A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

June 16, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 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

Commr. Campione said that Mr. Anthony Padilla, Assistant Veterans Service Officer for the Lake County Veterans Services Office, would lead the Pledge of Allegiance. She noted that the Board had begun having veterans leading them in their Pledge of Allegiance each meeting.

Pastor John Blake from Good News Church in the City of Leesburg gave the Invocation, and Mr. Padilla led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Agenda update

Ms. Elizabeth Heine, Enterprise Support Manager for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that this meeting was being streamed live on the County’s website; additionally, the meeting was available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who were unable to attend in person but still wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. She elaborated that anyone watching the livestream who wished to participate in the meeting could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream. She stated that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the Zoom Webinar using their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hands; furthermore, anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to let the County know they wished to speak. She mentioned that when it was time for public comment, she would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. She said that everyone would have three minutes to speak and that after three minutes, an alarm would sound letting them know that their time was up. She added that the County previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to this meeting. She explained that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, and noted that any written comments submitted during the meeting would be shared with each Board member following the meeting.

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, stated that the Lake County School Board staff was working on some revisions to the agreement for Tab 10; therefore, staff would like to withdraw that item and reschedule it for a future meeting. He also mentioned that they had a June 30, 2020 deadline to notify the State whether the County or the Lake County School Board would be responsible for filing for reimbursement for expenses relating to emergency events. He added that the staffs at the school board and the County agreed that the County could assume the responsibility to file on behalf of the school board in the future. He remarked that if the Board had no objections, staff would notify the State that the County would be the one to submit in the future. He concluded that staff was still working on the agreement and it would be brought back to the Board.

covid-19 update

Commr. Campione noted that this had been a joint effort between the Lake County Office of Emergency Management working with all of the stakeholder agencies throughout the county and the state. She said that the Florida Department of Health (DOH) in Lake County was the County’s lead agency and was focused on testing, contact tracing, and providing the needed statistics for the County to evaluate their next steps.

Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the DOH in Lake County, explained that the number of COVID-19 cases was increasing at the state and county levels. He mentioned that there were close to 500 cases in Lake County, and that many of the new cases were in facilities and not in the public. He commented that they were seeing some family infections but that they were also concerned about infections in the community, both internally and across the state. He said that their testing was going well and that the DOH in Lake County had been conducting approximately 1,000 tests per week; additionally, community doctors were conducting thousands of tests. He stated that Lake County was still under the two percent positivity mark, though he was concerned that it could increase in the coming days. He remarked that the hospitals were level and not experiencing overcrowding; however, this would need to be watched over the next few weeks due to a delay between cases increasing and individuals going to the hospital. He related that they distributed 67,000 masks to Lake County residents in less than a week, and they would be receiving more masks for different groups. He said that the DOH in Lake County continued to encourage social distancing in the public, and they were continuing to see one dozen to two dozen cases per day; furthermore, the other cases were coming from facilities. He stated that they continued to spread the message that everyone should be wearing masks in public, especially if social distancing could not be practiced. He added that they continued to encourage people to be tested and to talk with their physician if they thought they should be tested. He commented that they worked with their partners, and reiterated that they were concerned about the increase of cases in the state and nation.

Commr. Campione asked about the number of hospitalizations as of the current morning.

Mr. Kissler replied that it was not very high and that the number had decreased. He noted that they would continue to watch this and that there was also an increase in testing occurring. He explained that a lower hospitalization rate with increased testing would mean that the testing was catching more asymptomatic people, and the mortality rate would be lower.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that with regards to the outbreak at the jail, the DOH in Lake County was able to conduct a significant amount of testing over the past weekend.

Mr. Kissler confirmed this and said that they tested over half of the individuals at the jail over the weekend; furthermore, they would be testing everyone there. He noted that numbers may increase but felt that it was good to catch those individuals. He added that most of those individuals had recovered or had shown low symptoms.

Commr. Campione opined that Lake County had been conducting more testing than surrounding counties on a per capita basis. She then inquired about the process for when someone tested positive and about the DOH in Lake County’s contact tracing.

Mr. Kissler replied that when the DOH in Lake County found out that a person tested positive, which was reported by doctors, they reached out to those people and traced their steps for the past few weeks. He noted that this was based on memory, and suggested for individuals to keep a diary for where they went and the people they met with. He said that the DOH in Lake County would get the contacts from the individual and reach out to those people to inform them of symptoms and testing information. He commented that this could stop the line of transmission, and he remarked that his organization was interested in patterns relating to COVID-19.

Commr. Parks asked if the symptoms were lessening and if this could be due to a possible mutation.

Mr. Kissler responded that mutations could happen and that this could be either in everyone’s favor or against it. He commented that it could be challenging to tell if something was a mutation or if more testing was being done, and he relayed his understanding that the experts were still evaluating this.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Kissler for continuing to help lead this effort in the county.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the DOH in Lake County working long hours and for doing new things.

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, explained that the Lake County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was at a level two activation, and this occurred when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis moved the State of Florida to phase two of reopening on June 5, 2020. He relayed that the Lake County Citizen’s Information Line (CIL) was open Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and the line was closed on the weekends but would have a recording to provide COVID-19 testing locations and the DOH in Lake County’s local COVID-19 hotline number. He said that the number for the CIL was 352-253-9999, and the number for the DOH in Lake County’s hotline was 352-742-4830. He relayed that according to the DOH in Lake County’s COVID-19 update on the previous day, there were 482 positive cases, with about 90 coming from positive tests at the jail; furthermore, two weeks prior, he had reported the number to be 304 cases. He commented that 16 deaths had occurred to date and that two weeks prior, there were 15 deaths in Lake County. He related that to date, there had been 25,592 tests, with him having previously reported 16,953 tests, for a total of 999 tests in that time period. He said that the percentage of positive results was now two percent, which was roughly the same as from two weeks prior. He stated that his office was continuing to work with the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) for first responders and healthcare providers, and they still received weekly allocations of PPE that they were able to provide to those individuals. He added that they were continuing to work with the DOH in Lake County to monitor COVID-19 cases in long-term care facilities, and he provided the following statistics: there was a total of 160 facilities; 13 facilities had positive COVID-19 cases; eight facilities had positive tests for nine staff members; seven facilities had positive tests for 15 patients; there were 24 positive cases between staff and patients in long term care facilities; and two deaths had occurred in these long term care facilities. He commented that the County had a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved non-congregate sheltering plan but had not had to use it to date, though they were considering how they could use it during hurricane season. He remarked that for COVID-19 testing locations, the County had worked with Adult Medicine of Lake County since mid-April 2020. He elaborated that on the current day, they would be at the Lake County Fairgrounds, and the County was going to work with the Lake County Fair Association and the Agency for Economic Prosperity to try and have them conduct testing there for a few days at the beginning of the week. He added that they previously had testing in the City of Fruitland Park on June 3, 2020, at the Mascotte Civic Center on June 2 and 4, 2020, and at the Lady Lake Public Library on June 8, 2020. He stated that Adult Medicine of Lake County continued to offer free COVID-19 and immunity testing to Lake County first responders at any of their locations. He mentioned that from May 29 through June 4, 2020, Adult Medicine of Lake County’s testing of county residents reflected 231 COVID-19 tests with three being positive, and 150 immunity tests with two being positive. He remarked that the DOH in Lake County continued to offer free testing in their locations in the Cities of Umatilla, Clermont, and Leesburg, with all locations being open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. He concluded by noting that Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER) had been able to provide the following services: provided 27,323 cloth masks; been able to provide 312,900 meals with a donation value of $661,560; worked with local businesses to provide PPE to support their reopening, with 21 businesses receiving over 2,000 masks; was able to provide hand sanitizer and gloves; assisted six churches with over 1,000 masks, along with hand sanitizer and gloves; and in the previous week, LASER supported high schools with cloth masks and hand sanitizer.

Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, said his agency had continued to roll out its tourism marketing campaign for Lake County with Akers Media and the Watauga Group, and that the campaign focused on the tagline “The Perfect Distance Away.” He elaborated that this was designed to target visitors from markets within driving distance to the county and featured many unique aspects of the Lake County community that individuals and families could experience. He added that he was sitting on a regional branding committee with Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties, and that a focus was unifying the region behind a message of “better, safer, stronger together.” He noted that his agency would continue to participate in this effort and report back with any action that was taken on behalf of Lake County. He then provided an update on the Lake County Fairgrounds and indicated that it had been closed to the public and was used as a COVID-19 testing site over the past few months. He added that his agency had worked with the Lake County Fair Association and the City of Eustis to facilitate events for those organizations. He said that his agency had waived some fees for several of their initial community events, noting that the Lake County Fair Association and the City of Eustis had a food drive to support the community. He mentioned that his agency also had a tentative plan to reopen the weekly farmer’s market, and that Mr. Cole Scharlau, with the Lake County Office of Fairgrounds and Events Center, had been working with the IT Department to resolve issues with payments and online rentals; furthermore, they were aiming to potentially reopen it to vendors on Thursday, June 25, 2020. He then discussed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding that was announced at the end of the previous week, which Lake County was set to receive from the State of Florida. He said that there had been several offices working internally on the specifics of the CARES Act funding for how much funding would be available, when it would be available, how it could be spent, etc. He commented that before the current meeting, the County was notified by the DEM that the $16 million figure quoted in the previous week that Lake County would be receiving was the initial 25 percent that would be distributed to the County; therefore, the full funding for the County would be closer to $64 million. He relayed his understanding that the DEM was currently working on what the second phase of that funding could look like. He noted that the other 75 percent would typically have to be obtained via reimbursement, and the DEM had recognized that most Counties typically did not have this amount of cash on hand; however, the DEM was looking at the specifics of how it could be accessed by Counties.

Commr. Campione asked about the deadline for using this funding.

Mr. Matulka indicated an understanding that it was through December 2020. He thought that the funding agreement contained these details and that it would be coming to the Board.

Commr. Breeden inquired if it was possible to have a plan for Board approval by the next meeting.

Mr. Matulka replied that the initial conversation he wanted to have with the Board today was to go through the different aspects of what a business assistance program could look like, which staff had gleaned from other Counties, and receive feedback so that staff could continue to move forward.

Commr. Campione felt that due to where the County was in the calendar year and with businesses hurting, that getting a plan in place quickly would be critical.

Commr. Breeden questioned if it would be better to have Mr. Matulka come back later in the meeting.

Mr. Cole expressed support for this. He then remarked that when the County heard that they might be receiving some funding, Mr. Matulka and his team started looking at the other Counties which had begun receiving funding in May 2020. He noted that staff would try to take the best components from those plans to bring back for the Board’s consideration.

Commr. Sullivan said that this could be done during the budget workshop later in the meeting.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Matulka and everyone in the community who wrote letters regarding this funding. He felt that the funding could help small businesses in Lake County.

Commr. Breeden asked that for the weekly farmer’s market, would the Board be amenable if they could waive the fees for one or two weeks until that payment mechanism could be put in place.

Mt. Cole said that staff would do this, and he inquired if the Board was considering a period of time.

Commr. Breeden said that it would be however long it took to get the online or touchless payment in place.

Mr. Cole relayed that they would waive the fee for at least the next two weeks and then see how it was going from there.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of April 21, 2020 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Commr. Campione reiterated that if an individual joined the meeting through Zoom Webinar, they could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and that anyone participating through Zoom Webinar online could click the raise hand button to let the County know that they wished to speak. She commented that everyone would have three minutes to speak and that after three minutes, an alarm would sound letting them know that their time was up. She expressed support for open dialogue when working through issues, and she noted that she had been talking to members of the community over the past year. She stated that for the issue regarding a statue of Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, there seemed to be a consensus that these types of statues and artifacts needed to be preserved and protected because they were part of American history. She relayed an understanding that the general consensus was that museums were appropriate places for these items, and she mentioned the City of St. Augustine model which was used in many places where monuments were in the public square; furthermore, this model included placing plaques next to the monuments to inform of diverse perspectives and the emotions that the monuments invoked in people depending on their background and perspectives. She noted that this had been done in places where monuments had been outside, though she mentioned that the General Edmund Kirby Smith statue was currently in the United States Capitol and had been there for 100 years. She clarified that the statue was not currently in Lake County, and she explained that a state legislative act made the decision to bring the statue back to the State of Florida; additionally, a state selection committee had selected Lake County. She opined that the process was done quickly and recalled that there were only about five applicants. She said that in getting the general consensus that this artifact needed to be in a museum, she was interested if there was a museum in the state that would be more appropriate and directly connected to General Edmund Kirby Smith. She related that General Edmund Kirby Smith was born in the City of St. Augustine, and that there was a home there that had been preserved and was a museum. She added that there was also a state museum in the City of Tallahassee that she thought had a Civil War exhibit. She felt that these were two examples of places that would be more directly related to General Edmund Kirby Smith, and she thought that the community, the Board, and individuals should petition Governor DeSantis and the Secretary of State to reopen the selection process and try to find a museum that would be more directly connected to General Edmund Kirby Smith. She opined that this situation had created unnecessary division in the community, and she hoped that this harm was not irreparable and that everyone could come together to make this request to the Governor, the Secretary of State, and possibly the State Legislature. She felt that the alternative should be a museum, and she recalled that the Lake County Historical Museum curator had made this decision. She elaborated that when it was brought to the Board, it put them in an uncomfortable situation of having to censor a museum. She thought that there was a general view in the country for not censoring decisions made by a museum curator about how to display items in the museum. She recalled that it became an issue of censorship, and then became a larger question of what to do with monuments and Confederate artifacts and how to preserve American history in a way that is beneficial, educational and sensitive. She suggested for the Board to reopen this discussion with the State, noting that the statue belonged to the State and that the State began this process. She relayed her understanding that this item was not on the current agenda and that the Board could not take action on it today.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, asked if Commissioner Campione wanted her to draft a resolution that the Board could adopt and send to the Governor, or if the Board wanted to address it as a letter at their next meeting that the Board could vote on for the Chairman to send.

Commr. Campione thought that either a resolution or a letter would accomplish this goal. She expressed support for the one that would be read and understood, and she opined that a letter could sometimes come across better. She thought that the State received many resolutions on different issues, whereas a letter could be more likely to be read and for the Governor to take action on.

Commr. Parks thanked Commissioner Campione for her comments and reconsideration. He felt that there had been a weight on Lake County due to this issue, and that this reconsideration would be good for the county.

Commr. Campione opined that there had been positive things happening in the County and that this issue became a distraction from them. She felt that it could be good for everyone if the Board took the position that a museum was the appropriate location and that one more directly related to General Edmund Kirby Smith could be sought. She also expressed an interest in finding a location that would be safe for the statue, and she felt that history had to be preserved.

Commr. Breeden expressed appreciation for these comments, and she supported possibly writing a letter.

Commr. Campione added that the Board could also try to reach out and have a meeting, similar to what was done for the Groveland Four monument. She thought that reaching out to the County’s state legislators could also be important because they may need to change the legislation.

Mr. Cole said that for the Board’s next meeting, staff could prepare a resolution with a cover letter that would transmit and summarize the resolution.

Commr. Breeden thought that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had accomplished many positive items, and she did not want this statue to be their legacy.

Commr. Parks opined that this showed that the Board was being deliberative and thinking things through.

Commr. Campione relayed that her focus was on the Board’s community and trying to bring the community together around this item.

Commr. Blake stated that this issue had been about censorship for him. He noted that the Lake County Historical Museum had an independent board which decided to make their space available for the statue. He added that a statue of Ms. Mary McLeod Bethune was replacing the General Edmund Kirby Smith statue in the National Statuary Hall, and that the State of Florida decided that this statue belonged in a museum and had selected a centrally located museum in Lake County. He opined that the pressure brought on the Board was to censor the museum’s decision, and he expressed that he would not censor this decision; furthermore, he expressed concerns about sanitizing history.

Commr. Breeden recalled that when this item came before the Board previously, a vote was made under concern for the harm being done to the County’s facility due to the statue and the flooring.

Commr. Blake opined that this would be a mistake and that it would be setting a negative precedent when considering the recent vandalism of statues in the country. He felt that it was important for individuals to understand what happened in history, and he opined that this could only be done if items were preserved in museums, including those that invoked feelings of discomfort.

Commr. Campione indicated appreciation for Commissioner Blake’s comments and opined that this particular statue needed to go into a museum, but felt that it did not need to be in the museum inside the Lake County Historic Courthouse. She relayed that she had heard this from a variety of individuals in the community, and she indicated that there was a sense that this courthouse was not the proper museum for this artifact. She opined that the Board should draw a distinction between another museum in the State of Florida being more appropriate and in a better location, as opposed to the Lake County Historic Courthouse which may not always be a museum. She did not think that this museum would be a good permanent home for the statue, where the State could preserve it rather than the taxpayers of Lake County.

Commr. Parks clarified that no one was advocating for destroying this statue, and he opined that it should be in the appropriate museum; however, he felt that Lake County was not the correct location.

Commr. Sullivan agreed with Commissioner Blake that history could not be rewritten, and he believed that the second and third order effects of bringing this statue to Lake County were too great to the security and the relations that the County had built over the past 100 years. He expressed support for working with the State, and he felt that the statue of Ms. Mary McLeod Bethune going to the National Statuary Hall was a positive action. He mentioned that he had an oath of office as an elected official, and he did not think that he could carry out this oath while supporting bringing the statue to Lake County based on these subsequent effects. He clarified that he did not want to close the museum, and he thought that Lake County had a great history that should be told there; furthermore, he felt that this statue was a distraction from doing this. He expressed support for Commissioner Campione’s efforts to work with the State to find another home for the statue.

Commr. Breeden recalled that in the previous week, she had received an email from a resident who was not in support of the statue being in the county and who also felt that they should not have a photograph of former Lake County Sheriff Willis McCall. She elaborated that she had replied to the resident and indicated that while she agreed about the statue, due to General Edmund Kirby Smith not having any direct relationship with Lake County, Sheriff McCall was part of the county’s history. She opined that the county had to preserve this history and that while Sheriff McCall was looked at with fear, other individuals may have had different memories of him. She thought that it was important for the Lake County Historical Museum to get back to the county’s own history.

Commr. Campione commented that they would work on a draft resolution and letter and bring it back to the Board. She added that it could be years before the General Edmund Kirby Smith statue was moved from the United States Capitol to the State of Florida, and she felt that there was time for the State to get this done in the correct way.

Ms. Martha Taylor, President of the Tri City branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), thanked the Board for attempting to make a decision to potentially relocate a statue of Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith, which was currently planned to come to Lake County, to another location that she felt would be more appropriate.

Ms. Mae Hazelton, a resident of Lake County, thanked the Board and opined that relocating the statue was not about rewriting history. She thought that the statue was not the county’s history, and she denied that this situation had regarded censorship; rather, she felt that it had been about the transparency of process and everyone having a voice.

Ms. Linda Kero, a resident of the City of Leesburg and a candidate for the State of Florida House of Representatives in District 32, also thanked the Board for the decision regarding the statue and opined that it was not about censorship. She supported having empathy for all citizens.

Mr. Gregory Wilhelm, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, thanked the Board for reconsidering their decision to support bringing the statue to Lake County.

Ms. Cassandra Brown, Seat 3 of the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors and the President of Lake County Voices of Reason, expressed appreciation to the Board for reconsidering the statue decision. She felt that this statue did not represent the county’s history and that it was not worth the divide to bring it here.

Pastor Michael Watkins, a resident of Lake County, noted that it had been almost two years since some residents had expressed to the Board that statues and other Confederate emblems were hurtful. He expressed appreciation for the Board reconsidering bringing the statue to Lake County. He opposed racism and noted that many organizations and states had been removing Confederate items.

Mr. Eddie Boscana, a Lake County citizen, expressed concerns for a recent curfew placed on Lake County residents and felt that it was unjustified. He also indicated concerns for potential future curfews, and he questioned the operations of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office during a recent protest.

Mr. Robert Coufal, a resident of the City of Leesburg, indicated concerns for comments made by Representative Anthony Sabatini on social media regarding hospital workers at AdventHealth Waterman.

Commr. Campione noted that there were residents who wished to speak over Zoom Webinar.

Mr. David Crump, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, expressed appreciation for the Board for reconsidering the question of bringing the Confederate statue to Lake County. He indicated concerns for the effects of these types of statues remaining in place, and he opined that this statue did not pertain to Lake County’s history.

Mr. Frank Costanza, a concerned citizen, felt that history did not need to be covered up but that the Confederate statue had no relevance to Lake County. He opined that it could be noted in a letter from the County to Governor Ron DeSantis that the charter constituting the Lake County Historical Society and the 501(c)(3) filing for the society stated that their work would be relative to Lake County history; therefore, he felt that it was inappropriate for this statue to be brought to the Lake County Historical Museum. He relayed his understanding that an audit of the County verified by the Inspector General had listed about 23 unresolved deficiencies that existed in the museum. He thought that it would be incumbent upon the Commissioners to examine the relationship between Lake County and the Lake County Historical Society to ensure that they met all the requirements of the contract, and if not, to reconsider bidding that contract to someone else.

Ms. Stephanie Dukes, a resident of the City of Clermont and a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives for District 32, thanked the Board for their reconsideration of the statue issue. She opined that the statue represented a traitor to the United States, and she expressed concerns for the history of General Edmund Kirby Smith.

A medical massage therapist from the City of Eustis identified as Ms. Roxanne opposed the moratorium against medical cannabis dispensaries in Lake County. She noted that many patients had informed her that medical cannabis helped them with pain and other items, and she relayed her understanding that Lake County residents had to travel an average of 60 miles to obtain their medication. She felt that dispensaries could also help improve areas, increase foot traffic, and create jobs.

Mr. Jared Taylor, a concerned citizen, was worried that there were no medical cannabis dispensaries in unincorporated Lake County. He felt that this made it challenging for individuals who had to drive long distances to receive this product, and he relayed statistics about individuals with medical cannabis cards. He thought that there would be an opportunity to revisit this item, and he supported eliminating this ban.

Commr. Campione clarified that there was not a moratorium in Lake County, but that dispensaries had to be within city limits because this was typically where most commercial uses were found.

Ms. Marsh explained that Lake County’s ban was for the unincorporated area only, and each City had made their own decision whether to allow those facilities. She added that the County surveyed all 14 cities and that currently, medical marijuana facilities were permitted in the Towns of Astatula, Howey-in-the-Hills and Lady Lake, along with the Cities of Fruitland Park, Groveland, Mascotte, Mount Dora and Tavares. She commented that the other Cities had a ban on this, noting that removing the unincorporated ban could not force those dispensaries to locate there. She mentioned that if the Board chose to remove the ban, then the County would have to go through an ordinance process.

Commr. Parks stated that he was willing to have more discussions on this item, and that a few years prior, the Board had a choice whether to regulate this activity from a zoning standpoint. He said that if there was some ability for the Board to consider regulating it from a zoning standpoint, then he would be open to this.

Ms. Marsh explained that with how the State statute was currently worded, the County could not regulate this activity. She said that if the County allowed dispensaries, they would have to be allowed in the same manner as they allowed pharmacies, so the County would not be able to specify any hours of operation or specific locational criteria.

Commr. Sullivan commented that he would research it and determine if he wanted to bring it back up.

Commr. Campione recalled concerns about if there were growing and manufacturing locations that became dispensaries, then they could be located in remote areas; furthermore, she was concerned for the people who lived around them and who expected the area to be historically agriculture. She thought that at that time, the Board was hesitant about interjecting uses into rural areas that could create conflicts there when knowing that municipalities could choose to have them, noting that individuals could have access to them in addition to ordering products online or having them delivered. She said that Board members interested in bringing this item back up could coordinate with Mr. Cole.

Ms. Danielle Olivani, a resident of the City of Mount Dora, thanked the Board for reconsidering having the Confederate statue in Lake County.

Mr. Nathan Focht, a resident of Sugarloaf Mountain, mentioned that a development was coming onto Sugarloaf Mountain and relayed his understanding that the road there could not accommodate development traffic. He said that this development desired an entrance on Sugarloaf Mountain Road, and he expressed an interest in the County informing the City of Minneola that they could not install an entrance on this road; rather, the entrance would need to be on Hancock Road.

Commr. Parks expressed support for Mr. Focht’s comments, and recalled conversations that there would not be access onto Sugarloaf Mountain Road. He said that he would be opposed to this development but that it was in the City of Minneola; however, the County had access permits and permitted the roads. He felt that Sugarloaf Mountain Road could not handle the traffic with the road base, along with the width and traffic on it.

Commr. Campione thanked Pastor John Christian, who was in the audience, noting that she had spoken to him about bringing the community together. She expressed appreciation for the work he was doing in the community.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:41 a.m. for 10 minutes.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan 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 4, as follows:

List of Warrants

Request to acknowledge receipt of the list of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

City of Mount Dora Annexation Ordinance 2020-08

Request to acknowledge receipt of Annexation Ordinance 2020-08 from the City of Mount Dora.

Lands Available List

Request to acknowledge receipt of property placed on the Lands Available List.

City of Fruitland Park Resolution 2020-024

Request to acknowledge receipt of Resolution 2020-024 from the City of Fruitland Park denying utilization of the county’s services for debris removal.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

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

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 21, pulling Tab 10, and pulling Tab 5 for a separate vote, as follows below:

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 5.

Commr. Blake voted no.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Lake County, Florida v. Rosario Ricardez Hernandez, et al., Court Case No. 2019-CA-001238, for the needed right of way for the CR455/Ridgewood Avenue Roundabout Project. The fiscal impact is $7,700.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.

Request approval and execution of the Second Amendment to the Contract for Medical Examiner Services. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Request approval of Resolution 2002-102 adopting the revised Fiscal Year 2020 Public Works Fee Schedule, Exhibit Q. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.

Procurement Services

Request approval to declare items as surplus and authorization to remove them from the County’s official fixed asset inventory records. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Request approval of an amendment to the contract with Life Insurance Company of North America (Philadelphia, PA) to provide group short and long term disability insurance services, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $99,263.00 (expenditure).

Request approval to incorporate certification incentive pay into the base pay for specified positions in Public Works, Fleet Management, and Building Services, and to establish the duration of the certification pay retroactive to July 1, 2019, which will allow the base pay and the certification pay to be eligible for Florida Retirement System benefits. There is no fiscal impact.

AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Request approval of sponsorship funding associated with the Greater Orlando Sports Commission's (GO Sports) bid for the 2020 Bassmaster College Team Championship, and authorization for the Chairman to execute the agreement if selected as the tournament host location. The fiscal impact is not to exceed $48,500.00 (expenditure). Commission District 3.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Request:

1. Approval to accept the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' terms and conditions for the round one distribution of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Provider Relief Funds for Emergency Medical Services Providers.

2. Approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2020-103.

3. Approval of an associated budget transfer.

The fiscal impact is $436,025.84 (revenue).

Request approval to purchase five vehicles and related equipment for use as Quick Response Vehicles for the Office of Emergency Medical Services. The fiscal impact is $292,429.00 (expenditure).

Fire Rescue

Request approval:

1. Of a change order request to Contract 19-0918 from Florida Retrofits, Inc. (Palm Bay, FL) to provide funding for a retractable cord system for overhead bay doors at 19 fire stations currently undergoing door and window renovations.

2. For the County Manager to execute all related documentation.

3. For the Office of Procurement Services to execute any future change orders with a value of less than $25,000.00.

The estimated total fiscal impact is $21,045.00 (revenue/expenditure - $15,783.75 in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding and $5,261.25 in County funding).

Planning and Zoning

Request approval of a mediated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.51, Florida Statutes, to permit a setback of five feet from a property line to allow for construction of a porch at a residence located in Sorrento. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. Commission District 4.

Public Safety

Request:

1. Ratification of a grant application for a U.S. Department of Justice 2020 Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding Program Grant for personal protective equipment.

2. Approval to accept the grant if awarded.

3. Authorization for the Chairman to execute all related documents.

The estimated fiscal impact is $109,063.00 (revenue/expenditure - no required local match).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Housing and Human Services

Request approval of the contract with SHI International Corp. to create an online assistance application and portal, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The fiscal impact is $9,977.88 (expenditure).

Request approval of the proposed Community Development Block Grant projects to be included in the 2020 Annual Action Plan, and approval of the Needs, Goals, and Objectives to be included in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, both of which will be displayed and available for public comment for 30 days. The fiscal impact is $2,200,716.00 (revenue).

Request approval of the Urban County Cooperation Agreement relating to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program between Lake County and the cities of Mount Dora and Fruitland Park. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time, but an increase in CDBG revenue of approximately $50,000.00 is anticipated.

Request approval of distribution of Fiscal Year 2019 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds among local jurisdictions applying for funding, and authorization for the Chairman to execute the allocation support letter. There is no fiscal impact to the County.

Public Works

Request approval of Contract 20-0523 with Cathcart Construction Company-Florida LLC (Oviedo, FL) for the Lake Yale Marsh Park Stormwater Improvement project. The fiscal impact is $175,410.00 (expenditure - $103,750.00 in grant funding and $71,660.00 in County funding). Commission District 4.

Transit Services

Request approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Groveland regarding LakeXpress bus stop maintenance. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.

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 nine tabs on the rezoning agenda, and he noted that for Tab 6, there was a revised ordinance which was handed out this morning. He elaborated that the change pertained to Section 6 of that ordinance for the effective date clause, and it was revised language that the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) had requested. He stated that for Tab 9, he had also handed out a revised ordinance. He commented that Tabs 1 through 5 were all on the consent agenda and had been unanimously approved by Planning and Zoning Board on June 1, 2020. He said that staff requested that the Board approve the consent agenda as presented; however, he relayed an understanding that there were comment cards for consent agenda Tabs 1, 2 and 3. He noted that the Board could move these tabs to the regular agenda.

Commr. Parks shared that he had a question about Tab 5 regarding buffers.

Commr. Campione asked if Commissioner Parks could ask a question if no one else was in opposition or wanted to discuss it.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that this could be done, and that it could still be left on the consent agenda if the Board was satisfied with the answer and did not want to make any changes.

Commr. Parks asked for an aerial image to be shown of the subject property for Tab 5, and inquired if Morningside Road was at the north property boundary.

Mr. McClendon confirmed this.

Commr. Parks commented that a few residents to the west of the property had concerns for the buffer between the parking area, and the road and the houses. He relayed that there were some trees there that appeared to be in good health, though he thought that there was supposed to be a shrub sub-canopy buffer that was never planted. He asked that if this request was granted, would it require the applicant to put the shrubs back in.

Mr. McClendon confirmed this and said that as part of the change of use permit, if there was landscaping that had not been installed, the County would hold that certificate of occupancy (CO) until the landscape buffer was installed.

Commr. Breeden commented that there had been a school there in the past.

Commr. Parks expressed support for this item and noted that his question had been answered.

Commr. Campione stated that she had comment cards for Tabs 1, 2 and 3.

Ms. Marsh recommended pulling those tabs to the regular agenda, and ensuring that no one online wished to speak on the other consent agenda items.

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. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 and 5, pulling Tabs 1 through 3 to the regular agenda, as follows:

Tab 4. Ordinance No. 2020-31

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-11-1

IDI Logistics – C.C. Ford Commerce Park PUD

Rezone property within the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and to establish alternative parking and landscape standards.

Tab 5. Ordinance No. 2020-32

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-12-3

Lake Square Presbyterian Church CFD

Amend CFD Ordinance #71-88 to include a private educational (K-5 school) use.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2020-28

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-08-5

KH Ranch Resort CUP

Conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a recreational club on Agriculture (A) zoned property

Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2020-29

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-08-3

LCBCC - Ike Ave. CFD Rezoning

Rezone 2.86 +/- acres from Urban Residential District (R-6) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow for development of the future Bassville Park Fire Station.

Tab 3. Ordinance No. 2020-30

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-09-1

Vista Vision Property/CRS Howey Rezoning

Rescind and replace Planned Commercial (CP) zoning Ordinance 2017-60 to increase the maximum structure size and request a waiver to Land Development Regulation (LDR) Section 9.10.02.B.1 to only require one entrance to the principle building due to the property’s irregular shape.

Tab 6. Ordinance No. 2020-33

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2

Bella Collina FLU Small Scale Amendment

Amend the Lake County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the land use from Bella Collina to Bella Collina Helipad/Open Space Category and create a new Future Land Use Category (FLUC) via new Policy, I-1.3.12 Bella Collina Helipad/Open Space (FLUC), for helicopter landing pad/open space use.

Tab 7. Ordinance No. 2020-34

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-15-1

J&K Sargent Horse Stable CUP

Conditional Use Permit to allow a horse stable/boarding/riding academy with boarding and breeding on Agricultural Residential (AR) zoned property.

Tab 8.

Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1

FL-186 Groveland Gulfstream Towers CUP

Conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a 199-foot monopole communications tower on Agriculture (A) zoned property.

Tab 9.

Rezoning Case # FLU-19-07-2

Evergreen Estates FLUM Amendment - Transmittal

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately forty (40) acres from Wellness Way 1 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to facilitate the development of an eighty (80) lot residential subdivision.

kh ranch resort cup

Mr. McClendon presented Rezoning Tab 1, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-08-5, KH Ranch Resort CUP. He explained that this case was located in the Altoona area in Commission District 5, and the tract size was approximately 10 acres. He said that request was for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a recreational club on Agriculture zoned land, and he commented that the future land use (FLU) was Rural. He relayed these staff analysis findings: the recreational club would include horseback riding, fishing with non-motorized boats, and four recreational vehicle (RV) spaces; the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which allowed recreational clubs within Agriculture zoned land via the CUP process; and the concept plan demonstrated that the applicant was meeting the wetland setbacks as required by the Comp Plan and LDRs. He said that for consistency and compatibility with adjacent areas, next door to this property was a similar CUP approved in 2016 identified as Fiddlers Green Ranch CUP; additionally, this CUP was more intense than the currently proposed CUP. He elaborated that Fiddlers Green Ranch was allowed the boarding of horses, riding arenas, 14 RV spots, 12 trailer spaces, a caretaker’s residence, an owner’s residence, and two short term rental spaces. He mentioned that public hearing notices had been sent to 32 adjacent residents within 800 feet of the subject property, and he displayed the concept plan, noting that the proposed RV spots were outside of the wetland buffer. He concluded that the requested action was to accept the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, find the application consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs, and approve the requested CUP.

Mr. John Weatherford, representing the applicant, provided background information on the property. He recalled that in March 1990, Fiddlers Green Ranch was granted a CUP, and that in September of 1999, this CUP was amended and included the property owned by them at the time, along with the subject property. He stated that the applicant had purchased the property in 2012 and that on February 16, 2016, Fiddlers Green Ranch received a new CUP which removed the applicant’s property from the permit. He added that in October 2017, the Lake County Office of Code Enforcement sent a fee renewal for the CUP granted in 1999 to continue the use of the permit, which was paid. He stated that in October 2018, the Office of Code Enforcement sent another letter regarding the renewal of the 1999 CUP which was also paid. He commented that in March 2019, the applicant received a notice from the Office of Code Enforcement indicating that they did not have a CUP, though they were now obtaining a CUP and dealing with these issues. He indicated that they had worked with the County to develop a site plan, and he explained that the applicant was looking to have four RV sites, horseback riding, fishing and outdoor activities.

Mr. Greg Beliveau, representing the applicant, reiterated that the applicant had been paying annually for a CUP and then found out that they did not have a CUP. He indicated an interest in having an opposing citizen speak and then coming back for rebuttal.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. James Barnard, a neighbor of the subject property and the owner of Fiddlers Green Ranch, stated that did not receive a notice for the June 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He requested a postponement of this case until he had a chance to address that board. He read a letter providing information about this case and said that he had made a code violation complaint over one year ago for the subject property due to violations caused from the KH Ranch Resort vacation horse facility. He opined that the property had an existing CUP that he had applied for in 1990, and he commented that it was one of the seven lots of this subdivision and contained a total of 60 acres including the two CUPs. He relayed his understanding that the applicant owned six of the lots totaling 46 acres, including the CUP which was transferred when he had sold the property about six years prior. He mentioned that the current CUP allowed for a triplex unit, which he had built and had primarily been used for the National Mounted Training Group and instructor cadre for certified police training courses. He recalled that this CUP lot was sold to the applicant about six years prior after the National Mounted Training Group disbanded. He opined that the applicant’s recreational club application was an attempt to avoid the same requirements that he operated under, and he stated that the applicant had operated KH Ranch Resort for about six or seven years, which was a similar business as Fiddlers Green Ranch. He remarked that the Office of Code Enforcement was provided information regarding KH Ranch Resort to demonstrate that the applicant’s business activities were in violation of the current rental CUP there. He opined that KH Ranch Resort’s business activity had largely mirrored the horse operations of Fiddlers Green Ranch, with RV sites, paddocks, and other horse vacation activities for over six years after he sold the lot. He felt that their shared fishing pond had suffered environmentally, and thought that the applicant let their six personal horses on the adjacent residential lot use the pond. He expressed a concern that according to the new CUP, this would occur further as the applicant placed horse paddocks at the lakeside and the RV sites. He felt that the CUP would affect the view and value of his property, and claimed that the RVs were currently kept on a tennis court which was in front of his duplex porches. He opined that with 46 acres, there was no reason to permit construction for the new recreation club other than to not have a consideration for the relocation on the 10 acres. He also asked if a modular unit on the property would become a caretaker’s residence. He recalled that he was told by County staff that a legal notice of the hearing was sent and that it now required a 10 day notice to postpone this hearing and that it must be made in person at the current meeting. He requested a postponement of 30 days so that he and his attorney could review the case. He disagreed with the staff analysis for the section regarding the wetlands and a quote that the request would have no undue adverse effect upon nearby property. He also requested that if the Board postponed the case, then the Planning and Zoning Board should be instructed to review their information and decision for the RVs’ location and for there to be restrictions for the horses to not be allowed to go to the shared fishing pond. He concluded by providing a packet of information regarding KH Ranch Resort.

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

Mr. Beliveau clarified that the applicant had been under the impression that they had a CUP and that they were paying fees; however, when they were cited by the County and informed that they had no CUP, they had taken their website down. He displayed the site plan and noted that a new wetland line was reviewed, and they had a 50 foot buffer from the lake and the wetland line; additionally, the paddocks were designed so that neither the paddocks nor the horses had any access into the lakes or wetlands. He showed an image of the property and pointed out the duplex that the applicant was discussing, along with the existing triplex and where the four RVs would be located. He stated that this was all one CUP previously, and that the closest RV would be 197 feet from the duplex. He showed another image of the property and noted the duplex, the tennis court and the landscaping between them. He pointed out the southern boundary between the two property owners, and showed images of landscaping near the duplex. He said that there was vacant property to the south, and he remarked that there would be two CUPs with similar uses but that the uses would be less intense on the subject property with a triplex and four RVs. He explained that they would be required by the County to upgrade the septic system, the water system, fire protection with the road, to demolish the entry feature, and they would have to expand the road apron from 24 feet to 36 feet. He noted that the RVs were only there for the winter months, and he opined that it was a low intensity request. He asked for the Board’s approval and felt that the two operations there were not the same and had no relationship. He commented that the applicant wanted to use the tennis courts because they were already existing impacts.

Commr. Breeden recommended including a condition that the tree canopy between the tennis courts and the duplex be maintained, and Mr. Beliveau indicated that this was amicable.

Commr. Blake expressed appreciation for the neighbor voicing their concern, but thought that the uses would be similar. He indicated support for this request.

Ms. Marsh asked if a motion would include the condition from Commissioner Breeden that the existing tree line be maintained next to the tennis courts.

Commr. Blake questioned whether this would be necessary.

Commr. Campione thought that it could be included because the tree line was there, was already matured, and could buffer the two sites.

Commr. Blake then expressed support for including this condition.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was anything related to the notice for the public hearing that the Board should be concerned about.

Ms. Marsh replied that there was no issue with the notice and that Mr. Barnard had notice of the hearing.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm if the horses would be permitted to go down to the lake and if this was a public health issue.

Mr. McClendon responded that he was unaware of any regulations in the LDRs that prohibited horses meandering into a lake.

Commr. Breeden noted that Mr. Beliveau indicated the horses would not be allowed in the lake.

Mr. McClendon indicated an understanding that the horses traversing into the lake were on a separate piece of property that was not before the Board today.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 1, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-08-5, KH Ranch Resort, with the modification that the existing tree line must be maintained next to the tennis courts.

lcbcc – ike ave. cfd rezoning

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-08-3, LCBCC - Ike Ave. CFD Rezoning. He explained that this case was located east of Ike Lake, north of the intersection of County Road (CR) 473 and Northern Avenue in Commission District 3, with a tract size of approximately 2.86 acres. He said that the request was to rezone the property from Urban Residential (R-6) to Community Facility District (CFD) to allow for the future Bassville Park fire station. He showed an image of the property and noted that the FLU was Urban Medium. He displayed the concept plan for the proposed fire station, and said that the requested action was to accept the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation, find the request consistent with the Comp Plan, and approve the requested rezoning from R-6 to CFD.

Commr. Breeden commented that Ms. Annabelle Burke, a concerned citizen, had requested a community meeting to discuss this request, which had been scheduled for April 2020; however, they had to cancel the meeting. She thought that Ms. Burke had some questions about the request.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Burke indicated that she had no issue with the fire station but expressed concerns for road safety, a nearby school zone, speeding on the road, and turn lanes.

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

Commr. Parks asked if there was a turn lane at CR 473 and Northern Avenue.

Mr. McClendon noted that there would be two access points.

Mr. Jim Dickerson, Lake County Fire Chief, commented that they were still trying to plan and that this was only the concept plan with the prototype building. He said that their goal was to leave the station on CR 473 and come back into the station off of Ike Avenue. He mentioned that this was the same location they came out of currently, but they would be on CR 473. He added that there would be flashing signage.

Commr. Parks asked if there would be stop bars or signage.

Mr. Dickerson responded that the minimum would be flashing warning signs and that the optimal sign would be one that they could control preemptively when they received a call.

Commr. Breeden stated that there may be times where they need to enter off CR 473, and she questioned if they had room for a right turn lane.

Mr. Dickerson said that they could check with the County engineers.

Commr. Campione thought that a pond on the property prevented the building being shifted for there to be a turn lane.

Mr. Dickerson felt that it was a uniquely shaped property, and he hoped that they could access a nearby Lake County property for stormwater retention and possibly move the whole station over.

Commr. Campione relayed an understanding that the Board would only be approving the CFD today, and she indicated a desire to shift the building and create a better transportation situation.

Mr. Dickerson noted that the displayed image depicted the property that the County purchased from SECO, but noted that the County property for stormwater retention may allow them to move over that way. He added that they were prepared to meet with the community but had to postpone that meeting due to COVID-19.

Commr. Campione asked to clarify that this would allow the County to rezone the property but then Mr. Dickerson could meet with the community to receive input, and Mr. Dickerson confirmed this.

Commr. Breeden said that she was looking forward to the new fire station.

Commr. Campione asked if the prototype was similar to the fire station in Altoona.

Mr. Dickerson displayed an image for what staff currently had for Fire Station 39, and he indicated that they were hoping to develop a prototype station. He commented that it would look like this image if they stayed with the same prototype. He added that there was a community room that could be accessed from the outside and would be connected to the station, but would be away from the staff.

Commr. Campione stated that the County would be in contact about a community meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-08-3, LCBCC - Ike Ave. CFD Rezoning

vista vision property/crs howey rezoning

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-09-1, Vista Vision Property/CRS Howey Rezoning. He commented that this case was located at the intersection of State Road (SR) 19 and CR 455, and that the tract size was approximately 2.5 acres. He added that the request was to rescind and replace the existing Planned Commercial (CP) Ordinance 2017-60 and replace it with a new CP ordinance to expand the limitation of a building size, and to request a waiver that would only allow one entrance on the principal building, which was due to the shape of the lot. He displayed an image indicating that the existing zoning was CP and the FLU was Rural. He noted that the current building size limitation was 5,000 square feet and that the applicant was trying to increase this to approximately 10,000 square feet. He mentioned that the property currently allowed for rural support uses within this rural support intersection, which were identified as C-1 uses. He said that there was a current development application under review for a 9,100 square foot retail commercial building on this site, and he displayed the concept plan. He pointed out that access was currently only located along the CR 455 side; however, the Lake County Public Works Department had informed the applicant that an additional entrance may be required along SR 19, as well as extra right of way along CR 455. He then read the requested action to accept the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation and approve this request to amend Ordinance 2017-60.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing the applicant, said that the applicant agreed with the staff report and noted that the only request they had today was to conform the CP zoning to the Comp Plan change done in the previous year. He explained that the Comp Plan limited the square footage to 5,000 at rural support intersections but that in the previous year, the BCC and the DEO had approved it to go to 10,000 square feet. He stated that the applicant had understood that there was an issue on SR 19 with the access because the right turn lane from SR 19 to CR 455 existed along their whole property, and they were of the understanding that they could not obtain a driveway permit there. He expressed support for this if it could be done, and said that they would rather have two entrances if possible. He expressed appreciation for the waiver if they were not allowed to have an entrance on SR 19.

Commr. Parks asked about which design standards would apply to this item.

Mr. Crawford said that he was unsure, but that it would be a convenience-type retail store.

Mt. McClendon indicated that about one year prior, the County had slightly increased the commercial design standards, and this specific site would have to conform to those guidelines.

Commr. Parks noted that many individuals considered this area to be of rural character, and he thought that questions during the design would regard lighting, buffers and the appearance of the site.

Mr. McClendon responded that for lighting, they would have to conform to dark-sky guidelines. He noted that along CR 44A, there was a retail convenience store being developed, and the County had heard feedback from residents. He thought that the County was holding that site plan approval because that specific site did not meet their design criteria.

Commr. Campione noted that the site along CR 44A already had a commercial zoning and the County was relying on the LDRs to be the minimum standard; however, with the current case being a CP before the Board, they would have more opportunity to weigh in. She relayed her understanding that some citizens in rural areas wanted to maintain a rural feel, and she opined that there were designs in other locations that complimented the area.

Mr. Crawford asked to confirm that when the Comp Plan amendment was passed to allow 10,000 square feet, the architectural standards were also adopted as part of that.

Mr. McClendon replied that he was unsure.

Mr. Crawford then asked if there were some design standards that could be referred to. He relayed an understanding that there would be site plan approval and architectural design standards during review of the building permit and the site plan. He said that he could send the plans and elevations to work with the Board on it. He asked for the Board to move forward, noting that the applicant could work with them in good faith.

Commr. Parks felt that it was important to understand the process of what would come next if this case was approved. He also mentioned that he had heard concerns about growth and how it appeared.

Commr. Campione asked if the Board could proceed with the CP but have the architectural plan come back so that the Board could see it.

Commr. Sullivan inquired if the Board could include in the CP that it would meet the rural support design standards.

Commr. Breeden felt that the design standards were vague.

Mr. Crawford commented that he would have to speak with his client.

Commr. Campione expressed interest in attaching some pictures to this ordinance.

Mr. Crawford relayed that he could meet with planning staff to find a design standard, and Mr. McClendon confirmed this.

Commr. Blake was unsure if this was the time to create additional issues for individuals trying to build in Lake County.

Commr. Campione opined that developers and builders liked to know what was expected of them. She indicated a concern for leaving things up for later interpretation.

Commr. Parks agreed and suggested that Mr. Crawford could find design standards now or come back for site plan approval later.

Mr. Crawford asked to come back at the end of the rezoning agenda. He said that if he was unable to find any planning assistance for something acceptable to both parties before the end of the BCC meeting, they could have a condition indicating that the site plan approval and the architectural guidelines would come back to the Board for approval.

Ms. Marsh asked if this case was pulled to the regular agenda due to a Commissioner’s request or if the Board had a comment card.

Commr. Campione confirmed that there was a comment card but noted that the citizen was no longer present.

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 said that this case would be finished when Mr. Crawford came back to see if there was anything they could attach to the ordinance.

bella collina flu small scale amendment

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 6, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2, Bella Collina FLU Small Scale Amendment. He said that the request was located on the east and west side of CR 455, within Commission District 2, and the tract size was approximately 0.6 acres. He noted that the current request was to amend the FLU map designation from Bella Collina to Bella Collina Helipad/Open Space via a new policy within the Bella Collina FLU category. He commented that the current zoning was the planned unit development (PUD) for Bella Collina, and he said that this Comp Plan amendment originally came from an approval by the BCC in January 2020. He commented that staff had transmitted that approval to the DEO for their feedback and comments, and that as part of the objections, recommendations and comments letter from the DEO, they had asked that in lieu of performing a text amendment, to instead submit this request as a small scale map amendment. He explained that the current case was a technical fix to the submittal from January 2020 and that the PUD ordinance approved in January 2020, along with the text amendment approved at that time, were not under consideration today. He related that this case only pertained to the FLU map element; therefore, if the Board wanted to address the hours of operation, flight path, or other conditioned items within the PUD, a different public hearing would be required to open up that PUD and the County would have to provide notice of this. He displayed the same concept plan from January 2020 and mentioned that tract O of the Bella Collina plat would be identified for the helipad. He said that the requested action was to accept the Planning and Zoning’s recommendation, find the request consistent with the Comp Plan, and approve this FLU map amendment.

Mr. Jonathan Huels, an attorney representing the applicant, noted that this matter was returned from the DEO due to a technical or procedural issue, and he stated that there was no change in what had come before the Board in January 2020 to add the private helipad use to the Bella Collina community as an additional amenity south of the clubhouse. He recalled that it went through a public hearing process, that residents discussed it, that it was deliberated by the Board, and that it was approved. He added that it was back to add a corresponding policy to go with the FLU designation, and he stated that it also came before the Planning and Zoning Board earlier in the current month; additionally, he implied that board had unanimously recommended approval. He showed a map with the helipad location on the west side of CR 445, and he pointed out the FLU change from Bella Collina to Bella Collina Helipad/Open Space. He noted that it would just be a designation for this 0.6 acre tract, and he showed the corresponding policy that would be added to the Comp Plan and would signify an impervious surface ratio (ISR) and open space. He mentioned that this was the same site plan that was previously before the Board, and he showed the flight paths which had been incorporated into the PUD amendment, which had also not changed. He said that some individuals from the Town of Montverde community had discussed an increase in the frequency of flights, and he displayed a flight log of the past year. He explained that there had been a total of six flights into Bella Collina over the previous year, two of which were utilized for installation of an air conditioning unit on the roof of the clubhouse. He asked the Board to approve this request, and felt that it had already been vetted, deliberated, and decided upon.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Greg Gensheimer, a resident of the Town of Montverde, relayed an understanding that the staff report indicated that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) heliport documentation described that heliports were exempted from certification as an air carrier general aviation facility; furthermore, as this proposed helicopter landing pad use was not a carrier operation, no certification from the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was required. He relayed his understanding that the County had selected Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139 as the guiding regulation regarding airports and heliports. He opined that this was the incorrect guiding regulation and that it referred to commercial operations but not the construction of facilities. He noted that Bella Collina’s intention was to establish a landing pad, and felt that helipads being exempted from Part 139 had no bearing on this case. He thought that the FAA requiring heliports to have Part 139 certification did not make sense because to date, they had only certified one facility across the United States; additionally, the majority of heliports were built at existing Part 139 certified airports, and there were not enough helicopters that could seat more than nine passengers. He indicated an understanding that the United States Congress delegated Title 14, CFR, Part 139 authority just to the FAA, though the FDOT and the FAA did issue licenses to public and private airports. He requested for there to be another hearing regarding operations, and he suggested that all public and private airports must go through permitting by both the FAA and the FDOT. He relayed his understanding that Rule 14-60.005, Florida Administrative Code, indicated that the applicant must receive approval from all municipalities within five miles of the proposed airport. He elaborated that the typical response from the applicant would be letters of approval from all municipalities, and for Lake County, the approval could be in the form of restrictions placed in the local zoning approval document.

Mr. Robert Tomlinson, a resident of the Town of Montverde, relayed that the Montverde Town Council had recently voted to indicate that they wanted flights to be allowed only from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. He thought that this could be brought up in another meeting regarding this matter.

Commr. Parks noted that Mr. Jim Ley, Montverde Town Councilmember, was in attendance, and asked if he wanted to speak; however, Mr. Ley did not wish to speak.

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

Commr. Parks indicated an understanding that there was a way for the County to reevaluate the uses for hours of operation, number of flights, and aircraft flight patterns.

Mr. Huels commented that flight patterns had been included in the ordinance. He did not think that many flights would be coming from the north; rather, most individuals visiting would be coming from the south or the west. He recalled that there was deliberation in January 2020 about hours, and he thought that this Board’s decision was that they wanted to keep a clawback clause included. He elaborated that once the helipad was built and was being used, if there were issues, the Board would have the ability to bring it back and reevaluate it. He did not think that they were currently at this point with a total of six flights in the past year. He believed that this would not be a high frequency use, and noted that it could be advertised as an amenity for the golf club. He reiterated that the Board could bring it back if it was to be a conflict between its use and the neighborhood.

Commr. Parks thought that he had previously mentioned reevaluating the helipad one year after it was constructed.

Mr. Huels did not think that there was a timeframe placed on the Board’s ability to do this.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm if he could do this at the Town of Montverde’s request at some point after construction.

Mr. Huels confirmed this but hoped that it would have a basis.

Commr. Parks thought that the flight pattern was a good way to alleviate concerns, and he thought that the applicant had a good relationship with the community. He then asked Ms. Marsh if the FAA regulated this.

Ms. Marsh responded that under Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, the County’s development approvals were not and could not be conditioned upon an applicant obtaining state or federal approvals from other agencies. She elaborated that the County was only considering the zoning and that if the applicant did not receive what they were supposed to from the FAA, FDOT or another entity, then they could not operate it and those entities could use their enforcement abilities to stop the operation. She reiterated that this was not an issue that the County could condition or consider as part of the current hearing.

Commr. Parks supported the request, keeping in mind that it was a separate issue of land use versus concerns about the actual use. He felt that he had made it clear that in respecting the Town of Montverde’s concerns, the County would consider it after it was operated and address any concerns. He noted that the County had the ability to reevaluate and that they would do this; furthermore, he thought that Bella Collina would make the effort to address this.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 6, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-04-2, Bella Collina FLU Small Scale Amendment.

j&k sargent horse stable cup

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 7, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-15-1, J&K Sargent Horse Stable CUP. He explained that this case was located along Colony Barn Road in the City of Clermont, within Commission District 1, and the tract size was just under five acres. He stated that the request was for a CUP to allow a horse boarding/stable/riding academy, with breeding, on Agricultural Residential (AR) zoned property. He displayed an image and pointed out that the FLU was Green Swamp Rural Conservation, and mentioned that the property was currently developed for horse riding uses with two stables on the property along with two agricultural structures. He relayed that this request was consistent with the Comp Plan and LDRs, along with being consistent and compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses and the existing rural character of the area. He noted that the Board of Adjustment had granted two variances to this property to allow the applicant to apply for a CUP on a property under 10 acres in size, and to allow an existing barn to be located less than 200 feet from the property line. He recalled that at the June 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, there were several discussions pertaining to the number of horses allowed on the property and the hours of operation; furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Board added a condition of approval that would limit the horse riding lessons from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He showed the concept plan with the current conditions of the site, and he read the requested action to accept the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, with the added hours of operation condition, and approve the requested CUP.

Ms. Merideth Nagel, an attorney representing the applicant, thought that the applicant had worked out an agreement with the neighbors who had been objecting with the following changes to the proposed ordinance: no more than 10 horses boarded, along with any foals; during summer, lessons would be conducted from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with lessons being conducted from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the winter; and her client and their neighbors had agreed that the landscape buffer would be detrimental for the horses, so a privacy fence was suggested and agreed upon by all parties. She requested that the CUP be approved with these modifications.

Ms. Marsh asked about having specific months for summer to avoid a debate for what those months might be.

Ms. Nagel inquired if adjusting it to daylight savings time would be better.

Ms. Marsh commented that this could be done but that daylight savings time may go away.

Ms. Nagel proposed May through September, and Ms. Marsh summarized that May through September would allow lessons until 8:00 p.m., and the remainder of the year would allow lessons until 6:00 p.m.

Commr. Breeden noted that the number of boarded horses was limited to 10 with foals, but a number was not provided for how many other horses would be allowable at the same time for other reasons.

Ms. Nagel replied that it varied and that the number included in the CUP proposal was 20 horses. She did not anticipate having that number of horses, and she relayed her understanding that the neighbors’ concern was not the horses that came for lessons but rather was for the overnight boarding.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Melanie Hicks, a neighbor of the subject property, commented that they had all worked diligently to come to an equitable agreement, and she believed that all parties were satisfied.

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

Commr. Sullivan thanked everyone for working this issue out.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 7, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-15-1, J&K Sargent Horse Stable CUP, with the following conditions: a limit of 10 boarded horses with foals; summer operating hours from May to September of 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; the landscape buffer being a privacy fence; and other horses being allowed for training purposes.

fl-186 groveland gulfstream towers cup

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 8, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1, FL-186 Groveland Gulfstream Towers CUP. He said that this case was located on the east side of Bay Lake Road in the City of Groveland area, within Commission District 1; additionally, the affected tract size was 0.146 acres, and the request was for a CUP to allow a 199 foot tall monopole communications tower on an Agriculture zoned property. He displayed a map indicating that the FLU of the subject property was Green Swamp Rural Conservation, and he remarked that the proposed tower met and exceeded all of the separation requirements in the code between other residential structures, which he believed was 400 percent of the height of the tower. He added that the proposed tower also met requirements for separation from other communication towers, and he said that there was an existing residence onsite that was exempted by the code from the separation requirement. He commented that the proposed compound facility was required to have a six foot tall wall or fence with landscaping around the compound, and he recalled that the Board of Adjustment had granted a variance that allowed the tower to be off-centered due to there being a wetland in the center of the subject property. He displayed the concept plan and pointed out that the tower was located closer to the western property line, and he said that the requested action was to accept the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation, find the request consistent with the Comp Plan and approve the requested CUP to allow a communications tower within the Agricultural zoning district.

Ms. Mary Solik, an attorney representing the applicant, commented that the application met or exceeded all of the performance criteria in the code.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Glenn Winn, a resident on Twin Lake Drive, expressed concerns for the applicant disregarding the community, and for visual pollution. He opined that residents had chosen to live in the area to move away from this type of environment, and he was unsure if the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning criteria considered the effects on the people that would have to live near this tower. He was also worried about decreased property values and the effectiveness of a fence when the tower was nearly 200 feet tall. He opposed building a tower near residents in this area.

Commr. Campione asked if there were issues with cellular service in the area.

Mr. Winn indicated that there were sometimes issues, but opined that it depended on the carrier. He thought that residents would be willing to give up certain cell services to not have to look at a tower each day.

Commr. Campione noted that the Board was balancing part of the community not having enough service, and another part of the community that did not want to see it.

Mr. Paul Grimaldi, a concerned citizen, felt that he had adequate cell service at his properties east and west of the subject property. He relayed that he used to own the subject property, and he questioned if the applicant needed 20 high and dry acres to build. He wondered if this use would be overburdening the property due to there being other structures there, and he was worried about articles from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regarding effects on areas around towers. He indicated concerns for wildlife in the area and for this impacting his income. He opposed having to look at a tower near his home, and felt that residents lived in the country for a reason.

Ms. Kaitlyn Wiant, a resident east of the subject property, opposed the tower and opined that residents did not have cellular service issues there. She expressed concerns for visual impacts, along with impacts to land values and livestock.

Mr. Keith Klinger, a resident of the City of Groveland, said that he was representing a licensed private-public use airport within about two miles of the location of the proposed antenna. He expressed concern for safety for the tower being 199 feet so that a light would not have to be placed on it, and relayed his understanding that there were five antennas over 200 feet in height within three miles of the airport. He thought that helicopter operations, such as emergency medical services (EMS), were legally operating at lower altitudes.

Mr. John Jahreis, a resident on Bay Lake Road, indicated concerns for visual impacts from the tower, and thought that it could be harmful to property values. He opposed the tower and relayed his understanding that the majority of neighbors in the area also opposed it.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson, a resident on Bay Lake Road, expressed concerns for visual and environmental impacts. He relayed his understanding that the National Environmental Policy Act required for the council to consider and disclose any environmental effects on the decision making, the transparency and public participation. He also noted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirement of environmental assessment, and he thought that there could be effects on several endangered animals. He opined that the FCC recommended that the way to address this was by consolidating towers, and he mentioned that there were multiple towers in the area.

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

Ms. Solik stated that the County had a list of conditions of approval in the proposed ordinance, which included that the applicant had to go through the site development plan process; furthermore, as part of this process, they were required to submit an environmental assessment. She added that they had an FAA approval which was submitted with the CUP application to address the concerns of the speaker representing the private airport. She felt that there was tension between the need to provide cell service and the impacts to the community, and she opined that this policy decision had been made in the development of the County’s ordinance. She explained that the ordinance had several elements of locational criteria which addressed land use compatibility and aesthetic impact. She said that the County required towers to be centered on properties, that this was a 20 acre property, and that they had a slight shift due to the location of the wetland on the site; however, the tower was virtually centered in the middle of the tract. She commented that her client was leasing a small portion of land for the 6,000 square foot compound from the property owner, and that towers were considered an accessory use; therefore, they would not be overburdening the permissible development entitlements on the 20 acre tract. She mentioned that as part of the County’s ordinance requirements, they had substantial setback requirements including a 100 foot setback from the property lines, which was a structural safety issue. She relayed that they met this setback requirement, and that they were also required as part of the building permit approval process to prove that the tower would be self-collapsing on this site. She said that the County had a setback requirement of 400 percent of the tower height from residential units, which she opined was substantial in addition to requiring the tower to be centered on the property. She felt that the County had built in aesthetic compatibility with the tower separation requirement from the tower to residential uses, which was 796 feet in this case, and she relayed an understanding that all of the speakers were at least 950 feet away from the tower. She commented that the County’s policy considerations had been built into the ordinance, and opined that the applicant had met all of them. She thought that everyone wanted good cellular service and for first responders to show up when needed. She implied that 70 percent of all 911 calls came from wireless handsets, and she felt that it was a matter of public safety.

Commr. Sullivan asked if they could make the tower more aesthetically pleasing. He mentioned that there were several towers in Lake County that were disguised.

Ms. Solik said that this tower was proposed to be 199 feet to accommodate all of the wireless carriers that were FCC licensed in the community. She did not think that there was much that the applicant could do to camouflage the tower at this height.

Commr. Sullivan noted that one of the existing towers was disguised as a cross, and Ms. Solik responded that she had not worked on any crosses this tall: furthermore, all of those crosses had been on church properties. Commissioner Sullivan then asked if she could address the residents’ concerns about wildlife and FWC studies.

Ms. Solik replied that she would consider those to be the environmental effects of the towers that were regulated by the FCC.

Ms. Marsh stated that the FCC preempted the Board from considering any type of health effects from a tower, including effects to humans and animal life.

Ms. Solik added that they had to conduct an environmental assessment and that this would address whether they would deal with gopher tortoises and other ground impacts that any other development would have to address through the site development plan approval.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the County did not have any avoidance and minimization analysis on these types of projects. He felt that there seemed to be controversy regarding demonstrating to the Board and the public that this site was the last alternative, and he asked what type of analysis was conducted to ensure that this was the site of last resort. He added that the applicant was not consolidating towers and that some towers were becoming taller in more urbanized areas. He said that there were other technologies available to possibly reduce the tower size, and he suggested that it could also be placed along SR 33.

Ms. Solik commented that the County’s code did not require any alternatives analysis or radio frequency (RF) need requirements. She noted that there was an exhibit in the Board’s packet that showed the other towers in the area and the distance from them to the proposed tower. She pointed out that the existing towers were to the east, and she related that her client went as far west as they could. She said that there was residential development in this area between Bay Lake Road and the east, and that to the west, there were wetlands, conservation areas, and less development. She commented that the tower needed to be where the demand for service was, and she mentioned that they went as far west as they could to provide cellular coverage to the residential community between Bay Lake Road and the existing towers to the east. She noted the wetlands and existing towers on a map of the area, and she suggested that in a remote area such as this, the tower spacing was three to four miles apart; however, her client identified a need in this area to provide coverage to the development there. She added that her client had selected this property because it was one of the few properties in the area with vegetation for additional screening. She then displayed another image of the property and pointed out the tower location.

Commr. Campione inquired if there had been a community meeting, and Ms. Solik denied this. Commissioner Campione felt that these were challenging cases in rural areas because there was a desire to provide cellular service for reasons such as public safety, but some residents had noted that their service was adequate. She felt that it could come down to if the Board felt that the aesthetics were not consistent with the area.

Commr. Sullivan commented that the County had written its regulations to try and consider the community standards, along with addressing public safety and those types of issues. He was unsure if there was availability for the tower to be more aesthetically pleasing, and he expressed concerns for the FAA rules. He relayed that he had been on SR 33 and had issues with cellular service there. He expressed an interest in maintaining the agricultural character of the area, and noted that the applicant was meeting the Green Swamp regulations. He mentioned that moving the tower to its proposed location would ensure that the wetlands were protected.

Commr. Parks thought that the process should include more analysis and if all alternatives were considered. He felt that this would have been helpful but noted that the applicant was following the code.

Commr. Campione asked if these analyses were required in other locations.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that an alternatives analysis was possibly required in Polk County for the Green Swamp, though he still felt that Lake County should see it even if it was not being done elsewhere in the state. He expressed an interest in showing the residents in attendance that each other site was exhausted as an option. He also pointed out that the Board could not regulate health concerns.

Commr. Campione stated that the request met the setback requirements, but the County also had effects on adjacent properties that they were allowed to consider for towers, CUPs, and similar items. She indicated a concern for the aesthetics in such a rural area that was wide open, and she did not think there was a significant deficiency in service.

Commr. Breeden was unsure if any towers were aesthetically pleasing.

Commr. Campione opined that in more suburban or urban areas, it was commonplace and expected. She felt that in a rural area, the Board should consider the aesthetics if there was not an overriding public safety concern.

Commr. Breeden relayed her understanding that it was not an issue for Verizon, though the Board had not heard from those who had other cellular service providers. She noted that the public safety concern was also for those who were traveling through that area.

Commr. Campione thought that cellular services were supposed to collocate on towers.

Commr. Sullivan indicated his understanding that it pertained to competition and that different carriers used different towers, and that placing more carriers on one tower could provide more income. He thought that the applicant met the criteria but suggested that the Board could possibly revisit that ordinance. He also expressed interest in knowing if other sites had been evaluated.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden which failed by a vote of 2-3, the Board did not approve Tab 8, Rezoning Case # CUP-19-13-1, FL-186 Groveland Gulfstream Towers CUP.

Commr. Campione, Commr. Parks and Commr. Blake voted no.

evergreen estates flum amendment – transmittal

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 9, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-07-2, Evergreen Estates FLUM Amendment – Transmittal. He explained that this case was formerly known as Extreme Groves, was located north of Hartwood Marsh Road and east of the City of Clermont, had a tract size of approximately 40 acres, and the request was to amend the FLU map from Wellness Way Area Plan 1 to PUD in order to develop an 80 lot subdivision. He said that the current zoning was Agriculture and the proposed FLU was PUD. He relayed the following staff analysis findings: this request was consistent with the Comp Plan, which required any increase in residential density to have adequate public facilities to serve the project, noting the City of Clermont had stated that they could supply water and sewer services to the subject property; the subject property was located within the City of Clermont interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) area; and the County had received a letter of objection from the Clermont City Council. He clarified that the current case only pertained to the transmittal phase of the Comp Plan process, and if it was approved for transmittal, it would be sent to the State for their comments. He added that if it was satisfactory and met all the State requirements, the County would bring it back for final adoption, along with a PUD rezoning where conditions could be inserted. He showed the latest concept plan and noted that the clustered portion of the subdivision would have access to the west, while the two five-acre estate lots would only access Flynn Court. He said that staff had passed out a revision on the current morning that would limit only those five-acre lots to have access to Flynn Court or Champagne Drive; furthermore, any other access to Flynn Court or Champagne Drive would be explicitly prohibited whether for emergency access or otherwise. He read the requested action to accept the Planning and Zoning Recommendation, find the request consistent with the Comp Plan, and transmit the FLU map amendment to the DEO. He commented that the County had received a notice of appearance from opposition, and they would have the same amount of time to present their case as the applicant.

Mr. Dan O’Keefe, an attorney representing the applicant, said that they had modified the request, and he requested approval to transmit it to the State, commenting that it would come back for final approval from the Board. He displayed the area around the subject property and noted the locations of surrounding properties and FLU categories. He displayed the existing Comp Plan designation of Wellness Way Area Plan 1, and he clarified that they were requesting a Comp Plan designation that would have less intensity. He showed a 2016 site plan that had been submitted for the subject property and additional property, which included property east of Flynn Court; however, this had not been acceptable and was removed. He then displayed the plan that the Board previously saw which was for 102 60-foot lots, along with two five-acre estate lots. He showed the current submittal and pointed out that they were now proposing all 70 foot lots, noting that the community being built to the west had a mix of 50 and 60 foot lots. He explained that the proposed development would have its main access through that community, though it would be the estate section and have larger homes and lots. He thought that the sales in the adjacent Lakeview Preserve community were in the $400,000 range, and they expected the proposed community to be a premium to this. He showed images detailing the evolution of the property as the different proposals developed, and he opined that they now had a plan that addressed many of the concerns that had been raised. He displayed community highlights and said that the project would be part of a private gated community, would have a community park and amenities, would have water and sewer service from the City of Clermont, would not have any wells or septic tanks, would have no access to Flynn Court or Champagne Drive except for the two five-acre estate lots, would have no commercial development, and there would be natural vegetation in the buffer areas. He showed the connection through the Lakeview Preserve community, commenting that emergency access would have an additional entrance through the 70 foot Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) road, and he gave a brief history of this easement. He stated that a significant concern was traffic on Hartwood Marsh Road and relayed that because of what the City of Winter Garden had done to the east, this was a policy constrained two lane road. He said that Lakeview Preserve had constructed a $400,000 roundabout at the entrance of their community and that this had helped to slow down some of the truck traffic; additionally, they did not receive any impact fees for this. He felt that the solution for Hartwood Marsh Road was alternative routes to be constructed, and he relayed that they had worked with the district Commissioner on an agreement that would direct their impact fees, which would be paid up front, for Hartle Road expansion purposes. He thought there would also be a Wellness Way extension to U.S. 27 and the Lake-Orange County Connector extension to U.S. 27, along with a connection of Sawgrass Bay Boulevard from U.S. 27 to the western entrance to Walt Disney World. He displayed an image for the timing of funding for Hartle Road would be expended through 2024, along with the absorption for the Lakeview Preserve community and the proposed community. He noted that they were projecting to likely have three homes occupied on the subject property in 2022, 39 homes occupied in 2023, and 75 homes occupied by 2024. He showed pictures of the Lakeview Preserve community, the roundabout, community features, and some model homes. He suggested that Pulte Homes had agreed to monotony rules, and he added that these would be items specified in a development agreement or the specific conditions on a zoning approval; furthermore, they were only asking for transmittal. He said that the zoning would be heard at the same time as final adoption, and he felt that they had heard concerns and addressed them. He summarized that they had increased the lot sizes, had heard the community’s concerns about access to Flynn Court and Champagne Drive, and had addressed the concerns about traffic by trying to be part of the solution there and could help fund this with upfront impact fees. He explained that they added the five-acre tracts due to concerns that more lots could be requested on them, and he elaborated that his client had agreed that they would implement restrictive measures to ensure that those lots would not be able to be requested for additional density in the future. He noted a concern for school capacity, and stated that the Lake County School Board had conducted a school analysis, which found that there was available capacity at the elementary school and the middle school. He added that there was overcapacity at the high school, and the school board had proposed a mitigation agreement that would require some upfront funding, which the applicant was agreeable to. He requested approval of this item.

Commr. Campione asked that in the zoning, if the Board could address deed restrictions that would assure that the five-acre tracts could never be used to create additional density, and Mr. O’Keefe confirmed this and added that his client was agreeable to this. Commissioner Campione then asked to confirm that there was a notice of appearance.

Mr. McClendon replied that Ms. Yanette Moyano, a resident on Flynn Court, had a presentation.

Ms. Moyano commented that the subject property sat behind five-acre tracts, and that the only way residents there could access Hartwood Marsh Road was through Champagne Drive and then Flynn Court, or through the Lakeview Preserve community. She relayed the following community concerns: traffic from new communities; a narrow portion of Hartwood Marsh Road with no shoulders; sand trucks on the road; a blind hill at the intersection of Hartwood Marsh Road and Flynn Court; and Hartwood Marsh Road having a level of service rating of “F.” She showed pictures of Hartwood Marsh Road near Hancock Road, noting that it was a wider portion when compared to pictures displayed of Hartwood Marsh Road from Sadler Road to Flynn Court. She relayed her understanding that while there were negotiations in place, the National Park Service had to approve using the LCWA road for residents of the proposed development to access Lakeview Preserve; additionally, the LCWA currently did not have an agreement with the subject property owner, and any agreement would be contingent on approval from the National Park Service. She relayed that Flynn Court was only one-quarter of a mile long, that the road was narrow, that Champagne Drive could only access Hartwood Marsh Road through Flynn Court, and that the blind hill was a concern. She also expressed concerns that if the five-acre tracts had permission to use Flynn Court, what would prevent the applicant from indicating that the proposed development had a hardship with the LCWA road and having to access Flynn Court through the five-acre parcels. She questioned the effect of this on residents, along with if the State commented on the transmittal that they needed an emergency exit. She also questioned what would happen if residents of the proposed development requested access to Flynn Court. She recalled the applicant stating that this project originally included more acres, in addition to residents previously supporting the division into five-acre tracts. She said that the excluded 15 acres had been sold and that the community had supported this.

Commr. Campione asked Ms. Marsh that if the property owner did not receive approval from the National Parks Service to use the LCWA road, could they force access onto Champagne Drive or Flynn Court. She also inquired if the Board could approve a zoning but prevent them from having access there.

Ms. Marsh replied that this was a Comp Plan transmittal and was not the zoning stage; furthermore, when the Board got to the PUD zoning, they could include conditions that their access had to be a certain way. She added that if this access was not obtained, then they would not be able to develop construction plans or other items because they would have to match the zoning ordinance; additionally, they would have to come back through the zoning process, at which point the Board would have the ability to approve or deny another access.

Commr. Campione questioned that if there was an access issue and the applicant could not go the other way, then could it be considered if there should only be five-acre tracts there.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that the Board could potentially adjust the number of units.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was an amended ordinance that would restrict this.

Commr. Campione read that there would be no access, emergency or otherwise, to Flynn Court or Champagne Drive, except for five-acre estate lots, which would be included in this Comp Plan ordinance.

Ms. Marsh commented that this would be a Comp Plan provision if the Board and the DEO approved it. She added that if the Board wanted more clarity, they could add language that the five-acre estate lots could be a driveway only, so that the applicant could not potentially use it as a roadway. She remarked that this would make it more challenging because if the applicant could not access through a different location, they would have to perform a rezoning in addition to a Comp Plan amendment.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Lianne Graham, a resident on Flynn Court, said that she had bought her home due to the rural area and that many residents had animals there. She felt that animal noise may not be conducive to residents on the subject property, and she expressed interest in less density.

Mr. Sebastian Mascaro, an individual who owned property near the proposed development, said that he owned lot nine, which was directly west of one of the plots. He stated that he purchased this property due to its location, and opined that two lots in the proposed plan were in violation of the deed restrictions. He relayed his understanding that no more than one single family residence may be constructed on any lot, and he expressed concerns for noise in rural areas.

Ms. Susan Yawn, a resident on Hartwood Marsh Road, displayed an image of the surrounding area and pointed out the subject property. She said that it was surrounded by five-acre tracts, and she also pointed out the Lake-Orange County line. She described the area and commented that since this was Wellness Way Area Plan 1, one of the ideals behind Wellness Way was significant economic development. She noted that there were no jobs with this request but felt that it did not fit with the community. She also displayed a land use compatibility analysis and suggested that the applicant would have to have an appropriate buffer or transition from rural to higher density areas; however, she opined that there was no transition. She asked the Board to not transmit this application, and recalled that the applicant had been denied twice before. She also indicated an understanding that promises had been made to residents that this property would not be developed.

Mr. Raymond Flynn, a resident on Flynn Court, indicated an understanding that residents who wished to leave the proposed community would encounter an automated gate and a secure gate at the Scrub Jay Preserve, would have to travel through the Lakeview Preserve community, and would have to pass another automated gate to access Hartwood Marsh Road. He noted that there could be delivery vehicles, fire rescue vehicles, and law enforcement that would have to manage this each time they provided service to this area. He referred to paragraph E of the staff report which stated that the project would not adversely impact the projected operation of the roadway network, and relayed his understanding that the traffic memorandum table four identified 828 daily trips with 80 at the peak. He opined that after comparing these numbers with the Wellness Way maximum criteria, it showed a negative impact to the roadway infrastructure; additionally, the memorandum did not add these values to the Lakeview Preserve subdivision. He also suggested that the roadway had no planned improvements between the future Hartle Road and the Lake-Orange County line. He relayed that the CFX had expressed that the Lake-Orange County Connector was currently under design in three phases and they expected construction completion in 2026. He indicated an understanding that the developers proposed to earmark impact fees for Hartle Road to just under 2.9 percent of the $8.65 million already budgeted within the County’s 2020 to 2024 transportation construction program. He added that this funding would be used in the county’s southern district for roadway improvements if it were not earmarked, and that 72 percent of the funding in this program was for Hartle Road. He opined that this was only to connect Hartle Road to Hartwood Marsh Road, and that the real relief would not come until Hartle Road was completed to the Lake-Orange County Connector, which was potentially ten years away. He asked the Board to deny the transmittal.

Mr. Joel Cook, a resident on Champagne Drive, said that if the two five-acre lots were removed and the remaining 30 acres was divided by 78 homes, there would be 2.68 houses per acre. He added that after removing the 25 percent for park lands, etc., there was about five houses per acre in an area with one house per one acre or five acres. He expressed concerns for this density, and he pointed out that the Clermont City Council had recommended that the Board not approve this due to difficulty providing services. He noted that the proposed development was not in the City of Clermont but that services would have to travel through a subdivision in the city to reach the development. He indicated concerns for Hartwood Marsh Road being a level of service rating “F”, for sand trucks, and for school capacity. He noted that the developer had discussed directing funding to Hartle Road, though he felt that individuals would still go west to Hartle Road. He questioned if it was legal to direct funding to a specific road, and he requested the Board’s denial of the request.

Ms. Linda Flynn, a resident on Flynn Court, questioned how 78 homes could be placed in a community with 25 large lots. She displayed an image of the area and noted the one and five acre lots, along with the homes being proposed. She felt that the homes did not fit there, and she indicated that the community would accept one home per one or five acres. She also showed pictures of homes in the community currently, commenting that they were large lots separated by a significant amount of land. She explained that the developer wanted to place the proposed homes in a small area, and she expressed that when she had purchased her home, she wanted more land with homes spread apart. She relayed her understanding that there would be 0.19 acre lots with five foot setbacks and only 10 feet between homes. She asked the Board to consider the community staying as it was and as it was initially planned.

Ms. Stacie Welch, a resident on Champagne Drive, displayed a map of the subject area and noted that the proposed development was in the center of rural property. She questioned why the applicant had not addressed issues since they had been pursuing this project for about five years. She relayed her understanding that there was no available capacity at any elementary school except for Eustis Elementary School, and that East Ridge High School and Windy Hill Middle School were closed to additional capacity. She commented that Imagine South Lake was a charter school, was application based, and was not under an obligation to take any student. She expressed concerns for school overcrowding and for sprawling development causing this. She thought that a school in Four Corners was scheduled to open but that it was 15 miles from the proposed development. She indicated an understanding that the City of Clermont had stated that they did not recommend this development, and she opined that Commissioner Sullivan had previously stated that he could not approve this proposal when considering the road network and other infrastructure needs, along with expressing concerns about school concurrency. She also thought that Mr. Darren Gray, Clermont City Manager, had indicated that the City was not in favor of this development due to Hartwood Marsh Road. She questioned if the 78 homeowners could vote on the deed restrictions for the two five-acre lots, and she was worried that other homeowners would be outvoted by those individuals. She expressed concerns for lighting, and she recommended that the Board deny this transmittal.

Mr. Rick Moore, a resident of Lakeview Preserve, expressed concerns for hazardous traffic in his neighborhood caused by the proposed development. He asked the Board to oppose this request and felt that there were too many houses in the community. He also indicated concerns for safety if there was an issue such as a fire.

Mr. John Kruse, with the City of Clermont, stated that the City had identified several issues regarding this development, including the condition of Hartwood Marsh Road’s level of service rating of “F,” along with there being no dedicated funding and timed improvements to this roadway. He said that when accessing through the existing Lakeview Preserve PUD, the residents would have to travel almost one mile to reach Hartwood Marsh Road, which was their only access point. He felt that a secondary public access point meeting minimum public street design criteria needed to be established to the east to remedy this traffic deficiency. He noted that another concern was the services that would be provided by Lake County to this project, such as Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) patrol, fire services, solid waste, code enforcement, etc., would go through Lakeview Preserve and could cause confusion with residents. He added that the City’s comments were also outlined in Attachment D in the Board’s packet.

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

Mr. O’Keefe noted that this was land with an existing Comp Plan designation and the applicant was trying to work within this, and that they had continued to work with the BCC and the neighbors to give concessions such as changes on lot sizes and addressing traffic impacts. He also noted that it was possible to use road agreements to direct impact fee credits to certain projects. He explained that with one acre lots, they would have 40 homes, 40 wells and septic systems, less buffering, and a significant amount of traffic on Flynn Court and Champagne Drive; furthermore, he felt that this would not be positive for the environment or the neighbors. He addressed the concern of needing approval to use the LCWA road, and he clarified that currently, there was a public access easement in favor of Lake County. He showed an image of the existing 70 foot easement, noting the road that went onto the nearby properties. He added that there was a small 0.36 acre piece of land that was owned by the current property owner, which bisected the LCWA property. He stated that they were proposing to perform some cleanup items on the access easement, to deed the 0.36 acres to the LCWA, and to move the road so that it was fully within the 70 foot easement. He mentioned that the cleanup items would be subject to approval from the National Parks Service, though they were unnecessary to have access for emergency purposes. He gave a brief history of the easements, and he then commented that they would satisfy school concurrency, noting that there were state statues and local requirements for this. He said that they were provided with a draft agreement from the Lake County School Board which indicated that there was available capacity at the elementary and middle schools. He commented that the applicant was amicable to having the deed restrictions on the five-acre tracts run to the owners of those properties on Flynn Court or Champagne Drive, and require 100 percent unanimous approval for any changes.

Commr. Campione asked if it would run to their benefit so that the neighbors would have to agree to it.

Mr. O’Keefe confirmed this, and asked for the Board’s approval for a transmittal. He also indicated an interest in continuing to work with the County and having discussions with neighbors.

Commr. Breeden asked if roads in Lakeview Preserve had sidewalks, and Mr. O’Keefe said this was correct.

Commr. Parks felt that everyone who had attended today had valid concerns. He thought that this had become challenging because Lakeview Preserve had been approved by the City of Clermont, and he felt that it became more compatible at two units per acre. He recalled that the BCC had denied this request at least twice, and he opined that the proposed development would likely be annexed if it moved forward. He noted that the City had agreed to provide water and sewer to the subject property, noting the City could deny this provision if they opposed the request. He then expressed support for the request from a land use standpoint. He remarked that the revised ordinance indicated that there would be two dwelling units per acre, and that there shall be no access, emergency or otherwise, to Flynn Court or Champagne Drive, except for the five-acre lots. He said that he would amend this to include that estate lots could have a driveway only, and he thought that this would address concerns. He noted that the PUD and site plan approval would have to come back to the BCC, and he expressed interest in also including these provisions in the PUD. He expressed appreciation for comments about possible complaints from residents about livestock in the area, and he opined that through deeds, covenants and restrictions, the developer should be required to notify each owner that they could not complain about livestock due to the existing rural area. He also hoped to address some buffer issues and to use native plants only.

Commr. Campione mentioned the deed restrictions brought up by Mr. Mascaro and thought that the Board explored this, though it was a restriction that ran with people who owned property in those tracts. She elaborated that it would be a civil issue between property owners and relayed her understanding that those interests had merged.

Ms. Marsh also recalled an issue with the deed restrictions but said that Commissioner Campione was correct that the County could not enforce them. She added that regardless of how they zoned it, whoever had the private right to enforce those deed restrictions would do this through civil court.

Commr. Campione opined that the intent of the deed restrictions was unclear, and she felt that many issues had been addressed. She recalled that over 200 units were originally proposed and there were currently 78 proposed units with 70-foot wide lots. She felt that there had been many concessions, and noted that a significant concern was ensuring that there could not be access through low density neighborhoods. She did not think that this should occur, and she opined that there was a balance of property rights.

Commr. Parks agreed that this was an issue of balance, and he said that there would still be a site planning process, along with a transmittal, PUD and site plan approval before the BCC. He felt that the applicant would be part of this process, and he expressed that the Board was trying to balance items as best they could with this situation.

Commr. Campione added that the applicant had to obtain water and sewer from the City of Clermont, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this and reiterated his thought that the development would likely be annexed. Commissioner Campione then said that the City could add another layer of limitations.

Commr. Parks commented that the Board sometimes asked for items that the Cities did not, such as increased buffers with dense native plants, and he felt that this was noteworthy and that the Board was trying to make the best of the situation.

Commr. Breeden said that she had received emails from some residents and that she had a meeting with Mr. O’Keefe. She opined that the developer had tried to address concerns, though she understood the concern of having higher density coming to the neighborhood. She thought that Flynn Court and Champagne Drive were buffered well and this may not change the feel of where those residents were. She also opined that reducing the number of homes to 78 was better than where the applicant started. She added that this was just a transmittal.

Commr. Blake disclosed that he had received emails from residents and a call from Mr. O’Keefe.

Commr. Campione disclosed that she had received a call from Mr. O’Keefe and the representative from Pulte Homes, along with having numerous conversations with surrounding property owners throughout this process. She recalled that the BCC had previously denied the project and had not gone along with prior applications. She opined that the applicant had made a significant amount of improvements from where it had been, and she thought that it had potential; however, there were further steps to ensure that it addressed concerns.

Commr. Sullivan expressed that without the change that estate lots would have a driveway only, he would not be able to support the request, and Commissioner Campione agreed.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 9, Rezoning Case # FLU-19-07-2, Evergreen Estates FLUM Amendment – Transmittal, with the modification to the development program on page 205 to include that estate lots would have a driveway only.

vista vision property/crs howey rezoning continued

Mr. Crawford said that Ms. Michele Janiszewski, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, had been working on a rural design ordinance for the LDRs, and they had gone through this and pulled out the commercial design standards from that proposed ordinance. He elaborated that he had emailed this to the Board and he then handed it out. He mentioned that his client was amicable with these standards and that four of the eight design standards must be chosen to comply. He said that there could be no flat roofs lacking parapets, and there were accessory use and structure requirements that had to be the same; additionally, there could not be concrete block enclosures for trash. He said that the standards had been vetted by staff and that the applicant would be willing to include them in the ordinance.

Commr. Campione thought that some sketches could help when there was design criteria. She asked if Mr. Crawford could continue to coordinate with Commissioner Sullivan to determine how this project would appear.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-09-1, Vista Vision Property/CRS Howey Rezoning, based on the inclusion of the presented commercial design standards.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 2:28 p.m. for 32 minutes.

public hearing - ordinance 2020-27 Establishing cdd for pacific ace pud

Mr. McClendon said that this tab was noticed as required by the State statutes and that this public hearing was in regards to the Pacific Ace Community Development District (CDD). He displayed a map of the subject property and explained that it was located on the east side of U.S. 27, was approximately 380 acres in size, and that the Pacific Ace PUD was approved by the Board in March 2019 to allow the development of a 500+ lot subdivision. He commented that this CDD request would establish the district to help finance the infrastructure improvements within its boundaries, including roads, utilities, water, sewer, reclaimed stormwater, landscaping, irrigation and perimeter fencing. He stated that the current request was to approve this ordinance.

Mr. Mark Watts, an attorney representing the Pacific Ace CDD, thanked the County Attorney and staff for reviewing the petition.

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 noted that this request met all of the requirements of the Florida Statutes, that the County had gone through the process, that the County Attorney had reviewed it, and that it had come before the Board at the current meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt Ordinance 2020-27 establishing a Community Development District on 379.9 +/- acres in South Lake County to facilitate the development of the Pacific Ace Planned Unit Development.

public hearing – ordinance 2020-26 development order extensions

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; CREATING SECTION 7-5, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TO BE ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXTENSIONS; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO APPROVE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS DUE TO DECLARED EMERGENCIES; AMENDING SECTION 2-94, ENTITLED ENUMERATION OF POWERS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Campione explained that this was being done to help people in the pipeline who had to delay projects as a result of COVID-19. She stated that this would help them move along without penalizing them.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt and execute Ordinance 2020-26 creating Section 7-5, Lake County Code, to be entitled Development Order Extensions, and authorization for the County Manager or designee to approve development order extensions resulting from the COVID-19 event.

other business

appointments to the children’s services council

Commr. Campione mentioned that Ms. Diana Violette was the current member for District 2, that Ms. Joanne Leopold and Mr. Ray Fullard had applied for District 3, that Mr. Byron E. Thompson was a current District 4 member and would need a waiver for potential conflict, and that Mr. Thomas Lannert had also applied for District 4.

Commr. Breeden stated that Mr. Josh Gussler was the only applicant for District 5 and that this would be a reappointment. She said that there were two members at large but that only Ms. Barbara Crewell had reapplied. She elaborated that there would be an outstanding vacancy there, and she mentioned that for District 3, she had asked staff for some clarification on who the previous member was but did not receive information. She asked to defer on District 3 until she received more information, and she recommended Ms. Violette for District 2 and Mr. Thompson for District 4.

Commr. Sullivan thought that Ms. Crewell lived in his district, Commission District 1, but noted that she applied to be a member at large.

Commr. Blake clarified that Ms. Crewell lived in Commission District 5, and Commissioner Sullivan indicated that he would find someone for his district.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint the following members to the Children’s Services Council: Ms. Diana Violette for District 2; Mr. Byron E. Thompson for District 4 and a waiver of potential ethical conflict by two-thirds majority; Mr. Josh Gussler for District 5; and Ms. Barbara Crewell as a member-at-large.

appointments to the arts and cultural alliance

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to appoint Mr. J. Scott Berry as the municipal representative for the City of Tavares, and reappoint Ms. Tamera Rogers as the alternate member to the Arts and Cultural Alliance.

Commr. Blake voted no.

presentation – 2020 hurricane season outlook

Mr. Carpenter presented information on the 2020 hurricane season that began on June 1, 2020 and would end on November 30, 2020. He said that the Lake County EOC responded to Hurricanes Matthew in 2016 and Irma in 2017, and that the County had to open shelters in both years. He commented that in 2018, Lake County was not impacted by a tropical system but that Hurricane Michael made landfall near the City of Mexico Beach. He recalled that in the previous year, Hurricane Dorian had minimal impact to Lake County, and that Hurricane Donna in 1960 was the last significant hurricane to impact Lake County. He provided the following information on weather terminology: a tropical depression is an organized weather system with winds of 38 miles per hour (MPH) or less; a tropical storm has sustained winds from 39 to 73 MPH; a hurricane is an intense weather system with winds of 74 MPH and higher; and a major hurricane is a category 3 hurricane and stronger. He said that the Saffir-Simpson Scale was used to measure hurricanes, with a category 1 being the weakest, a category 5 being the strongest, and categories 3, 4 and 5 being considered major hurricanes; additionally, Hurricane Donna in 1960 was a strong category 2 or category 3 hurricane when it came across Lake County. He added that Hurricane Irma did not meet the sustained thresholds for a hurricane when it came across Lake County, though it had tropical storm winds with gusts into category 1, and he stated that Hurricane Michael had sustained winds of 160 MPH when it made landfall in 2018. He mentioned that when Hurricane Dorian impacted The Bahamas in the previous year, it was a category 5 with winds of 185 MPH. He showed the previous year’s hurricane season names, noting that it was the fifth consecutive year where there was a tropical system prior to the start of hurricane season and it was a typical hurricane season; furthermore, he indicated the busy season for hurricanes was mid-August through the end of October. He said that in the previous year, there was one hurricane in May with the storm Andrea, one in July with Hurricane Barry, three storms in August, seven storms in September, five storms in October and one storm in November. He said that the forecast for the previous year was for nine to fifteen named storms, four to eight hurricanes, and two to four major hurricanes, with the outcome being eighteen named storms, six hurricanes and three major hurricanes. He then relayed the following information regarding Hurricane Irma in Lake County: there were sustained tropical storm winds between 50-65 MPH with frequent gusts of 70-85 MPH across much of the county; there was an Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF) 1 tornado in the City of Umatilla with a track of just less than four miles long and a maximum width of 500 yards; the power outage at its highest was 77 percent of customers; total damage for Lake County was estimated at over $41 million; and structures damaged by Hurricane Irma totaled just over 3,200. He commented that affected structures included 2,412 residential and commercial structures, with minor damage to 710, major damage to 90, and 10 residential structures destroyed. He then outlined these services provided for Hurricane Irma: the CIL answered 13,975 calls; provided 45,000 sandbags to residents; opened 14 emergency shelters with 5,566 people and pets sheltered, including just over 4,100 residents seeking shelter, 264 special needs clients, 565 staff and volunteers assigned to emergency shelters, and 588 pets sheltered; host sheltering of 40 people who could not go home after the hurricane, in cooperation with LASER and the American Red Cross; public transportation provided 452 rides before and after Hurricane Irma; and the County distributed 65,000 bottles of water. He said that services provided by LASER included 401 cases which had all been completed, 100 homes with long term recovery needs to include homes that had major structural repair to the roof and the home; over 7,000 volunteer hours, and a total of $745,000 in grant funds. He listed the following information regarding impacts to Lake County from Hurricane Dorian: initially forecasted to impact Lake County as a strong category 2 hurricane; impact from Hurricane Dorian was minimal; rainy, squally weather overnight on September 3, 2019 and into the afternoon on September 4, 2019; 148 power outages reported; opened six shelters, with three being special needs and five being pet friendly; and Astor flooding relief support was provided by the LCSO and the Lake County Office of Fire Rescue. He commented that services provided during Hurricane Dorian included the following: the CIL answered 2,846 calls; provided just over 108,000 sandbags; opened six shelters with 693 people and pets sheltered with 570 residents seeking shelter, 66 special needs clients and 57 pets; no host sheltering; and public transportation provided 66 rides before and after Hurricane Dorian. He shared that 2020 was the sixth year in a row that there had been tropical storms prior to the start of hurricane season, with two in May and one in June. He said that 2020 was forecasted to be an above normal year, and that Lake County typically looked at these two entities: Colorado State University, which forecasted nineteen named storms, nine hurricanes, and four major hurricanes; and the National Hurricane Center (NHC), which forecasted thirteen to nineteen named storms, six to ten hurricanes, and three to six major hurricanes. He showed a graphic from the NHC indicating that the current year had a 60 percent chance of an above normal season, a 30 percent chance for a near normal season, and 10 percent for a below normal season. He said that for planning for hurricane season, the current year had been different due to COVID-19, and the County had emphasized these items that they were trying to incorporate into emergency sheltering: space requirements; PPE; enhanced cleaning; medical monitoring, which included working with the DOH in Lake County to determine sheltering needs with individuals who were COVID-19 positive, along with a medical questionnaire for shelters; and staffing additional shelters with the consideration for staff who may fall under the vulnerable population. He discussed how to prepare for hurricane season and said that the County did this throughout the year with presentations in the community, along with communicating with the community, public agencies, and non-governmental organizations such as LASER and the American Red Cross. He suggested that before a hurricane, to perform the following actions: make a plan now, including establishing a communications plan between friends and family, with a phone list of important contacts and medical information, and performing COVID-19 planning with social distancing and the needed supplies; planning for pets; determining where one planned to shelter during a hurricane; creating a disaster supply kit with a five day supply of food and necessities; staying informed, such as through AlertLake, weather radios and local media; and getting involved such as with a civic organization or a church. He said that the County opened nine emergency shelters for Hurricane Matthew, fourteen for Hurricane Irma, none in 2018, and six for Hurricane Dorian in 2019. He showed a list of all of the County’s shelters for the current year, noting the special needs shelters at Astatula Elementary School, Leesburg Elementary School, Lost Lake Elementary School, Umatilla Elementary School, and The Villages Elementary School. He commented that the County’s secondary shelters typically never had to open but that this may need to occur due to social distancing. He suggested that during a hurricane, to know where the safe room is in one’s home, that the home environment may be very loud and frightening, to stay away from doors, windows and skylights, to open the refrigerator only when necessary, and to stay informed with local news and weather. He encouraged everyone to have a weather radio with battery backup, and to register for AlertLake at AlertLake.com. He said that the CIL could be reached at 352-253-9999, and he suggested to stay updated through local media outlets. He then provided these suggestions for what to do after a hurricane: be careful; stay informed with the latest information; stay away from downed, loose or dangling power lines; ensure food safety, noting to dispose of food when in doubt; when cleaning up debris, use proper safety equipment and clothing; take photos of damage to one’s house, furnishings and surroundings for insurance; drive only when necessary, noting that if traffic lights are out, treat intersections as a four way stop; and contact family, friends and neighbors as soon as possible. He showed an image from the year 1851 to 2013 of various storm paths across the state, noting Lake County’s position in the state and that storms could affect the county.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Spencer Kostus, with the Office of Emergency Management, and felt they were doing a good job on presentations regarding hurricane preparedness.

presentation – procurement local preference process

Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, presented an overview of procurement related to the local preference process and business engagement, along with his office’s activities. He relayed that his office’s mission statement was to support Lake County departments, offices and agencies in obtaining the commodities and services required to accomplish goals and objectives at the best value in a timely, ethical, and professional manner. He defined local preference as when a local firm is favored in procurement over non-local firms for reasons unrelated to the procurement itself, typically to support the local economy. He then stated that the mechanics of local preference required an entity to perform the following actions: define geographical area; determine affordable advantage to be provided; relate funding sources to processes; prepare for possible legal challenges; evaluate the prime contractor’s make up of local subcontractors; and consider responses from other agencies. He mentioned that since 2012, Lake County’s local preference program for evaluating solicitations included these two processes under County code: first, vendors are advised that the County has established, under Lake County Code, a process which a local vendor preference program applied by another County may be applied in a reciprocal manner within Lake County; and second, ties will be resolved by award to the vendor having a permanent business facility within Lake County. He listed the adjacent Counties’ processes, noting that if Marion and Polk Counties’ first bid was not local, and the second bid was local and within around 10 percent, then the first and second presented a best and final offer, or the second was given the opportunity to match. He added that Seminole and Sumter Counties did not have local preference, that Osceola County used it just to break ties, and that Volusia and Orange Counties treated Lake County vendors as local. He explained that local preference policies were continually analyzed for effectiveness, and he noted that according to the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), while local preference may have the appearance of being a benefit to the local economy, it may increase costs to local taxpayers. He elaborated that the NIGP indicated that local preference limited competition, reduced incentives for local businesses to provide the best value, complicated processes, and lacked equal opportunity with other jurisdictions. He said that staff had reviewed trends and data, and they concluded that local preference policies conflict with the fundamental public procurement principles of impartiality and full, open competition. He then shared the following additional information: FEMA may not reimburse for goods or services procured using local preference; all solicitations should be procured under the same procedures, allowing best price and best services; non-local contractors tend to hire local subcontractors; staff concluded that the current local preference program was one of reciprocity and had the desired outcome; and education for vendors and staff would produce better results. He commented that the desire to improve his office’s contribution to the County led to further self-inspection, that staff had evaluated what worked well, and that they had identified these areas of opportunity: enhance local business relationships; simplify processes and bidding requirements; improve visibility; and proactively create engagement opportunities. He discussed what worked well and opined that the Office of Procurement Services had a quality staff, noting that they were experienced, educated, certified by the Universal Public Procurement Certification Council, focused, and productive. He added that the team had working knowledge of assigned commodities and services, that they were internal and external customer focused, that they valued the vendor survey system for its immediate feedback, that they frequently reviewed activities to confirm legal compliance, and that they maintained membership in the appropriate associations to stay current. He relayed that his office had simplified solicitation documents by reducing them from 60 pages to 30 pages, used electronically-fillable forms, emphasized the question and answer period during solicitations, was being Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, and launched an electronic submission program on June 1, 2020. He elaborated that in-house creation saved the County over $15,000 per year and allowed immediate updates. He then stated that process improvements had allowed more invitations to bid (ITBs) versus requests for proposals (RFPs), that commodities were realigned to avoid duplicated efforts, and that internal use fillable forms improved efficiency and consistency. He mentioned that the County’s solicitation system allowed free and open access to past bids without registering, that interested vendors may review past solicitations for pricing and other information, and that all files were maintained electronically. He said that the request for quote (RFQ) system was generally used for procurement over $1,000 but under $25,000, and he remarked that staff was in the process of increasing small purchase thresholds from $1,000 to $2,500; furthermore, this amount was more in line with neighboring entities and typically improved local purchases. He stated that the small purchase threshold encouraged purchasing card (P-card) use, which was a source of revenue for the County. He related that his office had also reduced the use of paper to be more efficient, and he shared that staff had presented tips on government bidding seminars to give vendors insight into the government purchasing process and help them identify bid opportunities. He indicated that they had held four seminars so far, that the June 2020 seminar was the first time they used Zoom Webinar, and that they had over 70 participants on that webinar. He said that these would be presented three times per year or whenever it was requested, and he then explained that an internal training seminar covered a variety of topics including how to write a proper scope of work and sourcing techniques. He commented that staff had cleared his office’s website of unnecessary information, that changes made it easier to find current and future bid opportunities, that it was easier to find contact information for his office’s staff, that one could register to receive solicitations on commodities selected by that vendor, and that vendors could view a “tips for government bidding” presentation and find quick links to other Lake County public entities. He commented that staff continued to streamline procedures with updates to the procurement procedure manual, the P-card procedures manual, and internal operating procedures. He said that bid opening information conformed to the Florida Statutes and would be further enhanced with an upcoming update to the bid system, and that staff continued to look for opportunities to improve efficiencies in areas under the procurement umbrella, such as their fixed asset manager distributing every inventory packet throughout the county electronically with instructions on how to return it in the same manner. He concluded by announcing that his office had been notified by the Florida Association of Public Procurement Officials that they received the Excellence in Public Procurement Award for the third year in a row, which had been awarded to six of the sixty-seven Counties for 2020.

Mr. Cole complimented Mr. Falanga on the work he was doing. He felt that Mr. Falanga had been proactive, responsive and customer service-oriented, noting that he had spent considerable time reaching out to the community to bridge the gap between vendors and the County.

Commr. Parks echoed these sentiments and opined that Mr. Falanga had done a great job, mentioning his recent outreach efforts to promote local businesses and encourage them to participate with the County.

Mr. Falanga said that he had let businesses know that there were opportunities in Lake County and neighboring counties.

Commr. Breeden expressed appreciation for this presentation, which was done at her request. She relayed that individuals sometimes asked why the County did not have local preference, and she acknowledged that there were plusses and minuses to this. She wondered if this might be a good presentation for The Lake 100 or the Lake County Chamber Alliance.

Mr. Falanga stated that he would be available for this, and that he was also available to any Lake County vendors to help them understand the bidding process for Lake County and other entities. He expressed interest in the vendors being successful.

Mr. Cole said that staff would follow up on both of those presentations.

workshop – fiscal year 2021 budget development

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director of Administrative Services, provided a presentation on the update of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 budget development process, along with an overview of the current proposed budget. She recalled the following 2020 activities to date: the County began the FY 2021 budget process in February with a budget kickoff, as well as the submittals of the departments’ budgets; on April 21, the Board had a strategies workshop; at each BCC meeting since the strategies workshop, staff had some type of budget development workshop with the Board and updated them on the current budget process; on June 1, staff received the best estimate of property values from the Lake County Property Appraiser, along with the budgets from the Constitutional Officers with the exception of the Lake County Tax Collector, whose budget would be due to the Board by August 1; and on June 2, staff had an additional budget development workshop. She listed these preliminary property values that were released on June 1, 2020: for the Lake County General Fund, the Lake County Ambulance Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), and the Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt millage rates, the property values increased 8.98 percent, noting that these were all countywide millages. She added that the Lake County Stormwater, Roads and Parks MSTU increased 8.35 percent, and the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU increased 8.42 percent over the FY 2020 final values. She explained that the General Fund County operations included a current net increase of about $984,000 in expenditures which included a mandated expenditure increase of approximately $610,000; furthermore, this included utility rates, repair and maintenance costs based on current trends, State-mandated Medicaid costs, and expenses related to inmate medical costs. She said that discretionary expenditures increased about $640,000, that the Lake County Animal Shelter construction and resulting operational increase totaled roughly $540,000, and that IT security enhancements countywide had an increase of about $100,000. She elaborated that the animal shelter increases included three new personnel, as well as additional construction costs. She noted that throughout the County General Fund departments, they recognized additional cost savings in excess of $200,000 through various cost efficiencies. She commented that for the non-General Fund County departments, the Office of Library Services had an increase for the Eustis Library of about $15,000, but overall had a net decrease of $27,000. She stated that the Office of Parks and Trails had a net decrease of $117,000, and the gas tax fund had an increase for capital expenditures which included the Challenger and Carlton Village special assessment projects, with a total net increase for the fund of $950,000. She remarked that for the Office of EMS, there was an increase in reserves of about $1.7 million, and she recalled that the goal for the reserves during the time of the transition from Lake EMS was $1 million; additionally, these additional reserves would provide an opportunity to reinvest in the service to reduce response times, and could be used in the current year to offset some lost revenue due to COVID-19. She said that the Office of Fleet Management had a decrease in operating expenditures due to the outsourcing of the light duty fleet for the County, noting that they had a capital expenditures increase to purchase two lifts and two new vehicles, for an overall net decrease of $69,000. She related that the Solid Waste Division had an operational increase of $705,000, with a majority of this being related to the consumer price index (CPI) increases for the hauling contracts, as well as increased costs associated with the addition of new homes and commercial businesses into the collection system; furthermore, there was an overall $1.1 million increase. She commented that for the Office of Transit Services, there was no increase in the amount of funding transferred from the General Fund, that they had an increase of grant revenues of $1.3 million from the CARES Act which would replace an approximately $1.375 million in their fund balance, and that there was an overall net decrease of $75,000. She said that the Office of Fire Rescue had an increase of about $313,000 in operating expenditures for items such as utilities, IT and professional services, that their reserves increased by $428,000, that they identified some capital expenditures which could be transferred over to the Infrastructure Sales Tax fund for a reduction in these costs, and that they had a net increase of $833,000. She explained that the Constitutional Officers’ budgets had a total increase of nearly $3.7 million and that at this point, the County had kept the Tax Collector’s total the same as the current year until his budget was received in August 2020. She elaborated that the County’s support for the Constitutional Officers’ line items included a $1.5 million increase for the purchase of the Property Appraiser’s mass appraisal system. She summarized the General Fund FY 2021 budget and stated that the ad valorem revenues were based on the preliminary property values of an 8.98 percent increase, and this was using a status quo millage rate of 5.0734 mills. She added that this would be updated once the County received the certified values from the Property Appraiser Office, which was due on July 1, 2020. She mentioned that the Constitutional Officers budget reflected a $3.6 million increase, which would be updated when the Tax Collector’s budget was received on August 1, 2020. She remarked that the County operations General Fund budget reflected a $984,000 increase, and that they had also included some COVID-19 impacts. She explained that the first was the reduction of approximately $2.6 million in General Fund revenue, based on internal analysis along with State estimates, noting that this was affecting the County’s state sales tax revenue and their state shared revenue; therefore, they had incorporated a $2.6 million reduction in their current year revenue projections. She added that they also had some COVID-19 related expenses which were currently in excess of $400,000, and she stated that the County’s reserves were currently projected at seven percent. She showed a summary of General Fund revenues and expenditures, and said that using the property value increase of 8.98 percent and a status quo millage of 5.0734, an additional $10 million would be generated in ad valorem revenue. She commented that they had reductions in other revenue sources and that they were being carried over from the current year from the effects of COVID-19, which left a total estimated revenue increase of $8.6 million. She pointed out the increases in expenditures discussed earlier for County departments and Constitutional Offices, noting that the items highlighted in blue on the chart were the items which the Board had the most direct control over, with the exception of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) payments that were a direct result of property values. She mentioned that the total increase for the General Fund was approximately $5.7 million, and she pointed out figures for the reserves with seven percent of operating expenditures in reserves, which was slightly over $10 million and was the policy minimum. She also pointed out the additional available funding above the seven percent in reserves for an additional five percent. She said that combining these two figures would equate to a reserve total of about 12.5 percent of the County’s operating expenses, and she recalled that when adopting the budget for the current year, the Board adopted a reserve level of about 10 percent. She elaborated that if this was done for FY 2021, the Board would need an additional $4.5 million out of that $7.4 million to reach 10 percent, leaving roughly $2.9 million. She recalled that early in the budget process, the County discussed some other projects and initiatives that the Board had discussed in the past or items that staff identified as priorities for the Board. She then listed the following projects: the addition to the Supervisor of Elections’ facility; the Lake Norris Conservation Area; the Cannon Property; natural gas installation for the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park; a multi-use fairgrounds facility; hydrilla treatment; and LifeStream Behavioral Center’s South Lake Services Complex. She mentioned the following upcoming 2020 dates: on July 1, the County would receive the certification of the taxable values from the Property Appraiser’s Office; on July 7, there would be another Board workshop; on July 21, the Board would be setting their tentative millage rates that would be sent out for the truth in millage (TRIM) notices, along with setting preliminary fire assessment and solid waste rates; on August 1, the Tax Collector’s budget would be due; on August 11, there would be a workshop on the County’s Infrastructure Sales Tax project list, along with an update on revenue for this tax; on August 25, there would be a public hearing and the Board would adopt their final project plan for FY 2021 using the penny sales tax; on September 15, the Board would adopt the tentative budget and millage rates, as well as setting the final public hearing date; and on September 29, the Board would adopt the final budget and millage rates for FY 2021.

Mr. Cole added that staff encouraged the Board to maximize their reserves to the greatest extent possible due to the hurricane season, and for any impacts being unlikely to be reimbursed by FEMA for a considerable period of time due to the federal government’s COVID-19 expenses.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that with the additional revenue, would the County need to allocate $4.5 million to reach 10 percent of operating expenses.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that this was to be consistent with what the Board had adopted for the current year.

Commr. Parks inquired if there was $8.6 million over the previous year in revenues, and Ms. Barker replied this was correct.

Commr. Breeden noted that revenues had been lost in other areas, and she expressed interest in starting at 10 percent for upcoming presentations. She felt it should not go under this amount.

Commr. Parks agreed with this and recalled that he had promoted building the reserves, but mentioned that he would also be requesting to discuss trails again.

Commr. Breeden thought that the Board could possibly add the discussion of trails to the other projects and initiatives list.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the Board had received letters from organizations that endorsed a plan to move forward for the feasibility studies for trails in North Lake, with the eventual goal of connecting each trail in North Lake to the Cross Florida Greenway in South Lake, along with completing the Wekiva Trail. He expressed interest in seeing an option for how the Board could get this done over three to four years, though he thought that the cost for project development and environment (PD&E) studies was high.

Commr. Breeden felt that the Board could support them but that they may have to take it year by year.

Commr. Parks noted that each budget was different and that even if the County was on a three year plan and something different happened, there would still be an option. He commented that staff had tried to narrow down the actual cost, and he wondered if there were parts of a feasibility study that staff could perform to save costs.

Mr. Cole said that this would be evaluated and staff would come back with an update.

Commr. Parks asked if some options could be provided to the Board.

Mr. Cole thought that this could be done but mentioned that he had not yet talked to the Public Works Department.

Commr. Campione supported establishing this as a goal, with a caveat that it would be subject to what happened from year to year, so if more essential needs were present, everyone could understand that the Board may have to shift priorities.

Commr. Parks added that if all went well, then the County could do this, though they understood that the budget was year to year and there may be something that could not be done in the next year.

Commr. Campione said that in the process of doing this, the County could also consider items to possibly shift around or efficiencies that could be found.

Mr. Cole stated that staff could identify the potential costs of what the County would expect, and it would be up to the Board to what degree they wished to fund those costs and from what source. He mentioned that their two options would be the General Fund reserves or sales tax, though there was expected to be a significant impact on the Infrastructure Sales Tax from COVID-19. He related that this would be known in August 2020 when staff would bring those projects back.

Commr. Campione said that sales tax could possibly bounce back and that the County could potentially see a significant rebound in the following year. She then wondered about asking the Cities about an agreement for them to contribute to as well, due to trails being an economic driver for their municipalities.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that some Cities would contribute and that the County could find out how much this could be.

Commr. Breeden mentioned the partnership between the County and the Cities of Mount Dora and Tavares to accomplish a project.

Commr. Campione noted that the County had funded the PD&E study for that project but that they were considering the possibility of a proportionate share, though it became complicated due to what was happening. She felt that this should be part of the discussion with the Cities of Eustis and Umatilla as well.

Commr. Breeden commented that some Cities had more resources and that the City of Umatilla may not have as many resources as the City of Eustis.

Commr. Parks thought that organizations such as The Lake 100 would like to see something like this and for a plan to be in place, understanding that it may vary year to year.

Commr. Campione added that the Board could also say that unexpected revenue could come into play and that these were projects that the County would want to shift revenue to make them happen sooner rather than later.

Commr. Sullivan felt that if the County could reach the 10 percent reserve rate and had unexpected revenue, then that would be new funding that they could utilize. He thought that it may be time for the Board to review its Infrastructure Sales Tax priorities, noting that the Board may want to change some of those priorities.

Commr. Campione said that this item was economic development and that South Lake had seen a benefit from it; furthermore, she opined that North Lake could benefit significantly from a safe trail system that families could use.

Commr. Sullivan recalled a trails benefit sheet provided by The Lake 100, and he mentioned the return on funding.

Commr. Parks elaborated that the return on funding was great. He recalled that a trail in South Lake had recently been busy, and Commissioner Breeden confirmed this. Commissioner Parks thought that people would want this.

Mr. Matulka then presented information on CARES Act funding and some of the pieces that the County had found from different business assistance programs from the 12 Counties that had already received funding. He said that his staff started by assessing actions taken by the 12 Counties that received direct allocations of federal funding through the CARES Act, noting that a few of those Counties were still deciding what to do with those funds after receiving them in late April 2020. He commented that other Counties had started implementing programs in mid to late May and early June 2020, from four to six weeks after receiving those funds, and he shared that his staff had focused on Counties that had rolled out the more comprehensive small business grant programs. He elaborated that they had taken a deeper look into the programs at Orange, Polk, Volusia, Lee and Pinellas Counties, and he relayed that the funding amount given out per grant by each of those Counties ranged from $2,000 to $10,000 per eligible business. He also stated that Orange County’s current grant program offered $10,000 per grant to an eligible business, and they dedicated roughly $65 million to $72 million to this small business grant program, which was 30 percent of their total allocation of about $243 million. He said that Polk County tiered their grant program based on the number of employees at an eligible business, and they were granting $2,000 per grant for a self-employed business, $5,000 per eligible grant for a business with two to nine employees, and $10,000 for a business with ten to twenty-five employees. He added that they dedicated $20 million to this program, which was roughly 16 percent of their total allocation of approximately $126 million. He commented that Pinellas and Lee Counties both provided $5,000 grants for eligible businesses, that Pinellas County dedicated $35 million to their program which was about 20 percent of their total $127 million allocation, and that Lee County dedicated $25 million to their program which was approximately 18 to 19 percent of their $134 million allocation. He explained that Volusia County was the last county to make the cutoff for population and being eligible, and that they tiered their program and were giving $3,000 per grant to an eligible business that had 25 employees or less; additionally, they also provided $5,000 for an eligible business with 26 to 50 employees, and they dedicated about $10 million to this program which was about 10 to 11 percent of their total approximate $96 million allocation. He said that of these grant programs, some prioritized small businesses that received no federal or state funding, and they opened it up to others after that. He mentioned that most of the programs that staff considered required companies to demonstrate a financial loss due to COVID-19 greater than the amount of the grant that they would potentially qualify for, but that some of the Counties waived this for businesses that were expressly shut down by an order. He said that most programs stipulated that only brick and mortar establishments qualified for the grant, though others allowed home-based or mobile businesses as long as they met certain requirements. He remarked that some programs made non-profit organizations eligible, and that almost all of the Counties set a similar employee limit on the eligible businesses from a range of about one to twenty-five employees being the qualification, though Volusia County added that twenty-six to fifty employees were eligible as well. He said that nearly all of the Counties included in their agreements that the funding was on a first come, first serve basis, and he relayed his understanding that as of the previous day, none of them had fully expended their specific programs. He then discussed the logistical considerations and stated that all of the programs had different levels of a communication strategy that went with the program to spread the word about it. He indicated that his office had already began talking to Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, who was considering what this aspect could look like. He said that another logistical consideration was how to accept applications that had sensitive information, that had a large amount of required documents in some cases, and that had a high volume of users at a single time. He mentioned that some of the programs in other Counties had crashed at different points in time because there were so many people trying to use them at one time, and he shared that the IT Department was looking at ways to potentially mitigate some of these concerns. He noted that many Counties utilized third party application sites to collect submissions, but others may have potentially used their own. He noted that he had spoken to Ms. Jo-Anne Drury, Deputy County Manager, about the Submittable software that had recently been obtained for administering grants, which may be a viable solution for the County. He said that once applications were received, it would turn to the review process; therefore, with potentially thousands of applications, his office would have to determine how to efficiently process them. He relayed Polk County had indicated that they were operating with about 30 individuals processing submitted applications, with another 20 to assist applications via a call center, for about 50 people in total working on that process initially. He felt that Lake County could potentially conduct a program with less people and possibly handle it internally, though having more people to assist could make the process quicker. He also said that he had talked to Mr. Carpenter and that they could use a version of the CIL if needed to put up a call center to assist with this. He said that the last logistical consideration, after the review process turned to processing eligible applications, was the subsequent payments to those businesses and ensuring that Lake County was meeting auditing and reporting requirements.

Commr. Parks shared that he had reached out to the three local banks, that there was a meeting set up that Mr. Matulka and Mr. Cole had been invited to, and that he would weigh in on the banks’ input when considering what they did with the Payroll Protection Program (PPP). He felt that they were efficient in distributing PPPs, and he thought that the County could take what was learned with this and then combine it with what Mr. Matulka had learned.

Mr. Matulka felt that it could be a helpful conversation and that all of the banks had good relationships with businesses. He noted that his staff tried to collect information from as many people as they could, and he added that his office had also reached out to the Florida Small Business Development Center (SBDC) at University of Central Florida (UCF) and Central Florida SCORE to utilize some of their resources.

Commr. Parks asked if it was unknown if there were any more restrictions that might be placed on the County, and Mr. Matulka confirmed this.

Commr. Breeden recalled Mr. Matulka’s comment about some Counties requiring brick and mortar, and she thought that Lake County would miss some places by doing this, such as a swimming instructor. She felt that they needed to recognize that these businesses also needed assistance, and she thought that the County should be sure to find a balance of accountability but not making it so cumbersome that people did not apply.

Mr. Cole concurred with this and said that the State was putting some reporting requirements on the County which would have to be used at a minimum.

Mr. Matulka stated that the County would have a pool of available funding, and that it would also be good to know if they did something in Lake County for a business assistance program, what proportion of the funding would go to this program. He noted that there was also a desire to balance being impactful for as many businesses as possible. He commented that staff was still working on trying to determine the correct number of businesses in Lake County, and that the DEO’s resource indicated that Lake County had around 7,000 businesses with between one and twenty-five employees. He remarked that staff reached out to some other places and that their numbers showed 10,000 to 12,000 businesses with this number of employees, and he shared that they were working with the Tax Collector’s Office to find a confident number. He noted that having more businesses than funding could lead to issues with the first come, first serve aspect of it. He indicated an interest in having an impactful amount of funding that would help these businesses, and getting it to as many people as possible. He opposed any businesses not receiving funding because the County ran out of it.

Commr. Sullivan said that he liked the tiered idea and thought that it would have to be based on the number of businesses and the number that fit in those categories. He noted that many businesses did not have a traditional structure, and he believed that of the many businesses which received federal PPP funding, the larger businesses did well with this. He thought that the local banks did a great job with smaller businesses, and that small businesses drove the economy in Lake County and needed assistance the most. He opined that a small business’ profit was often its salary, and he noted that this may not be doable and that the requirements could potentially be overbearing for a small business. He supported keeping it simple to the best of the County’s ability.

Commr. Campione suggested starting with the businesses that were forced to close.

Commr. Sullivan noted that some small businesses did well during this time, though this was not normal. He supported assisting businesses that were severely impacted and that experienced a difference in their standard of living.

Commr. Breeden thought it would be worth considering nonprofits.

Commr. Parks felt that businesses on main streets within cities needed the help.

Commr. Campione asked if there were any cities that were supposed to have annual festival events but were unable to, and Mr. Cole remarked that there were a number of them. Commissioner Campione proposed possibly considering this as well, and she noted that other locations provided assistance for items such as housing, rent and utilities. She wondered if this could help people who used their savings or credit cards that they did not intend to use for this purpose.

Mr. Cole shared that the County had received some CARES Act Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) funding for rental assistance and those types of items.

Commr. Campione requested to consider if people were applying for this funding and if it was being given to the people who needed it. She also expressed interest in helping businesses and employees who did not have a place to go to work due to not being allowed to.

Mr. Cole felt that this was helpful feedback as staff narrowed this down to bring back.

reports

county manager

MS. JO-ANNE DRURY APPOINTED TO DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER

Mr. Cole noted that in the previous week, Ms. Drury was appointed to Deputy County Manager. He commented that she had extensive management and leadership experience, and that he was pleased to have her as part of the executive management team. He said that she was overseeing the Public Works Department, along with the Offices of Parks and Trails, Fleet Management, Transit Services, Facilities Management, Housing and Human Services, Library Services, and County Probation. He also remarked that she was currently looking for her replacement in the Office of Housing and Human Services, in addition to a Homelessness Liaison.

Commr. Campione welcomed Ms. Drury and said that she was glad that she could take on some additional duties and responsibilities.

commissioner parks – district 2

thanking lake county school district

Commr. Parks thanked the Lake County School District and noted that his daughter had recently graduated. He felt that it was a great ceremony and that East Ridge High School did a great job when considering the circumstances.

expressing appreciation for public works department

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, and his staff for addressing ongoing questions about roads and transportation.

central florida expressway authority budget

Commr. Parks said that he would provide the Board with a copy of the budget from the Central Florida Expressway Authority which had been approved in the previous week. He explained that it contained slightly over $2 billion for work programs over the next five years, and he opined that these were projects which were unlikely to have been completed through the FDOT. He stated that they were user fee paid and would include both new projects such as the Lake-Orange County Connector, and also capacity improvements on existing roads, resurfacing, and other improvements to the toll system.

city of clermont protest

Commr. Parks relayed that he had attended a recent protest in the City of Clermont, and he thanked Mr. Charles Broadway, Clermont Police Chief, Lake County Sheriff Peyton Grinnell, and the protesters. He felt that it was a proud moment and a peaceful demonstration, noting that there were over 600 people in attendance. He commented that he was able to speak at the protest, and he opined that all parties did a great job and that it was good for Lake County. He related that he had made a commitment there to help promote social harmony, and he indicated an intent to make an active effort to commit himself to listening to things that he could do as a leader to promote more social harmony and to be a positive influence in the community. He added that he could do this through meetings and outreach, along with having good conversations.

commissioner breeden – vice chairman and district 3

serving on florida association of counties board

Commr. Breeden commented that she would be serving a two year term on the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Board, representing Lake, Marion and Sumter Counties.

support for frontline workers

Commr. Breeden addressed a citizen comment from earlier in the meeting and expressed support for all frontline workers, noting that those at AdventHealth Waterman had the right to express themselves and that others in the public could agree or disagree with them.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK