A Special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

September 25, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special session on Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., via teleconference, which was allowed per Executive Order of the Governor of Florida due to COVID-19, a novel strain of the coronavirus.  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.

welcome and pledge of allegiance

Commr. Campione mentioned that Commissioner Sullivan was a veteran and that she would ask him to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.  She mentioned that this was a Zoom Webinar meeting and that they were also streaming the meeting live on the County’s website.  She commented that for members of the public who wished to provide input, Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, would explain how that process would work. 

Commissioner Sullivan then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Ross said that this meeting was being streamed live on the County’s website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments later in the agenda.  He stated that anyone who wished to participate in the meeting could follow the directions being broadcast.  He said that when the Chairman opened the floor for public comment, 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.  He mentioned that he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments.  He mentioned 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.  He 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.  He explained that anyone who wished to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that any written comments submitted during the meeting would be shared with each Board member following the meeting.

cares act funding

Commr. Campione welcomed all of the City participants, and thanked them for providing input as the County tried to navigate this process and ensure that they were getting the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding to the places it needed to go to have the largest impact.

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, stated that the purpose of this presentation was to provide the Board with an update on the CARES Act funding for the municipalities, Constitutional Officers and County, and that it would include the following items: a CARES Act funding overview; municipal, Constitutional Officer, and County assistance; a summary of spend plans; next steps; and Board discussion and direction.  He relayed the following information: The County was notified in June 2020 of a $64 million CARES Act funding award; the State provided 25 percent of the funding, or $16 million, on July 27, 2020; this funding was currently being awarded to the Lake County School Board, businesses and non-profits; the County had distributed about $3.9 million through 515 awards; the County had approximately $5.5 million to $8 million pending in awards for another 1,000 applicants; the remaining 75 percent of CARES Act funding, or $48 million, was to be available on a reimbursement basis after expending the first $16 million; the County was notified on September 22, 2020 that an additional $12.8 million, which was part of the $48 million, would be advanced following the expenditure of the $16 million and submission of a spend plan for the $12.8 million, with the remaining $35.2 million available only on a reimbursement basis and with an approved spend plan; and the County was administering a separately funded program for rental, mortgage and utility assistance outside of the $64 million.  He stated that in preparation for accessing the remaining $48 million, the Board began considering funding categories and allocations on August 11, 2020, and had narrowed it down to the following funding categories on September 15, 2020: additional business assistance; additional resident assistance; workforce/education assistance; City, County and Constitutional Officer assistance; and contingency funds.  He recalled that the Board approved allocating $15 million on August 25, 2020 to the municipalities, County and Constitutional Officers, with the intent of $10 million going to the municipalities and $5 million going to the County and Constitutional Officers; additionally, on August 27, 2020, the County requested spend plans from the municipalities and Constitutional Officers by September 18, 2020, and these had been received from the municipalities of Astatula, Clermont, Eustis, Fruitland Park, Groveland, Lady Lake, Leesburg, Mascotte, Minneola, Montverde, Mount Dora, Tavares, and Umatilla, along with the Clerk of Courts, Sheriff, Tax Collector, and the County.  He then indicated that the total of the requests was slightly over $12 million, and that this was funding that had already been expended, along with funding projected to be expended by the December 30, 2020 deadline.  He displayed a spreadsheet and noted that the governmental entity column showed each entity the County coordinated with.  He also pointed out the allocation column for the municipalities.  He said that he worked with them on a funding allocation formula with a base amount and additional funding based on population.  He noted the requests from each municipality and said that some municipalities requested less or more than the allocation; furthermore, the overall approximate $12 million in requests was about $3 million less than what was allocated.  He pointed out that about $3.9 million of the funding had already been expended, and there was a projection of roughly $8.2 million to be expended.  He mentioned that County staff had not verified the eligibility of all the submitted expenses, though they had conducted a cursory evaluation.  He stated that he would then go through each municipality and the items in their spend plans, pausing after each municipality to see if the Board had any questions.  He thought that there were representatives from the 13 municipalities that submitted spend plans on the Zoom Webinar, recalling that he had asked them to attend.  He also explained that staff had tried to take all of the municipalities’ detail and condense it into summary categories.  He said that the Town of Astatula requested $12,346, noting that there were two numbers for each municipality with the first being what had been expended, and the second being what was projected to be expended.  He said that in practicality, each municipality had the documentation for the first number and was ready to be reimbursed for the expenses they incurred.  He elaborated that the second number would be part of a spend plan that the County would submit to the State to ensure that all of those expenses were eligible.  He commented that the items for the Town of Astatula included personal protective equipment (PPE), sanitization equipment/supplies, social distancing enhancements, medical supplies, and signage.  He then stated that the City of Clermont had about $1.9 million in requests, with approximately $644,000 expended and roughly $1.3 million to be expended, and this included PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, medical supplies, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing, economic recovery including Rise Clermont events, a housing assistance program, a business assistance program, signage, additional water/wastewater treatment, increased bulk tonnage, and increased garbage tonnage. 

Commr. Parks asked for more information about the wastewater treatment and increased bulk tonnage.

Ms. Susan Carroll Dauderis, Assistant Clermont City Manager, said that the additional water and wastewater treatment and increased tonnage that they experienced during the stay at home period increased their expenses and their operations. 

Commr. Parks inquired if there was a dramatic increase in solid waste pickup.

Mr. Stoney Brunson, City of Clermont Public Works Director, commented that sanitation increased in percentages and almost doubled during this period.

Commr. Parks asked if this was attributed to more people being at home and increased packaging and orders, and Mr. Brunson confirmed this.

Commr. Campione inquired about how the City was administering the housing assistance program and what the requirements were to qualify.

Ms. Dauderis explained that their intention was to expand on or continue with the County’s program, and they were not looking to set up different criteria. 

Commr. Campione asked if they would use the same framework, and if they were looking to expand it so that it would not be income restricted, but rather if someone was behind on their rent or mortgage payment.

Ms. Dauderis commented that they were looking to extend it the same way that the County was offering the program, with no additional criteria. 

Commr. Campione then asked about the business assistance program criteria.

Ms. Barbara Hollerand, Business Liaison for the City of Clermont, said that they were looking at the County’s existing programs and ways that the City could add to the housing program.  She relayed an understanding that there was not funding available for everyone who applied for that program; therefore, the City would be looking to augment that program.  She mentioned that the business assistance program would be similar and that they would be adding to those programs for applicants who had been approved through the County’s program.

Commr. Campione mentioned that timing could be an impediment to create the framework for these programs, and she expressed appreciation for the information.

Mr. Cole was unsure if the County would be in a position to put the City’s funding toward the County administering the program to businesses or residents within the City, noting that the County did not have the framework to delineate this.  He said that this would require changing the infrastructure, and that the County was focused on ensuring that they paid the funding out through their program.  He commented that this might be possible toward the end of the period, though he did not foresee the County’s ability to do this.  He was unsure if the City was planning to implement this on their own.

Commr. Campione said that if they were going to do it on their own, it sounded like they would take the individuals or businesses that had already applied to the County program, and the County would be able to give the City verification. 

Ms. Dauderis commented that the City would request the waiting list and then they could take it from there.

Mr. Cole said that this was doable.  He resumed his presentation and indicated that the City of Eustis had requested $564,063, with $22,601 having been spent and $541,462 projected to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, and signage.  He then said that the City of Fruitland Park requested $392,627, with about $29,000 having been spent and $363,739 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, medical supplies, signage, and commendation bars.  He stated that the City of Groveland requested $925,250, with about $215,000 having been spent and $710,317 projected to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, medical supplies, COVID-19 testing, a business assistance program, and signage. 

Commr. Campione asked about the business assistance program.

Mr. John Ter Louw, Finance Director for the City of Groveland, explained that their business assistance program would be similar to the County’s and that they planned on being supplemental specific to the businesses in the city.  He commented that they identified likely at least 50 to 100 businesses which were adversely affected and who they wanted to assist by following the Lake County guidelines. 

Mr. Cole continued his presentation and said that the Town of Lady Lake had requested $171,263, with $19,832 having been spent and $151,431 projected to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, and medical supplies.  He then indicated that the City of Leesburg had requested $1,193,750 for expenses not yet incurred for a business assistance program. 

Commr. Campione asked if the business assistance program was similar to what the County had done.

Mr. Al Minner, Leesburg City Manager, commented that it was similar to the County’s program and that the City would be following the same guidelines.  He said that the City took the business assistance program and wanted to target it toward specific businesses that had a significant effect on the city and region.  He specified that they were focusing on Lake Square Mall and the City of Leesburg downtown, noting that they also had a citywide program. 

Commr. Parks inquired if the program would have some expanded awards. 

Mr. Minner responded that the expanded awards were specifically for the mall due to its regional impact, remarking that they had a significant loss due to the effects of COVID-19.  He commented that there was also a focus on ownership downtown, along with business owners. 

Mr. Cole resumed his presentation and said that the City of Mascotte had requested $52,547, with $26,857 having been spent and $25,690 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, medical supplies, COVID-19 testing, and utility customer credit card fee waivers.  He stated that the City of Minneola had requested $674,650, with $524,650 having been spent and $150,000 to be spent, for sanitization equipment/supplies, a resident assistance program, and grants to employees.

Commr. Campione asked if the resident assistance program was similar to the County’s housing assistance program for mortgage and rental assistance.

Mr. Mark Johnson, Minneola City Manager, said that it would not strictly be for mortgage or rental assistance; rather, it was to help individuals with the costs they incurred related to COVID-19.  He commented that part of this could be rental and mortgage assistance, but it could also include child care, elder care, PPE, and increased costs for supplies, groceries, delivery costs, etc.

Commr. Campione inquired how they were administering this criteria. 

Mr. Johnson explained that the City was asking individuals to self-certify on an application and list their hardships. 

Commr. Campione asked if this was similar for the grant for City employees.

Mr. Johnson mentioned that the criteria was virtually the same for the employees.  He recognized that funds were limited and that the City may not be able to give out as large of a grant as the County, though they wanted to try to get some funds to everyone who was negatively impacted. 

Commr. Campione inquired if this was for housing, or if they were looking at the grants for employees to be for the same types of things that a resident could apply for.

Mr. Johnson reiterated that the criteria for the employees was virtually the same.  He mentioned that they added some items that were not required in the CARES Act, and they had requested that individuals also certify that they had completed the 2020 census.

Commr. Campione questioned why there was a distinction between grants to employees and residents, and Mr. Johnson replied that this was because not all of their employees lived within the city limits.

Mr. Cole resumed his presentation and said that the Town of Montverde had requested about $49,000, with approximately $2,700 having been spent and $46,378 to be spent, on PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, medical supplies, and signage.  He commented that the City of Mount Dora had requested $1,309,371, with $300,269 having been spent and $1,009,102 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, medical supplies, signage, and City employee childcare.

Commr. Parks asked how the City employee childcare worked and how much funding this involved.

Mr. John McKinney, Finance Director for the City of Mount Dora, stated that at the beginning of the pandemic, the City allowed for its employees to bring their children to work in the City’s afterschool care program through leisure services specifically to watch the children so that the employees could continue to work during this time.  He said that this was primarily related to the City’s police and fire public safety employees who were required to be at work and who could not work from home.

Commr. Campione inquired if he could quantify how much of the total amount that the City was requesting was related to the childcare.

Mr. McKinney replied that he could look this information up, and Mr. Cole suggested to revisit this later in the meeting.  

Commr. Campione said that this was an interesting concept because everyone was struggling at that time with regards to public safety and individuals who were needed at work. 

Mr. Cole continued with his presentation and commented that the City of Tavares had requested about $1,433,416, with $114,267 having been spent and $1,319,149 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, personnel costs, medical supplies, a business assistance program, and signage.

Commr. Campione asked about the business assistance program, noting that it looked like it could be the bulk of what was proposed.  She wondered if the City of Tavares would be following the same framework as everyone else so far.

Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator, explained that the City had decided not to do any business assistance programs like the County was doing.  He felt that they were complicated to manage and audit, and explained the City had limited it to a program where if a business needed to place tables outside the business to comply with the Florida Governor’s orders, then they could apply to the City for funding for those tables and similar items.  He said that it was limited to something like a façade grant program, and commented that the City would not be conducting traditional business assistance. 

Commr. Campione felt like there was a lot of ground to cover to use the remaining approximate $1.3 million if they were only focused on outdoor tables.

Mr. Drury did not think that there was much funding going into the business assistance program and said that most of it was for PPE, sanitation equipment, supplies, technology, social distancing, etc. 

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it was narrowly focused on restaurants and the downtown core area businesses to supplement cases where they had to purchase tables or other items to meet the initial 50 percent capacity and social distancing requirements. 

Mr. Drury mentioned that some businesses needed additional exterior space, and the City’s plan was to limit it to this kind of scenario.  He said that businesses which purchased tables could show receipts, and that it would be narrowly focused to this.

Commr. Campione asked if sanitation equipment and technology enhancements would be the bulk of the request.

Mr. Drury mentioned that there was software and equipment needed for the Tavares City Council to hold meetings, similar to the current meeting, and for the public to have access.  He felt that many people did not want to conduct business with the government through computers, and said that the City was considering installing windows similar to a bank so that individuals could pay bills and submit plans for building permits.  He added that instead of being inside Tavares City Hall, individuals would be outside under an awning.

Commr. Campione expressed support for the awning concept so that when they had to engage with the public, they would be outdoors and covered. 

Mr. Cole resumed his presentation and indicated that the City of Umatilla had requested about $402,000, with $27,867 having been spent and $374,100 to be spent, for sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, and signage.  He then asked if Mr. McKinney was able to answer the previous question about the City of Mount Dora’s child care expenditures.

Mr. McKinney commented that the City had administrative pay related to this and that it was not specifically listed for child care.  He commented that the only child care expense was related to supplies purchased specifically for that, for a total of $57.73.  He said that time was not specifically tracked.

Mr. Cole then reviewed the Constitutional Officers’ requests.  He said that the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller had requested about $727,000, with $20,499 having been spent and $706,500 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, and social distancing enhancements.  He relayed that the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) had requested $750,572, with $735,572 having been spent and $15,000 to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, first responder personnel costs, and the marine unit including flotation devices/recharge kits and a tidewater boat.  He stated that the Lake County Tax Collector had requested $361,670, with $304,653 having been spent and $57,017 to be spent, for technology enhancements and social distancing enhancements.  He then said that the County had projected a total of $1,024,486 in expenses, with $861,986 having been spent and $162,500 projected to be spent, for PPE, sanitization equipment/supplies, technology enhancements, social distancing enhancements, first responder personnel costs, medical supplies, COVID-19 testing, a call center, and signage.  He relayed that the next steps included that on the current day, the County had a discussion with the municipalities, with additional discussion for Board direction after this slide.  He added that on Tuesday, September 29, 2020, staff would provide an update on the resident assistance grant program, an update on the business assistance grant program, and a presentation of strategies to expend the original $16 million by October 30, 2020 and the remaining $48 million by December 30, 2020.  He commented that this presentation would also address the funding discussed at the current meeting, and that it would be recommended on September 29, 2020 that a portion of the funding that had been expended by the municipalities, the Constitutional Officers and the County be reimbursed at that time, with the bulk coming from the County’s remaining allocation.  He noted that this recommendation and discussion would be in context of all the available funding and the project list; additionally, on September 29, 2020, staff would be seeking Board decisions on expending and allocating all of the CARES Act funding. 

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the CARES Act required that everything discussed at the current meeting would have to be expended by the end of the year.  She noted that the County was looking at two months to do everything that was just discussed, and she felt that if they could stay on track, it would be critical for the Cities to be ready to go immediately and have expended those funds.  She asked Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, if this was correct and if there was any leeway.

Ms. Marsh replied that with the way the CARES Act was set up, all of the funding had to be spent by December 30, 2020.  She said that the United States (US) Department of Treasury had issued a guidance document regarding this, in which they clarified that for a cost to be considered to have been incurred, performance or delivery must have occurred during the covered period; however, payment of funds may not be made during that time.  She elaborated that it was generally expected that this would take place within 90 days of a cost being incurred.  She added that the document said in the case of a lease of equipment or other property, irrespective of when payment occurred, the cost of a lease payment shall be considered to have been incurred for the period of the lease that was within the covered period, but not otherwise.  She summarized that if the County was to lease something, they could pay for it through December 30, 2020, even if their payment went into January 2021, but they could not pay for that leased equipment after December 30, 2020 using CARES Act funds.

Mr. Cole added that on September 29, 2020, they would be discussing the timing of this and how they could manage being able to proceed with some of these expenses while there was a spend plan being considered in the City of Tallahassee.  He said that staff would propose for the bulk of the expenses that had not been incurred to be submitted to the City of Tallahassee as required for the next allotment of funding, and for a spend plan to be approved.  He noted that if this was approved, the County would be able to inform the Cities that the expenses were eligible according to the Federal Government.  He stated that while staff was bringing interlocal agreements with the municipalities before the Board on September 29, 2020 and that this would place responsibility on the Cities, staff could provide guidance to them while the spend plans were being considered in the City of Tallahassee.

Commr. Parks asked if the Cities and the County were trying to coordinate common expenditures to get the best value.

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, explained that this had been done with PPE, that much of this PPE had been received from the City of Tallahassee, and that multiple vendors had come to the County to be vetted; additionally, the County was able to purchase a significant amount of PPE with the exception of N95 masks.  He noted that this process had been worked on by the Department of Health (DOH) in Lake County along with the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for anything pertaining to public safety that had come through the EOC, along with items in relation to long-term healthcare facilities or hospitals.  He said that they had worked together to provide that equipment, and if there was anything they could find value in for bulk purchasing, then they would do that.  He knew that several agencies had asked for N95 masks, though the EOC did not have them; however, they tried to work with everyone on the use of scarce supplies and for bulk orders.

Commr. Parks asked if there was coordination on technology upgrades.

Mr. Carpenter responded that he had not heard anything about this, and relayed his understanding that the Cities were working with technology upgrades that were unique to them.  He thought that everyone worked on a Microsoft platform and that everyone had been increasing their capabilities to work from home or alternate locations, or to create workflows that allow for social distancing. 

Commr. Blake inquired where some surrounding Counties were at in this process, and if anyone was ahead regarding timing to where Lake County could better know what level of oversight the State was providing on these spend plans.

Mr. Cole replied that as of the previous week, there had not been any spend plans approved.  He asked Mr. Carpenter if any had been submitted.

Mr. Carpenter said that he was unsure and that he had shared an email received on Tuesday, September 22, 2020, indicating that the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) was working with the Governor’s Office to move forward on phase two of the CARES Act funding.  He indicated that he was unaware of any submitted spend plans; however, with the County’s calls with the DEM on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, this was the foremost topic for all of the emergency managers in the state.  He anticipated that there had been spend plans submitted since this email was sent.  He noted that there would be another call on the current day where they could ask this question, and he knew that everyone was aware of the December 30, 2020 deadline and wanted to get access to funds that many Counties were unable to upfront in order to spend CARES Act funding.

Mr. Cole added that when the County first started hearing that there was consideration being given to allow spend plans to be submitted to access some CARES Act funding, staff started inquiring about it; however, they had not received information because the spend plans had not existed.  He noted that the level and time of review was a concern, and said that this would be discussed on September 29, 2020. 

Commr. Breeden thanked the Cities for submitting their spend plans by the deadline and for the Board considering what they would entail.  She questioned whether some of the items were allowable, though she thought that the County could possibly take too much time evaluating each line item and category.  She expressed support for submitting all of the plans as submitted, and letting the State make the determination.  She expressed a concern for too much coordination for spending and procurement at this point, and said that it could hinder doing things quickly.

Commr. Campione said that she was in favor of submitting to the State what had been submitted to the County; however, she wondered if the County should possibly take items that seemed unlikely to be denied and break them into three or four parts to avoid a situation where one particular type of questionable request held up a response from the State for the rest of the spend plan.  She also proposed the possibility of having the more obvious items in a spend plan, with the next groups being in following spend plans.  She said that she had been interested in getting funding to residents, though was concerned that from an equal protection standpoint, it could be challenging to review those applications in a way that could be upheld under the law due to subjectivity.  She said that while this was great for residents, something like this could get the County flagged.  She suggested potentially putting this type of plan in a separate spend plan request.

Commr. Breeden said that these sentiments made sense, but questioned if the County wanted to judge the requests.  She opined that the spend plans needed to go forward because of the timing.

Commr. Campione clarified that she was suggesting to put them forward in a package with three or four separate spend plans.

Commr. Breeden questioned who would make this determination.

Mr. Cole noted that there was a significant level of detail in some of the attached plans.  He thought that the County should synthesize all of the spend plans from the Cities into categories, and he relayed his understanding that the State was not looking for the level of detail provided by the municipalities to the County.  He relayed that staff could submit a spend plan broken into categories, similar to what was done in the current meeting, and he thought that this could address Commissioner Breeden and Commissioner Campione’s concerns.  He expressed appreciation for the County’s lobbyists and hoped that if there was an item in the spend plan that the State was not amicable to, that they could just remove that piece and approve the rest. 

Commr. Campione noted that the County could separate the items out so that if one particular category was viewed as not allowable, it would not disrupt the other spend plans. 

Commr. Breeden thought that this made sense.

Mr. Cole explained that staff’s vision was to submit the plans in the categories similar to the current meeting, but with more detail.

Commr. Campione commented that similar to the City of Clermont’s additional solid waste pickup, it became clear why there were additional costs once an explanation was provided.  She supported adding these explanations. 

Commr. Parks said that he appreciated the current meeting and all of the Cities working hard on this.  He expressed interest in supporting the Cities as much as possible.

Commr. Sullivan said that the most important item was timing and that the County needed to submit the plans now.  He noted that if they did not expend the first $16 million, then they could not access the additional $48 million.  He agreed that this needed to be expedited as soon as possible, and indicated that the level of detail was interesting in trying to ensure that everything qualified.  He supported making clear to the County’s legislative delegation that they needed this acted on immediately because it affected everyone.  He expressed concerns for the effects of COVID-19 in the future, and he thought that the enhancements were important for the operations of the municipalities and the County.  He also indicated a concern for slowing the process by being too detailed.

Commr. Campione asked if anyone had raised their hand via Zoom Webinar for public comment, and Mr. Ross indicated that no hands were raised.  Commissioner Campione thought that the Board’s direction was to move ahead with the submitted plans.  She commented that the Board would have a meeting on September 29, 2020 and would be delving into the issues of timing for CARES Act reimbursement, where the County was at with regards to spending the $16 million, and whether they could include the costs expended by the municipalities into that $16 million to expend it immediately. 

Mr. Cole commented that no further direction was needed, and he thanked the municipalities for working with the County.  He reiterated that these items would be revisited on September 29, 2020.

Commr. Campione thanked the Cities and expressed appreciation for the coordination and cooperation that had been occurring.  She stated that one item that had emerged from the effects of COVID-19 was their ability to work together countywide, and she encouraged any Cities with questions or modifications to work with Mr. Cole.

commissioners reports

commissioner breeden – vice chairman and district 3

Planning and zoning case rescheduling

Commr. Breeden relayed that Dura-Stress, a company in the City of Leesburg, had a project that was scheduled for the rezoning agenda at the November 24, 2020 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting.  She elaborated that they were concerned about getting everyone together two days before Thanksgiving, and requested having it moved to the November 10, 2020 BCC meeting.  She also suggested the possibility of moving the entire rezoning agenda to November 10, 2020 to avoid being too close to Thanksgiving. 

Commr. Campione indicated that she had heard from representatives for that case that they were concerned that their experts were not going to be available the week of Thanksgiving, and they also had concerns about moving this case through the process.  She noted that they were in need of material and that this tied into some large construction that Dura-Stress was involved in. 

Commr. Breeden thought that the week of November 24, 2020 could also be challenging for public and staff to attend, along with the applicant.  She asked if the Board had any objections to moving this case or all of the rezoning cases scheduled for November 24, 2020 to November 10, 2020.

Commr. Parks expressed that he had no objection, and opined that Dura-Stress was a great Lake County employer in a critical industry.

Commr. Blake said that he had no objection and that he would be fine with moving up the whole rezoning agenda.

            Commr. Sullivan also said that he had no objection.

            Commr. Campione asked if this required a vote or just a consensus.

Ms. Marsh replied that it would just be consensus at this point, and that if they moved the rezoning agenda to the November 10, 2020 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board would meet on November 4, 2020.  She said that staff would either have to reschedule the Planning and Zoning Board meeting or figure out how to prepare everything for November 10, 2020.

Mr. Cole said that he had spoken with Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, who had indicated that there was time to advertise this and have it properly heard.  He added that they would not have an issue with the date of November 10, 2020.

Commr. Campione asked if this was for the whole agenda or just the Dura-Stress case.

Mr. McClendon stated that there was no issue with moving the entire rezoning agenda to November 10, 2020.

Commr. Campione noted that there was a consensus to do this.  She disclosed that she had an application for a rezoning amendment on behalf of a family owned property, and she clarified that she was not in favor of this either way because she would be recusing herself with regards to that item.  She stated that for the current consensus, the rest of the Board wanted to move ahead and avoid the week of Thanksgiving.

Commr. Parks commented that the consensus would be with the exception of Commissioner Campione, and Commissioner Campione said that she would withhold any participation with regard to reaching a consensus.

COMMISSIONER CAMPIONE – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

closing comments

Commr. Campione stated that she appreciated everyone’s time on the current morning, and thought that they accomplished a lot.  She also indicated appreciation for staff trying to accommodate the municipalities and address the needs of the entire community. 

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:19 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK