discussion was revolving around these two properties out of a large area simply because there was such opposition from the community.
Eustis Commr. Morin inquired what a 163 agreement was, and Ms. Bonifay responded it was a like a development agreement pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
Commr. Campione added that it allowed certain densities and development criteria to be assigned in order to address situations.
Eustis Commr. Morin remarked it was not up to the Commissioners to figure out how developers could make a profit, noting that it was the responsibility of the property owner to consider what the justified price for the property might be and to coordinate with the developer to determine if one house per acre would work. He did not believe it could be accomplished and was the reason why the larger densities were desired. He opined that the market had to agree with what the buyer desired.
Commr. Campione explained that up to this point, there were deals that were attempted to be negotiated with the neighborhood but nothing had worked. She indicated that the City, the County, the property owner, and the affected stakeholders or surrounding property owners had never attempted to work together but could possibly do so with this process, whether through an ISBA or a 163 agreement; additionally, she felt that time could be spent working on the JPA and all the other properties within the JPA which would ultimately be affected in the future by the decisions made within this agreement. She opined that a large ISBA could affect the next 20 to 40 years; therefore, it would make sense to take time to work through the JPA. She reiterated her desire to work on current development applications and potential opportunities rather than delay them.
Mr. Neibert felt that they were simply desiring a different process; furthermore, he asked if the developer had submitted an application for 500 homes two months prior, and the Pine Meadows community had complained, then would the conversation be the same today.
Commr. Campione thought that they would still be discussing how to make sure developments were compatible, reviewing City and County land uses and Comp Plans, and examining utility locations. She recalled that the City of Eustis sold the Pine Meadows property owners the strip of land to CR 44A around 13 to 14 years ago, noting that the City agreed at that time to annex that property. She specified that the Eustis Commission then changed and did not end up annexing that piece of property. She opined that there were some unique circumstances to that situation and that the people knew the land would be developed.
Mr. Neibert posed that the people of East Crooked Lake probably contemplated that area would be developed as well.
Commr. Campione said they desired for developement at one unit per acre, noting that through the years the expectations were that the land patterns around the lake would stay consistent.
Mr. Neibert indicated that it would be consistent, and explained that there was no active application or project but merely a property owner who wanted to annex his property. He relayed that the city commission never recommended approval of a project, and that the only recommendation from staff to the commission was the annexation, at which point the technical issue of being able to annex presented itself.
Commr. Campione suggested that the property owner consider submitting an application so that everyone could see what might be proposed.
Mr. Neibert said that he was not a developer but an owner that wished to sell his property.
Commr. Campione opined that she had done the best she could from the standpoint of a County Commissioner to develop a solution which would solve the City’s issues and serve the best interest of the residents as well as the land owner.
Ms. Bonifay reiterated that she had not been given any direction from the landowner other than to analyze the property which she indicated they had provided to the landowner, noting that the property was within the Wekiva Study Area with additional setbacks and buffer requirements. She added that the County Comp Plan required clustering which would mean many small lots.
Commr. Campione reported that the City of Eustis made an application to take property in the City out of those rules and regulations; therefore, she did not believe those would apply.
Ms. Bonifay responded that she had not seen where it was officially removed; however, she was concerned that someone might attempt to challenge this if they were not happy with what the owners proposed.
Mr. Neibert reiterated this was a policy decision which the Eustis Commission would need to discuss.
Commr. Breeden suggested moving past this section of the agreement to discuss Sections 11, 12 and 13.
Mr. Neibert asked for Section 7.b., Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), to be addressed first as he felt it would be easy to address. He relayed that the City was agreeable to the Automatic Aid Agreement for Fire Protection and Other Emergency Services to remain in affect; however, he had concerns with the discussions to negotiate and determine fire station locations as he did not believe the City could commit to building fire stations until the annexation was determined. He reported that the City was willing to agree to keep the terms of the Automatic Aid Agreement for Fire Protection and Other Emergency Services in effect during the terms of negotiation and through the term of the ISBA.
Commr. Campione asked for input from the County Attorney or County Manager, and Mr. Cole relayed his support of the last part of Section 7.b., which stated that the City and County would work together to determine how additional stations and services would be allocated and how funding for those services would be assessed, and said he did not understand why the City had concerns with this section.
Mr. Neibert indicated that from his perspective, this was asking for determination on station locations as part of this negotiation and he thought it was too premature. He said that as long as this language was not committing the City to specific station locations as part of this negotiation, then he was comfortable with the concept of having the discussion.
Mr. Cole believed there was nothing in the language that committed the City to station locations but rather that it obligated the two parties to work together to determine.
Mr. Neibert noted that if the intent was merely planning and not committal of locations, then he was comfortable with it.
Commr. Sullivan shared that the County had good experiences with another city in doing joint fire stations, and noted that it was cost effective.
Commr. Campione summarized that this meant that as the City annexed parcels which created enclaves, then from a funding standpoint, the County has property that is in the county and they are receiving fire assessment fees, and the City is annexing properties; therefore, at some point it may make more sense for the City to have a station where the County has one and for the County to then have a station in another location or to share a station for a period of time. She explained that in examining this, there might come a time when reallocation of resources might need to take place.
Ms. Bonifay felt it was simply a planning and resource allocation exercise.
Mr. Cole asked for clarification of the statement, “during negotiations,” which was in Section 7.b.
Ms. Marsh explained that this was put into effect when the County was drafting the Pine Meadows agreement versus the master agreement. She recommended to use the first sentence in Section 7.b. which read “The parties agree that the provisions of the Automatic Aid Agreement for Fire Protection and Other Emergency Services between the City of Eustis and Lake County dated May 22, 2018 shall remain applicable.” She stated that the next sentence could read, “The parties shall determine how additional stations and services will be allocated and how funding for those services will be assessed,” noting that the language in the middle of these two sentences could be removed.
Commr. Campione reiterated this was for moving forward, and Mr. Neibert added that it was after approval of the agreement. Mr. Cole clarified that it could be at any point in time and did not have to wait for approval of the agreement.
Mr. Neibert did not want the ISBA to be delayed due to station location conversations, and Mr. Cole remarked that the two were not tied together.
Commr. Campione remarked that the goal behind an ISBA was to not duplicate services.
Mayor Holland commented that some fire stations may need to be cohabitated for a while, and that the City may need to obtain some stations as the City grew.
Mr. Cole opined that the current fire agreement worked well.
The Commissioners then moved on to Sections 10, 11 and 12, and Commissioner Breeden mentioned that the City wanted the length in each of these statements to be ten years.
Ms. Marsh relayed that the BCC listed ten years for the Pine Meadows agreement.
Commr. Campione said that ten years would be acceptable as long as the parties worked on the JPA as part of this, and Mr. Neibert stated he understood.
Mr. Neibert asked for the termination language in Section 13 to be addressed. He shared that the City had additional wording that the project could be terminated if either party was in breach; however, there would be twelve months to hear the breach before termination. He indicated that the City would send the County some language to consider.
Commr. Campione mentioned that prior to the two Commissions meeting again, she wanted to propose language to address working together on the Lake Joanna and Blue Lake issues; additionally, she desired to include formulating a mechanism to address existing enclaves that had stormwater and road issues, noting that she had given Nettie Court as an example earlier in the meeting. She relayed that the County would continue to work with residents in the area; however, she thought it would be helpful if these places could be annexed with a possible incentive for annexation.
Mr. Neibert added that it should include a cost sharing agreement between parties to make those improvements. He commented that the City could draft some potential language that if the City desired to annex an existing enclave then the parties would agree to negotiate on an incentive package to make infrastructure improvements.
Commr. Parks reiterated his desire to move forward quickly with addressing the JPA and that he believed it could happen faster than 36 months.
Eustis Commr. Morin inquired if the process would start with planning staff reviewing, and the Commissioners agreed.
Commr. Sullivan remarked that both staffs could work together to identify the areas with issues, and then report back to the commissions. He added that if what the City and County have were compatible, then there was no issue.
Eustis Commr. Morin suggested establishing a consistent meeting time for the two commissions in order to address the issues and not have them be delayed.
Commr. Sullivan specified that was part of the reason why the BCC approved the Pine Meadows agreement in order to assist with moving forward.
Mr. Cole stated that as it related to the JPA, the County would not know the length of time it would take for the process nor the issues that might need to be addressed until the planning staff got together. He asked for time for staff to assess it.
Mr. Neibert relayed that the Eustis Commission would hold a workshop to discuss policy regarding the JPA process.
Commr. Campione recapped that they would work on scheduling the next joint meeting with both commissions, that staff would review the JPA, and that the Eustis Commission could have their policy discussions. She reiterated that in the process, if the Eustis Commission wanted to consider a site by site ISBA for properties which currently wanted to come into the city, that offer was still on the table.
Commr. Breeden thanked the Eustis Commission for their willingness to continue discussions.
Commr. Campione invited everyone to the Groveland Four memorial dedication that Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. She then thanked everyone for attending.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
.
_________________________________
leslie campione, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK