A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

september 29, 2020

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 29, 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 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was meeting in person and that this meeting was also being streamed live on the County’s website; additionally, they were broadcasting the meeting via Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide input during the meeting but preferred not to attend in person. She commented that Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, would explain how this process would work for individuals joining by Zoom Webinar. She stated that Tab 38 was an item involving the Lake County Supervisor of Elections’ facility, noting that they would try to start this tab around 11:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter. She then said that that the Board had asked veterans to lead the Pledge of Allegiance for each meeting, and at the current meeting, Mr. Dustin Sheckler, Emergency Dispatch Supervisor for the Office of Public Safety Support, would lead the pledge. She explained that Mr. Sheckler had joined the State of North Carolina National Guard in January 2000, had transitioned to the State of Florida National Guard in 2005, and was still a member with 20 years of medical and tactical experience. She elaborated that during his duties, he received the United States Army Commendation Medal for saving families and soldiers from a hotel fire, along with the Florida Commendation Medal for his leadership work during hurricane deployments across the state. She thanked Mr. Sheckler for his service and for leading the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pastor Drew Marshall from South Lake Presbyterian Church in the City of Clermont gave the Invocation, and Mr. Sheckler 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 during the citizen question and comment period later in the agenda. He stated that anyone watching the live stream who wished to participate in the meeting could follow the directions being broadcast. He commented 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. He mentioned that when it was time for public comment, 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.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that due to the Florida Governor’s order, they would no longer be permitted to use Zoom Webinar to have a quorum and conduct business. She asked if they could continue to use Zoom Webinar for public participation.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, confirmed this.

Commr. Campione opined that this was an improvement to how things were done in the past.

Agenda update

Mr. Jeff Cole, County Manager, stated that since the agenda was first published, staff added an additional interlocal agreement to Tab 9. He said that for Tab 10, they included a revised attachment to the agenda item, and that they had added an addendum to the consent agenda at Commissioner Parks’ request which became Tab 39; furthermore, the budget hearing at 5:05 p.m. on the current day would be Tab 40. He mentioned that staff had also added a closed session for the Board at 3:30 p.m. or soon thereafter, at the County Attorney’s request.

Commr. Parks proposed that Tab 2, the presentation of proclamations, be moved up before the discussion of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding.

proclamation 2020-166 - deaf awareness month

Commr. Parks said that this was a proclamation recognizing September 2020 as Deaf Awareness Month. He noted that Ms. Mikayla Cox and her mother were in attendance, commenting that Ms. Cox had shared her story with him and that this was why this proclamation was being presented. He explained that Ms. Cox has grown up in a loving household where her parents had lost their hearing, and that she was fluent in sign language. He commented that Ms. Cox had wanted to promote deaf awareness, and said that the first step was to recognize September 2020 as Deaf Awareness Month.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved Proclamation 2020-166 designating September 2020 as Deaf Awareness Month in Lake County.

Commr. Parks then read and presented Proclamation 2020-166 to Ms. Cox.

Ms. Cox expressed appreciation and said that this proclamation was significant to her and the deaf community. She said that she had promoted this for her community and that she wanted to be their voice. She stated that her mother was grateful and that this was the beginning for what they had planned for the deaf community, and she thanked the Board.

Commr. Campione thanked her for attending, and said that the Board was glad to be a part of helping move this forward and bring greater awareness in Lake County to these challenges, along with how local government could better help them be a part of the government system.

Ms. Cox said that she looked forward to working with the Board to help the deaf community in Lake County.

covid-19 update

Commr. Campione commented that the Board had been having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) updates at the beginning of the agenda, and that it was a way to ensure that the public was receiving information.

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, provided an update on the County’s response to COVID-19. He recapped that on March 1, 2020, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had issued a public health emergency regarding COVID-19, and on March 9, 2020, the Governor issued a state of emergency for the State of Florida. He elaborated that on March 16, 2020, Chairman Campione signed the local state of emergency for Lake County that had remained in effect. He mentioned that on March 16, 2020, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated to a level two partial activation, and he recapped that they had three levels of activation, with level two including bringing in stakeholders and agencies that helped them support incidents they were managing. He said that they had a pandemic plan in place where they worked with stakeholders in the EOC and with the Citizens Information Line (CIL) where they could work from remote locations; furthermore, additional spacing and cleaning procedures were put in place. He recalled that two weeks later on March 31, 2020, the EOC moved to a level one full activation when everything shut down to flatten the curve as to not overwhelm the healthcare infrastructure with COVID-19; additionally, the CIL was open for residents’ questions and to provide information. He said that the EOC remained at a level one activation until Friday, June 5, 2020 when Governor DeSantis moved the state into phase two of the reopening plan. He stated that at that time, the EOC moved back to a level two partial activation, with level one being seven days per week in the EOC with the CIL, and level two being Monday through Friday with monitoring over the weekend. He mentioned that on September 25, 2020, the Governor moved the state into phase three of the reopening plan, and that this in conjunction with Executive Order 20-244 had the following effects: the order superseded and eliminated any restrictions of previous executive orders regarding COVID-19; outlined for local governments that no COVID-19 ordinance may prevent an individual from working or operating a business; and suspended the collection of fines and penalties associated with COVID-19 orders. He recalled that Lake County had six orders in place with penalties regarding COVID-19, though there were no penalties levied; furthermore, their goal was to educate and inform, rather than be punitive. He explained that the plan was to move the EOC to level three beginning on the current day, that the CIL would close, and that all calls would be answered by the Office of Emergency Management staff. He added that their hours were Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at 352-343-9420. He said that the Florida Department of Health (DOH) in Lake County’s COVID-19 hotline would remain open Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at 352-742-4830. He then commented that as of the previous day, there had been 7,475 positive tests, with him previously reporting that the number was just over 7,000. He mentioned that 85,625 individuals had been tested, with him previously reporting that the number was 81,113. He explained that in a two week period of time, 4,412 tests had been conducted, with 459 individuals testing positive. He relayed that the positivity rate in this two week period was 10.4 percent. He said that currently, the cumulative total percentage of positive results was 8.7 percent, and in comparing Lake County with contiguous counties, Lake County had the lowest positivity rate; additionally, Lake County was below the State’s target positivity rate of 10 percent. He added that Lake County also had the second highest percentage of estimated population tested among surrounding counties, with 24.8 percent of their population having been tested. He said that the highest age range of those testing positive was 25-34 years of age, that the second highest was 45-54, that the third highest was 35-44, and that the fourth highest was 15-24. He added that Lake County’s median age for COVID-19 positive cases was 43, and to date, 190 deaths had been reported. He stated that as of the previous day, they had 902 hospital beds available, with 604 currently being used; additionally, two weeks prior, this number was 675, for a 71 bed use reduction.

Commr. Campione mentioned that this was for all beds, and Mr. Carpenter confirmed this.

Mr. Carpenter said that 298 hospital beds were available whereas two weeks prior, there were only 228 available, and the current bed capacity was at 33 percent when compared to 25 percent two weeks prior. He stated that there were 104 total intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and that 57 beds between the three hospitals were being used, with 71 having been used two weeks prior. He said that this left 47 available ICU beds with a 45 percent available capacity, noting that it was 32 percent two weeks prior. He noted that since April 27, 2020, the County had issued 816,360 pieces of personal protective equipment (PPE), and in the current week, Lake County schools received 156,000 masks from the Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM). He mentioned working with long-term care facilities licensed by the Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA), and residential facilities licensed by various agencies, commenting that there was a cumulative total of 595 COVID-19 positive patients and staff; furthermore, as of the previous day, there were 35 positive residents whereas two weeks prior there were 81. He commented that there had been 92 positive residents that were transferred to another facility or a hospital, with this number having been 67 two weeks prior. He said that there were 127 total positive residents, and two weeks prior this number was 148. He added that there were 25 positive staff, whereas this number was previously 37; additionally, 62 total deaths had been reported. He remarked that for COVID-19 testing, the DOH in Lake County continued testing at 560 West DeSoto Street in the City of Clermont with hours of operation of Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until tests were gone on a first come first serve basis for residents and non-residents, including children, with no testing criteria required, nor was there a charge for testing. He said that Adult Medicine of Lake County was located at Lake Square Mall, Tuesday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., commenting that they conducted nasal swab tests all day with no testing criteria required. He added that antibody tests were conducted on Thursdays only, and either test cost $20. He also mentioned that they no longer had the State sponsored pop up test sites, though the DOH was offering testing moving forward. He added that residents could also work with their physician for testing. He discussed Lake County’s cloth face mask distribution which began on July 7, 2020 and said that through September 25, 2020, 72,549 masks had been distributed by the County. He said that there had been no change for Lake County’s long term recovery organization Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER), noting that they had assisted 62 businesses, churches and agencies, stating that they provided over 58,000 cloth masks, 1,300 procedure masks, and four gallons of hand sanitizer. He mentioned that Lake County schools’ numbers were from September 19 through 25, 2020, and they had 11 positive cases, with eight being students and three being employees; additionally, 149 persons were under investigation, with 129 being students and 20 being employees. He noted that there had not been a spread at school and that transmission had occurred outside of school. He then indicated that the hurricane season had been busy and that the County was currently watching a low pressure area south of Cuba which had a good chance of developing. He stated that hurricane season lasted until the end of November 2020 and that everyone needed to be vigilant and prepared.

Commr. Breeden thanked Mr. Carpenter for presenting information to the Tavares Chamber of Commerce, and she asked if anyone was conducting rapid testing.

Mr. Carpenter replied that Adult Medicine of Lake County was conducting rapid testing, and he thought that some physicians’ offices may be doing this.

Commr. Campione added that AdventHealth Centra Care Mount Dora was also doing this, though an appointment was usually required. She explained that once per week, Lake County had Zoom Webinar meetings with Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties, along with all of the hospital and medical directors to compare numbers and experiences. She opined that Lake County had been doing well with its numbers despite the challenges.

Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the DOH in Lake County, commented that this had been a great relationship and that an infectious disease could go from county to county. He opined that numbers were looking better and were averaging lower at 30 or 35 cases per day. He mentioned that the county’s positivity rate was low, and he hoped that there would be more testing occurring. He reminded everyone who needed tests to call their primary care physician and to be tested, also noting that his organization was available at their facility in the City of Clermont. He encouraged individuals with COVID-19 to seek care if their symptoms worsened and to be vigilant. He commented that the DOH had helped provide testing at the schools and that with a negative test, a student could visit their pediatrician and receive care due to the illness likely not being COVID-19. He also encouraged everyone to receive a flu shot for the current year. He commented that their contact tracing was caught up and that they had 20 contact tracers; additionally, they tried to protect the vulnerable and were looking forward to the potential of a vaccine. He commented that they were preparing for a possible limited supply of the vaccine coming to them, and they were also planning for larger distribution efforts. He said that Mr. Carpenter and his office had been responsive and that if there was an increase in cases, the EOC could go back up to a level two or level one activation.

Commr. Campione remarked that with contact tracing, the DOH did not inform of who one was exposed to; rather, they reached out to people that one may have been around to let them know that they had been exposed. She added that they provided a general location of where it happened.

Mr. Kissler confirmed this and said that based on the information, an individual could think about who they may have been exposed to, though the DOH was protective of people’s privacy and names. He opined that obtaining information helped them stop the spread of COVID-19.

Commr. Campione asked if rapid testing would be made available for the long term care facilities.

Mr. Kissler recalled that in the previous week, some rapid tests were delivered to long term care facilities. He thought that there would be more coming, and said that they had started to use those tests. He explained that they were antigen tests and would be helpful.

Mr. Cole provided a CARES Act funding update, noting that it would also provide a resident assistance update from Ms. Jo-Anne Drury, Deputy County Manager, and a Lake CARES business assistance grant program update from Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity; furthermore, he would then discuss proposed expenditures and moving forward with CARES Act funding, followed by requested actions. He provided the following information: the County was notified in June 2020 of $64 million in CARES Act funding that was awarded to Lake County; the State provided 25 percent of the funding, or $16 million, on July 27, 2020; the $16 million was currently being awarded to the Lake County School Board, businesses, and non-profits, noting that to date they had awarded about $6.4 million in 806 awards, along with an additional $5 million to $7.5 million in pending awards for 900 additional applicants; the remaining 75 percent of the County’s allocation, or $48 million, was to be available on a reimbursement basis after expending the $16 million; they were notified on September 22, 2020 that an additional $12.8 million would be advanced from the $48 million following the expenditure of the $16 million, with the remaining $35.2 million available only on a reimbursement basis; and the County was administering a separately funded program for rental, mortgage and utility assistance.

Ms. Drury provided an update on the current and future resident assistance programs. She said that as it related to their current resident assistance programs, they had three programs being conducted currently with regular State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) funds for about $469,000, CARES Act Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) funds for roughly $300,000, and Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant funds for approximately $2 million. She summarized that almost $3 million was being spent on rent, mortgage and utility assistance for Lake County residents. She said that they had received about 1,400 applications, that they had approved 296 applications, that they had had awarded approximately $796,000, that they had declined 238 applications because residents were not past due with their rent or were only requesting utility assistance, and that their goal was to expend funds by October 31, 2020. She recalled that at the September 15, 2020 BCC meeting, the Board gave direction to allocate $15 million in CARES Act funding to resident assistance and to increase the award from $3,000 to $4,000 per household; additionally, this $15 million would be coming out of the $48 million in CARES Act funding still to be received from the State. She commented that the benefits of the additional funding would include ensuring that the qualified applicants on the CRF waiting list received assistance, would allow the CRF program maximum award per household to be increased, would allow the County to expand current resident assistance programs to include residents who were financially harmed by COVID-19 but were current with their rent or mortgage, and would help the business community such as landlords and lenders by making payments directly to them. She reviewed the proposed plan for the $15 million and said that they would be proposing $880,000 to go toward the CRF waiting list and increasing the maximum award per household, along with expanding the resident assistance program using about $14.1 million. She relayed that for the $880,000 for the CRF waiting list, they had about 1,200 applicants for this program and were seeing a roughly 40 percent ineligible rate; therefore, 60 percent of applicants would be eligible for assistance. She said that if the maximum award was increased to $4,000, they would need about $2.8 million to cover that need, though they currently only had $2 million. She stated that for the $14.1 million for the expanded resident assistance program, the enhancements would help residents who were financially harmed by COVID-19, but were current with their rent or mortgage, and could increase the award from $3,000 to $4,000. She relayed that they estimated that about 3,500 households could be helped if the maximum award was given, and that staff would recommend to simplify the program and requirements in order to distribute aid quickly. She then outlined the following proposed criteria: one would have to have a primary residence in Lake County; no household income limit; the household was negatively impacted by COVID-19 through a layoff, furlough, reduction of hours or pay, or a COVID-19 illness; and the COVID-19 hardship occurred after March 1, 2020. She proposed a sliding scale and paying the landlord, mortgage company or individual depending on the circumstances. She said that if the hardship occurred between March and April 2020, the household would receive $4,000. She also provided the following awards based on the time when the hardship occurred: $3,000 for a hardship between May and June 2020; $2,000 for a hardship between June and August 2020; and $1,000 for a hardship between September and October 2020. She added that the Board could consider increasing the maximum award to $5,000, and staff could adjust the scale accordingly. She explained that the household would provide a copy of their most recent rent or mortgage statement, and that if the household had a past due balance, the amount awarded would be paid directly to the landlord or mortgage company. She elaborated that if the awarded amount exceeded the past due balance, the remaining amount would be paid directly to the household for housing expenses incurred and paid during the COVID-19 hardship; furthermore, if the household’s rent or mortgage was current, the amount awarded would be paid directly to the household. She relayed that for the implementation of this program, staff was proposing contracting with a third party in order to expend the funds before December 30, 2020 and ensure compliance with CARES Act regulations. She explained that Ernst & Young, Certified Professional Accountants (CPAs), was currently being used by Seminole, Hillsborough and Leon Counties for administration of their resident assistance programs. She opined that Ernst & Young had the capacity to ramp up quickly, along with the technical expertise, and she noted that the estimated cost for this would be $950,000 for technical assistance, compliance assistance and application review; additionally, it would be a 100 percent CARES Act eligible expense. She added that this would equate to about $269 per application, and would be approximately 6.7 percent of the $14.1 million that they were recommending be put towards this expanded resident assistance program. She said that there was an option to add a call center for 1,000 hours for $250,000, commenting that this would improve customer service and communication with residents, along with being 100 percent CARES Act eligible.

Mr. Matulka provided an update on the Lake CARES business assistance grant program. He recapped the following information: began taking phase one applications on August 17, 2020; had received more than 850 applications in phase one which were currently being reviewed; phase two applications began being taken on September 8, 2020 with expanded criteria; announced increased award amounts for all applicants on September 17, 2020; on September 22, 2020, announced that the deadline to accept applications was extended from September 22, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. to September 28, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.; and the call center remained open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 352-268-9299. He also noted that with the extension, the grant program was open for applications for a total of six weeks. He detailed the current award structure for qualified businesses and organizations, noting that it currently ranged from $4,000 to $30,000 with the following tiers: $4,000 for self-employed/sole proprietor; $10,000 for businesses with two to nine employees; $15,000 for businesses with 10 to 25 employees; $20,000 for businesses with 26 to 50 employees; $30,000 for businesses with more than 50 employees; and $10,000 for nonprofits and Chambers of Commerce, with no employee requirement. He mentioned that staff had processed and awarded four batches of payments to date, and that there had been 806 applications for $6,295,500, with 705 for-profit awards totaling $5,285,500 and 101 nonprofit awards totaling $1,010,000. He then commented that they had received approximately 1,700 applications total which would carry an estimated $10 to $14 million award amount once they were processed.

Mr. Cole discussed some challenges and solutions relating to CARES Act funding. He said that the County was currently expending the $16 million in funding, with projected completion by October 30, 2020, along with some modifications to how they were awarding funding. He stated that the additional $12.8 million available after the expenditure of the $16 million would only be available after the County had an approved spend plan provided to the State. He opined that the approval of a spend plan and an agreement with the State to receive the $12.8 million would not likely result in receipt of funding before mid to late November 2020, and he remarked that the remaining $35.2 million was available only on reimbursement basis with an approved spend plan after the expenditure of the $12.8 million. He relayed that the County did not have $35.2 million to expend for reimbursement, and he opined that inadequate time would remain to access that funding and spend it. He recommended to obtain a short-term loan or line of credit for $35.2 million, with staff’s vision being that it would be repaid with the $48 million in CARES Act funding with the $12.8 million received first, and then the $35.2 million. He opined that the anticipated repayment of the loan would occur within three to four months depending on the timing of reimbursement, reviews, etc. from the State. He explained that the projected interest cost to the County for a line of credit was estimated at about $20,000 a month, noting that this would need to come from the General Fund reserves and would not be eligible for CARES Act reimbursement. He said that proceeding today could result in a loan or a line of credit that staff could bring back to the Board for consideration on October 13, 2020, and that the County could have funding in late October 2020, which would enable them to expend the funds in November and December 2020. He commented that spend plans would need to be submitted for the $12.8 million and $35.2 million, that loan proceeds could be expended while awaiting approval of the spend plans, and that staff would ensure that the funding expended was allowed by federal guidelines to ensure compliance prior to approval of the spend plans. He displayed a chart showing the proposed expenditure of CARES Act funding, pointing out the $16 million which had to be expended before more funding could be received, the $12.8 million that would be advanced to the County following the expenditure of the $16 million and an approved spend plan, and the $35.2 million which also required a spend plan and would only be available on a reimbursement basis. He recapped that Lake County had awarded about $1.6 million to the Lake County School Board, and that the business assistance grants category showed an approximate $4 million allocation, noting that about $6.3 million had been expended from this. He said that the County had also expended about $94,000 for administrative costs, though they expected to spend more. He said that $5.7 million was pending expenditure, and he recommended moving the resident assistance grant’s $880,000 for those on the waiting list and increasing the award amount. He also recalled discussing funding requested by the municipalities, the Constitutional Officers and the County, which totaled about $12 million. He recommended moving $3.7 million of this up to fund those items, noting that this could allow the County to expend the $16 million by October 2020; furthermore, at that time they would have the $35 million in place to continue down the list. He said that for the $12.8 million, staff wanted to keep this section simple for a spend plan, and he commented that there was another portion of resident and business assistance to allow that process to keep moving. He noted that for resident assistance, the criteria for this funding was less than the criteria for the United States (US) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program; therefore, the County could speed this up. He said that expending the $16 million and having the $12.8 million advanced would move them to the group for the $35 million, noting that a spend plan was required for all of these components. He explained that they had added funding for the following categories: food banks; nonprofits for reimbursement for mortgage, rental and utility assistance; roughly $1 million for LifeStream Behavioral Center; another $3 million for business assistance grants to bring the total to $21 million; resident assistance grants to bring the total to about $9.5 million; approximately $8 million for Cities, the County, and Constitutional Officers to bring the total to approximately $12 million; workforce/education assistance for $5 million; tourism marketing; administrative costs, including a required audit and compliance costs; and a contingency of $3.7 million. He then displayed the following recommended actions: approval of the proposed expenditure of CARES Act funding as presented and/or amended at the current meeting, and authorization for the County Manager to make adjustments as necessary during administration of the funding; approval to prepare and submit a spend plan to the State of Florida for Lake County’s remaining CARES Act funding allocation of $48,044,445; approval to solicit for a loan or line of credit in the amount of $35,232,593 to be repaid with CARES Act funding allocated to Lake County, which was anticipated to be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration on October 13, 2020; and approval for the Chairman to execute any agreements related to receipt, administration or sub-granting funds originating from the CARES Act.

Commr. Blake asked about the risk of taking a loan.

Mr. Cole relayed that the State had committed $64 million in federal funding to the County, and that the County had to execute a formal agreement in July 2020 to receive the $16 million. He elaborated that the agreement referenced that this was 25 percent of the full allocated amount, and he commented that this was a commitment from the State. He mentioned that the County had been notified about each incremental funding amount and that it was on the record. He said he was not concerned since there was enough indication that the funding was available; however, he could not predict if plans could change. He said that the risk would be if the County spent loan proceeds before they had approved spend plans, or if staff approved allocating funding to ineligible requests. He commented that they had discussed putting a series of approvals in place to ensure that any questioned items would come out of what the County would pay. He added that it could also be an issue if any of the rules changed.

Commr. Campione opined that the most important thing to do was to deplete the $16 million so that they could submit two additional spend plans.

Mr. Cole recommended to submit the spend plans before the $16 million was approved, with a letter indicating that the County recognized they would not be able to access any of these funds until after the $16 million was expended. He commented that the plan would be to submit the spend plan for the $12.8 million at one time, and then submit a spend plan for the $35 million.

Commr. Parks asked that for housing assistance, what would be requested to demonstrate a COVID-19 hardship after March 1, 2020. He also inquired about the $950,000 for Ernst & Young and if the County could review other options on this.

Ms. Drury responded that the documentation they would be looking for could include either an unemployment statement, a letter from an employer indicating a layoff or reduced hours, a letter from a daycare, or a self-certification for a hardship pertaining to a COVID-19 illness. She also explained that for Ernst & Young, the County was currently using United Way of Lake and Sumter Counties, who was helping with CRF funds; however, they would be looking at about $600,000 to administer the expanded program as well. She said that the concern was having the capacity to ramp up and, with 10 weeks, get 75 to 100 people onboard, trained and able to review applications on day one. She stated that Ernst & Young would cost about another $350,000, but this would also give the County help with compliance. She added that Ernst & Young was on a State contract as well.

Mr. Cole added that Ernst & Young had been doing this, could ramp up quickly, and recognized all of the criteria. He opined that it was an assurance for the County and helped expedite getting funds to residents. He commented that if they took the time to ramp up the program for resident assistance, the infrastructure had to be retooled and this took time.

Commr. Parks asked if the ramping up would be occurring today if approved.

Mr. Cole explained that if the Board wanted to proceed with the loan and this plan, the County could start ramping up and prepare an agreement with Ernst & Young.

Commr. Breeden inquired about the pros and cons of using a line of credit.

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Executive Director of Administrative Services, relayed that Mr. Jay Glover, with PFM Financial Advisors, was available to address this.

Mr. Glover explained that the main benefit of a line of credit was to draw the funds down as needed, as opposed to a loan where they would draw the full $35 million down at closing and start to pay interest on the full amount from day one. He said that with a line of credit, they would only pay interest as the funds were drawn down. He also pointed out that a line of credit would have a fee for the unused portion of the line, but it would not be as much as the fee they would pay on the drawn amount. He stated that lines of credit were also variable rate and were based off London Interbank Offered Rates (LIBOR), which currently had low interest rates. He elaborated that a benefit of the variable rate was that they could prepay at any time; therefore, as soon as the reimbursements were received from the State, they could pay off any outstanding balance. He opined that for this type of funding, the County would want to draw drawn as expenditures were being made, and that they wanted the ability to pay back as reimbursements were received.

Commr. Breeden referenced the proposal for the $12.8 million and asked if it needed to be expended before they could ask for additional reimbursements for the $35 million.

Mr. Cole confirmed this and said it would work this way because the County would submit a spend plan, and as soon as it was approved the County would be spending it before receiving the funding.

Commr. Breeden expressed a concern that the County was having issues spending the $16 million on business assistance, and she questioned if it would slow the County down by putting this much funding into business assistance.

Mr. Cole responded that with the loan aspect, the County would spend funding before they received the $12.8 million. He said that any of the expenses needed to go back to March 1, 2020, and there were also reimbursement components available. He opined that with the loan, the County would be expending funding right away. He said that Mr. Matulka could address if he anticipated any challenges with expending the funding.

Mr. Matulka relayed his understanding that with the business assistance grant and the $8.3 million displayed, they would be able expend the funding with the path they were on; additionally, the Board would have the option of potentially adjusting award amounts, including retroactively.

Commr. Breeden inquired if the Cities that had business assistance components would be eligible for this.

Commr. Campione said that this could be a way to expend the funding faster.

Mr. Cole stated that staff would write the spend plan such that they would have this flexibility.

Commr. Sullivan opined that trying to find perfection in doing this could take time and that the County would not be able to get funding to residents and businesses. He opined that staff put together a great program and that the Board would have to meet on a regular basis to get through this process. He opined that the recommendation to use a line of credit versus a loan was preferable, and he made a motion for the requested actions with the exception of soliciting for a line of credit as opposed to a loan.

Commr. Breeden proposed saying that they preferred a line of credit, in case staff opined that they had to use a loan for some reason.

Commr. Sullivan said that he was comfortable with that.

Commr. Campione opined that the terms were better suited to what the County was looking at, and as they received reimbursements they could immediately pay off what they borrowed and keep their interest as low as possible. She also stated that the County’s business relief had been a countywide approach. She thought that the County was possibly missing some opportunities that they could consider on a countywide basis, noting that some key industries in Lake County which had been affected by COVID-19 included short-term rental facilities, vacation rentals, and some large entities that were significant taxpayers. She wondered if Mr. Matulka’s team could reach out to them, and she also mentioned Mission Inn Resort & Club due to them being a mainstay and providing many opportunities for sporting events; additionally, Mission Inn and other banquet providers in the County had been affected. She also proposed reaching out to these businesses, to see if the County should create more subcategories, and to defer to Mr. Cole and Mr. Matulka’s team to develop something to address those unique situations. She mentioned another potential idea that the City of Leesburg was doing which regarded large landlords of retail space where everything was shut down, such as a mall.

Commr. Parks opined the Chambers of Commerce were doing a good job of promoting the grant program, and he asked if the County would continue to promote it through social media.

Commr. Campione proposed trying one more week of applications.

Commr. Breeden seconded Commissioner Sullivan’s motion.

Commr. Blake asked to clarify that the motion would specify a line of credit.

Commr. Breeden opined that it should make a line of credit a preference.

Commr. Campione noted that it could be brought back to the Board through an emergency meeting.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following items: the proposed expenditure of CARES Act funding as presented and/or amended on September 29, 2020, and authorization for the County Manager to make adjustments as necessary during administration of the funding; to prepare and submit a spend plan to the State of Florida for Lake County’s remaining CARES Act funding allocation of $48,044,445; to solicit for a loan or line of credit in the amount of $35,232,593 to be repaid with CARES Act funding allocated to Lake County (anticipated to be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration on October 13, 2020), with a preference for a line of credit; and for the Chairman to execute any agreements related to receipt, administration or sub-granting funds originating from the CARES Act.

Commr. Campione said the Board agreed with the safeguards described by Mr. Cole. She then requested consensus from the Board to allow Mr. Cole, Mr. Matulka and staff to consider some larger unique situations where they may be able to create additional categories.

Mr. Cole replied that they would consider these, and he relayed his understanding that the first requested action gave him the ability to be flexible; additionally, any changes made to the previously displayed chart of expenditures would be communicated to the Board. He added that staff would also extend the time to submit applications by a week and promote it through social media.

Minutes approval

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

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Pete Wahl, Chairman of the Lake-Sumter State College District Board of Trustees, commented that he had known Mr. Cole for a number of years and opined that he had done a commendable job for Lake County.

Dr. Stanley Sidor, President of Lake-Sumter State College, read into the record a resolution from the Lake-Sumter State College District Board of Trustees honoring the BCC and Mr. Cole as outstanding community partners for their support of the college. He then presented a plaque to the BCC and Mr. Cole.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the recognition. She commented that Mr. Cole and the County’s team appreciated the cooperation and collaboration with Lake-Sumter State College, and she praised Dr. Sidor. She thanked him for the focus on workforce development and skillsets that students could use. She also thanked Mr. Cole for helping make this cooperation happen.

Mr. Cole thanked Mr. Wahl and Dr. Sidor for this.

Mr. Ross said that two hands were raised over Zoom Webinar.

Ms. Barbara Morris, a concerned citizen, mentioned an item on the current agenda regarding code enforcement, and she opined that she was a victim of frivolous reports. She opined that some individuals were also using the other organizations for harassment, and she hoped that the Board could address this issue.

Mr. Cole explained that Tab 33 was a code enforcement discussion and that there would be a presentation from Mr. Glen Guzman, Director for the Office of Code Enforcement, on the issues that Ms. Morris had mentioned.

Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator, thanked Mr. Cole and the BCC for moving quickly on CARES Act funding. He said that the County and the Cities had checks and balances in place, and that they had the same goal to expend the funding in the correct way that the State intended. He opined that the County Manager and the BCC had done a great job with this while dealing with the effects of COVID-19, and he looked forward to working with them to provide the infrastructure needed to deal with current and future pandemics.

Commr. Campione thanked Mr. Drury and expressed appreciation for the Cities’ participation.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

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

Avalon Groves Community Development District Budget Resolution 2020-07

Request to acknowledge receipt of the executed FY 2021 budget Resolution 2020-07 and adopted budget for the Avalon Groves Community Development District.

Country Greens Community Development District FY 2021 Meeting Schedule

Request to acknowledge receipt of the Fiscal Year 2021 meeting schedule for the Board of Supervisors of the Country Greens Community Development District in accordance with Chapter 189, Florida Statutes.

Proof of Publication of Unclaimed Moneys and Payment to the Board

Request to acknowledge receipt of proof of publication of unclaimed moneys and payment to the Board for those non-court related moneys advertised less claims and publication costs.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Blake asked to pull Tabs 10 and 24 for a separate vote.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 4 through 30, plus 39, pulling Tabs 10 and 24 for a separate vote, as follows below.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 10.

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Consent Agenda Tab 24.

Commr. Blake voted no.

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-176 designating October 4 - 10, 2020, as Fire Prevention Week in Lake County.

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-167 designating October 4 - 10, 2020, as 4-H Week in Lake County.

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-164 designating October 2020 as Pink Out Month in Lake County, per Commissioner Wendy Breeden.

Request approval of Proclamation 2020-183 designating September 2020 as Prostate Cancer Awareness month in Lake County, per Commissioner Parks.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Request approval regarding the following County-owned properties:

1. Award bid to the highest bidder for purchasing Alternate Key 1317282.

2. Accept Offers to Purchase on Alternate Keys 1815053, 2506946, 2876336 and 3333411.

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

The total fiscal impact is $2,700.00 (revenue). Commission Districts 3 and 5.

county manager

Request authorization for the County Manager to delegate the authority to approve and execute Release of Liens for any debt owed to Lake County once that debt is paid in full, and authorization for the County Manager to delegate the execution of Release of Liens for any Animal Control or Code Enforcement case when the amount recommended by the Code Enforcement Special Master is paid in full, up to $25,000.00. There is no fiscal impact from this action.

Request approval of Interlocal Agreements with municipalities in Lake County relating to allocation and administration of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding, and approval for the Chairman to execute any additional agreements received. The fiscal impact is up to $10 million (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Request approval of Resolution 2020-185 adopting the fee schedules for fiscal year 2021. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.

Request approval of a payment to Computer Information & Planning, Inc. for Lake County's allocated share of costs for data conversion to an upgraded case management system for the State Attorney's Office. The fiscal impact is $29,000.00 (expenditure).

human resources and risk management

Request approval to extend the Excess Loss Insurance for the County's Self-Insured Medical Plan with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (Jacksonville, FL) through September 30, 2021, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated fiscal impact for fiscal year 2021 is $431,437.00 (expenditure).

Request approval to amend Contract 16-0209 with Healthstat Wellness, Inc. (Charlotte, NC) to provide pre-employment, post-offer drug and alcohol screening services, and approval to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated impact (expenditure) of this amendment is $14,000.00 in fiscal year 2021 and $8,050.00 in subsequent fiscal years, with an overall annual savings to the County estimated at $6,000.00.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Request approval of the dissolution of Lake Emergency Medical Services, Inc., and authorization for the Chairman to execute documentation (Resolution 2020-186) required by the State of Florida. There is no fiscal impact.

Planning and Zoning

Request approval to advertise an ordinance to amend Land Development Regulations Sec. 3.01.03, Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses, to establish medical services as a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zoning district, and approval, by a majority plus one vote, to hold the Second Public Hearing of the proposed ordinance at 9 a.m. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of a School Impact Fee Agreement Exemption in Lakeside at Waterman Village (Waterman Communities, Inc.), where residents are 55 years of age or older. Commission District 4. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety

Request approval of the third amendment to the Service Agreement for Maintenance of the Countywide 800MHz Radio System for a six-year term beginning in fiscal year 2021 with Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Chicago, IL), for the support and maintenance of the Countywide Radio System. The total fiscal impact over the six-year term is $11,328,000.00 (expenditure).

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Fleet Management

Request approval to utilize Contract 061015-RPL with Sourcewell (a cooperative purchasing public agency formerly known as National Joint Powers Alliance) to purchase vehicle lift equipment. The fiscal impact is $92,954.09 (expenditure).

Housing and Human Services

Request approval to extend agreements with the City of Leesburg and LifeStream Behavioral Center, Inc. for continued project-based voucher rental assistance through April 30, 2023.The estimated annual fiscal impact is $315,000.00 (expenditure/revenue - 100 percent grant funded).

Request approval of a contract with the Florida Department of Health for operation of the Lake County Department of Health. The total fiscal year 2021 impact is $444,897.00 (expenditure - $321,312.00 in funding and $123,585.00 in in-kind services).

Request approval of funding for the Lake County School Board's Choice, Charter and Community Education Driver's Education Program - Behind the Wheel Training for Fiscal Year 2021. The fiscal impact is $133,440.00 (expenditure - Traffic Education Trust Fund).

Request approval to advertise an ordinance amending Lake County Code, Section 2-87, entitled Duties, and Section 2-88, entitled Membership, to comply with the recent changes enacted by Florida House Bill 1339, updating the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee membership to include one member who is an elected official, as well as attendance and reporting requirements. There is no fiscal impact.

Library Services

Request approval to submit the Fiscal Year 2021 State Aid to Libraries Grant Application and Certification of Funds. The estimated fiscal impact is $130,000.00 (revenue).

Public Works

Request approval for the County Attorney, or designee, to execute the Stipulated Final Judgment in Lake County, Florida v. Franklin Store Building, Inc, et al., Court Case No. 2019-CA-001239, for the needed right of way for the County Road 455 and Ridgewood Avenue Roundabout Project. The fiscal impact from this action is $60,530.00 (expenditure). Commission District 2.

Request approval of Contract 2020-00157 with Trademark Metals Recycling, LLC (Ocala, FL) for the recycling of scrap metal and white goods, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $60,000.00 (revenue).

Request approval of Contract 20-0923 with Synergy Recycling of Central Florida, LLC (Sunrise, FL) for collection, recycling, and proper disposal of used oil and related commodities, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $28,164.12 (expenditure).

Request approval to accept a performance bond of $275,827.14 for the construction of a turn lane on County Road 466 for the Lumen Park at Lady Lake subdivision in the Town of Lady Lake. The fiscal impact is $320.00 (revenue – permit application fees). Commission District 5.

Request approval to release a performance bond of $300,748.22 issued to construct a water main on Hancock Road for the Hills of Minneola subdivision in Minneola. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Request approval to release a maintenance bond of $75,599.50 that was provided for the maintenance of improvements in Florence Lake Ridge, located south of Clermont. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Transit Services

Request approval of Contract 20-0457 with Faithworks Total Ground Maintenance, LLC (Mount Dora, FL) to provide janitorial services for bus shelters, and authorization for the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. The estimated impact for fiscal year 2021 is $106,272.00 (expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

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 for Tab 5, he had handed out an errata sheet with regards to a transportation condition, noting that two minor conditions had been added to that ordinance. He commented that these cases were heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 2, 2020, and that they were unanimously recommended for approval. He relayed that staff would request that the Board accept their recommendation and approve Tabs 1 through 6, including the revised transportation condition for Tab 5.

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. Blake, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 3-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 through 6, as follows:

Commr. Parks and Commr. Breeden were not present for the vote.

Tab 1. Ordinance 2020-50

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-22-5

Astor Lions Club Park

Amend Community Facility District (CFD) Ordinance #1997-45 to include the existing library as an allowed use.

Tab 2. Ordinance 2020-51

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-23-4

Plymouth-Sorrento Medical Center Rezoning

Rezone 2.1 +/- acres from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Planned Commercial (CP) to Planned Commercial (CP), by replacement of Ordinance #2008-47, to allow limited Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and Community Commercial (C-2) uses.

Tab 3. Ordinance 2020-52

Rezoning Case # CP-20-02-4

Great Corners LLC – Comprehensive Text Plan Amendment - Adoption

Amend Comprehensive Plan Policies I-2.1.4 and I-2.1.13 to allow the Board of County Commissioners to approve alternative design standards within the Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Main Street Future Land Use Category.

Tab 4. Ordinance 2020-53

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-04-4

Great Corners LLC – Smalley Property Rezoning

Amend and replace Ordinance #1984-50 to rezone 1.09 +/- acres of property from Urban Residential (R-6) to Planned Commercial (CP), and incorporate 0.40 +/- acres, to allow convenience-retail with gasoline sales, and car wash uses; and to include a waiver request to the rear parking requirement.

Tab 5. Ordinance 2020-54

Rezoning Case # MCUP-20-02-4

Summer Lake – Grace Groves MCUP Amendment

Amend the existing MCUP Ordinance #2019-11 to expand the approved borrow pit acreage by 13.56-acres within the previously MCUP area.

Tab 6. Ordinance 2020-55

Rezoning Case # RZ-20-17-2

John’s Lake Landing PUD Amendment

Rescind and replace Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinances #2015-46 and #2019-29 with a new PUD ordinance which decreases the number of multifamily/townhome units from 328 to 186 units in order to increase the number of single-family dwelling units from 460 to 547 units.

public hearing – Ordinance 2020-49

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING CHAPTER 7, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BUSINESS INCENTIVES; AMENDING SECTION 7-2, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 7-4, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, TO ALLOW GRANTS OF UP TO 20 YEARS IF HIGHER JOB CREATION AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT THRESHOLDS ARE MET; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the Board had been in discussions with Mr. Matulka about ways that these incentives could be used to promote job creation in Lake County for jobs above the median salary level. She said that this was similar to what the County did for Kroger-Ocado, which was a 10 year program; however, this ordinance would extend it to be over a course of 20 years depending on the situation.

Commr. Sullivan relayed that Mr. Matulka’s work with the business community had been positive around this change.

Commr. Campione asked how many businesses had utilized the County’s 10 year program.

Mr. Matulka replied that over the past year and a half, Kroger-Ocado and Diversitech had utilized a program with the State. He opined that another business would be coming forward to the Board through this process for a 10 year grant in October 2020. He commented that for the third tier, they had many positive discussions with companies and developers because it was geared toward large scale phased development.

Commr. Campione recalled that there was a capital investment over a certain dollar amount, in addition to the business providing higher income jobs.

Mr. Matulka confirmed this and stated that the new tier would require a $100,000,000 capital investment, and over 100 jobs at or above 115 percent of Lake County’s annual average wage. He said that the first two tiers were also performance related, and that the funding would be granted back to them after they paid their taxes.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt and execute Ordinance 2020-49 to amend Chapter 7, Lake County Code, entitled Economic Development and Business Incentives, to allow grants of up to 20 years for phased development projects if higher job creation and capital investments thresholds are met.

regular agenda

code enforcement presentation

Mr. Guzman said that the purpose for the current presentation was to provide the Board with an update on how the Office of Code Enforcement handled anonymous complaints, and that it would include a background, the existing approach, data review, benchmarks, actions taken, and a summary. He stated at the August 25, 2020, BCC meeting, a speaker had expressed concerns about anonymous complaints, and the Board requested an update from the Office of Code Enforcement. He commented that Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, indicated that a code officer is authorized, based upon his/her own investigation, to issue a notice of violation when there is reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a civil infraction in violation of a duly enacted code or ordinance, and that notice shall provide such person with reasonable time to correct the violation. He then relayed that Section 8-4 of the Lake County Code, Enforcement Procedure, included that the code enforcement manager or designee shall accept anonymous complaints. He said that currently, the Lake County code enforcement officers responded to all complaints received within three business days, and that if a violation was observed, a notice identifying the violation was issued and included a reasonable amount of time to comply. He elaborated that after the allotted time has expired, and if sufficient progress had not been achieved, the case was brought before a special magistrate at a public hearing, where fines may be imposed. He stated that if the property remained in violation, accrued fines were recorded in official records and liens were established against the property owner; additionally, cases remained active until the property was brought into compliance, which may occur by an owner’s corrective action, a court order, or other legal means, and each case would have its own unique set of circumstances. He displayed the following data for countywide complaints from January 1, 2019 to August 20, 2020: 3,682 complaints received; 2,072 cases opened by officers; officers completed 6,292 visits; 406 cases active; and 157 cases heard by the Code Enforcement Special Master. He then relayed the following data from Mt. Plymouth from the same timeframe: 267 complaints received; 111 cases opened by officers; officers completed 276 visits; 18 cases active; and three cases heard by the Special Master. He showed a map and noted that the cases were spread out throughout the county, along with a map of active cases. He displayed some examples of cases from Mt. Plymouth and the status determinations for them, with some cases having been found to have no violations and other cases having violations. He showed benchmarks of nearby Counties and commented that each County, with the exception of Sumter County, accepted anonymous complaints. He added that each municipality in Lake County, with the exception of the Town of Astatula, also accepted anonymous complaints. He remarked that his office had updated their webpage to include a common code violation brochure, along with comments to encourage individuals to provide their information and communicate with the office. He said that for their code enforcement case search, they had added definitions to the list, along with two additional classifications to improve collection. He remarked that his office had provided presentations to the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) in summer 2020, and they planned to continue community outreach with other organizations such as the Mt. Plymouth Landowners League. He then summarized the following information: their current practices and procedures were in line with State law and the County code; the acceptance of anonymous complaints was consistent with surrounding Counties and municipalities; webpages had been updated to enhance data collection and communication with the public; and data showed a 92.4 percent compliance rate countywide and a 97.3 percent compliance rate for the Mt. Plymouth area.

Commr. Blake asked if there was a situation with repeated fraudulent reports, was there any method to ensure that the individual was identified.

Mr. Guzman commented that complaints remained anonymous, that reports were isolated to areas, and that officers responded to those areas and became familiar with patterns. He mentioned that if they could determine what was occurring, the officers knew not to continually approach an individual; rather, they could see what was going on with the property, isolate the issue, and make a determination without having to contact the property owner. He opined that these incidents were isolated.

Commr. Campione inquired that if there was a small violation and a complainant was trying to cause issues for someone else, was there anything that required his office to enforce at that point.

Mr. Guzman replied that their goal was compliance and that they were not trespassing on property or violating rights. He commented that his office was trained to protect individuals’ rights and that if they could establish a sustained violation, then they would work with that person to bring them into compliance.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if they received a complaint and saw that there was an issue, they would communicate with the individual; additionally, they did not have to take the individual to a code enforcement hearing by a particular time, and could try to clear the issue up.

Mr. Guzman replied that this was the goal and that this was done consistently. He mentioned that as long as the individual was making progress, then his office would continue to work with them to bring them into compliance.

Commr. Campione opined that the reasonableness of the amount of time given to correct a situation was key, noting that it was not always easy to correct these issues.

Mr. Guzman relayed that their first approach was a line of communication and that his office provided information for the parameters to not have a violation.

Commr. Campione asked Ms. Marsh that if someone opined that they had a neighbor who was causing them to feel harassed, would they have a potential civil action.

Ms. Marsh replied that they could pursue a civil action, though she thought that the difficulty was with the anonymous complaints. She added that they would not be able to prove it was that specific person calling in, though they could have other ways to prove it. She also explained that there was case law that gave code enforcement what was essentially prosecutorial discretion, and the County did not have to bring a case. She stated that there were times where the County worked with property owners for a year or longer depending on the situation. She relayed that what typically happened in these situations was there was a dispute between two neighbors who could not get along, and they would generally call in on each other. She opined that the Office of Code Enforcement did a good job in working through those issues and helping the individuals get along better.

Commr. Parks said that the Office of Code Enforcement was reasonable and wanted to work this out with the public. He opined that the key would be continued education to their constituents of how the system worked, and letting people know that calling in frivolous or retaliatory complaints cost everyone money.

Commr. Campione opined that as long as there was a record to show multiple calls on a property, and if the Office of Code Enforcement was checking it out, then their officers would know that one of these scenarios could be occurring.

Mr. Guzman confirmed that the officers were sensitive to this and that because they were assigned to an area, they knew what was going on in the community. He added that he could speak to Ms. Morris one on one anytime.

Commr. Campione noted that there was a raised hand on Zoom Webinar and said that she would let them speak under the three minute rule.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Richard Allen, a resident of Sorrento, relayed his understanding that his neighbor had received repeated complaints related to parking and roadway signs for unmaintained right of ways. He opined that these complaints were more than code enforcement violations, that they were throughout Mt. Plymouth, and that there may be a larger issue that County officials may want to look into.

Ms. Elisa Moy, a concerned citizen, relayed that code enforcement had been called on her and that when they were unsuccessful, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was also called on her. She opined that the caller should not be anonymous to the Office of Code Enforcement so that corrective action could be taken when they were using County resources to harass neighbors. She expressed concerns for attempting to have a homeowners association (HOA) in a community that did not have one.

Ms. Morris indicated an understanding that some examples presented by Mr. Guzman that were not a code violation were for her son, who had experienced repeated calls. She said that calls had been made on her five times in the past year, and she opined that the Mt. Plymouth Landowners League was acting as a policing entity due to political issues.

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

Ms. Marsh clarified that the difficulty with code enforcement taking the names of callers was that there was no public records exception for code enforcement complaints; therefore, once that person gave their name to code enforcement, it became public record.

Commr. Campione said that the County could possibly reach out to the Mt. Plymouth Landowners League. She noted that since it was in her district, Commission District 4, she could attempt this. She also said that other Commissioners could speak to them.

Commr. Blake asked if the Mt. Plymouth Landowners League was an official entity.

Commr. Campione responded that it had existed for a long time, that they met frequently, and that they had been constructive. She supported promoting unity in the community, and she hoped that some progress could be made by reaching out and asking people to be reasonable and fair.

Mr. Cole noted that the Board was moving onto the Supervisor of Elections tab next, and following that was Tab 34 for a workshop on attainable housing, which could take some time and had a number of speakers. He commented that if the Board planned to take a lunch break, they could let the speakers know that their item would not come up until 1:00 p.m. or whichever time the Board chose.

Commr. Campione proposed setting a time certain for Tab 34 at 1:00 p.m.

lake county supervisor of elections facility needs

Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, thanked Mr. Cole for all of the assistance that he had given to him and to Lake County. He commented that Mr. Cole was a model public servant and that this was appreciated. He then presented information related to space challenges for their office and warehouse. He explained that four years prior, his office was in the basement of the Lake County Administration Building for administrative business, though their warehouse and training spaces were in the City of Mount Dora. He recalled that their storage facility in the City of Mount Dora was 10,000 square feet and was filled to capacity, with some training space being used for storage. He said that they had moved in 2018 to their current location and that they did not think there would have been any issues for five years, which was the term of the lease. He stated that they had considered the possibility of building a new facility in 2018, though there were other priorities which needed to take place. He stated that they currently had approximately 21,000 square feet which was split up. He noted that the warehouse had a high ceiling which allowed them to place a 1,000 square foot mezzanine, adding that the pallet racks and storage trailer in the back of the building gave them a total of just under 11,000 square feet. He showed an image of their administrative area and opined that it was inadequate, particularly with social distancing. He noted other pictures of the viewing area for the canvassing board and the canvassing board area itself, and he opined that both were minimum spaces. He commented that an overflow area for the viewing area was being used as a telephone bank room, mentioning that they had six workstations in that area. He displayed an image of the original setup for their training room, commenting that they currently had classes occurring in the Tavares Civic Center to space out election workers during training. He showed other images of limited space, and he opined that they did not have sufficient space for their full time staff, nor for the seasonal workers or the telephone banks they needed during early voting and on Election Day. He commented that they also did not have space in the warehouse, and he showed images of how crowded the space was. He specified that they had to store ballots for 22 months after elections and that each vote cast in the State of Florida had to have a paper ballot backing that vote up. He showed pictures of another area for storage of COVID-19 and clerical supplies for the polling locations, noting items stored in the hallway. He showed one of their training rooms, pointing out that it was being used for staging due to not having a staging area in the warehouse. He said that in the past four years, they had registered over 37,000 new individuals to vote, and recalled that in 2016, they had 222,390 eligible voters in the county, while on the current morning they had 259,481. He stated that his office had also moved from non-electronic poll books to electronic poll books, which required significant storage and staging space. He relayed that Marion County had approximately the same number of voters as Lake County, though they had 57,000 square feet in their Supervisor of Elections office; additionally, in Polk County, which had many more voters than Lake County, they had 45,000 square feet of space. He stated that he had looked at three options to solve this challenge, with one option being to continue the lease at the current facility by adding 4,200 square feet to the warehouse. He also proposed building a 45,000 to 50,000 square feet facility or using a lease to own. He relayed an understanding that the County had engaged in other programs where private individuals built a building and leased it to the County with an understanding that it would be a lease to buy. He presented possible locations to construct a facility, beginning with a roughly five acre plot on the corner of David Walker Drive and Dora Avenue, which was south from the Lake County Tax Collector’s office and was the location he considered the best choice; additionally, he opined that this property was accessible for voters, noting that individuals had expressed appreciation for this at their current location. He said that his current facility had two freight loading docks and that they would not want another facility without them, due to the provided safety for loading and unloading trucks. He commented that this preferred property was owned by Liberty Baptist Church, and relayed his understanding that they were willing to sell it. He displayed another potential property next to the Elks Lodge, though he had not spoken to anyone there. He then showed a property owned by the County which was next to the Lake County Armory on Woodlea Road, which was about five acres in size. He proposed to possibly square off the parking lot used by the National Guard there to give his office a more square property if this was where the County chose to locate them. He commented that another property owned by the County was south of County Road (CR) 448, across the street from Lake Idamere Park; however, it was not in the County seat and the State of Florida Constitution required him to have an office in the County seat. He reiterated his recommendation for the property on David Walker Drive.

Ms. Marsh added that staff had previously looked at the property where the Office of County Probation building was in downtown Tavares, across the street from the City of Tavares public emergency facility. She said that they created some preliminary plans for this, but was unsure if it met the acreage. She stated that there was also the existing animal shelter which was about 3.21 acres.

Senator Hays said that he had not recently looked at the property near the Office of County Probation, and that this could be workable; however, he expressed concerns for added congestion to downtown Tavares and having a three story building. He opined that the property on David Walker Drive would be more convenient for voters, and that the animal shelter property would be an unwise choice. He noted that this property was owned by the County, and he proposed possibly selling it. He asked the Board to not place his office there, and opined that it was difficult to reach, noting that was also only about three acres.

Commr. Campione asked that how much of the optimal proposed square footage would be warehousing and administrative.

Senator Hays requested to not consider anything less than 20,000 square feet for the warehouse, and said that this could leave another 25,000 square feet for the training rooms and administrative space.

Commr. Campione thought that the square footage for construction for the warehousing would cost less than building office space specifications. She noted that it would be more like a 25,000 square foot building with 20,000 square foot of warehouse. She said that it could possibly be similar to a metal building for that portion and help save funding, and have the office connected. She also stated that having equipment somewhere else could be an issue.

Commr. Parks stated that a challenge for building warehouse space with an office could be zoning.

Senator Hays said that he had some conversations with the City of Tavares, and he learned that there were metal buildings that could be equipped with a façade which made it look like stucco.

Commr. Breeden inquired if the property across from Lake Idamere Park was where the renaissance faire was held.

Mr. Cole confirmed this and added that part of the land had been committed to the fairgrounds.

Commr. Sullivan relayed his understanding that there were monitoring wells at the renaissance faire property.

Commr. Breeden said that she was unsure about the property next to the Elks Lodge.

Senator Hays said that it was important to him to maintain their easy availability for the voting public, in addition to having the two freight loading docks. He reiterated that the David Walker Drive property fit this criteria.

Commr. Breeden asked about the acreage of the property next to the Office of County Probation.

Senator Hays thought that it was about three acres.

Commr. Campione mentioned the parking aspect, and she opined that this could be an impediment to the public if they had to park in the parking garage to access the building.

Ms. Marsh clarified that this property was approximately 2.33 acres.

Commr. Breeden opined that this was too small, relaying her understanding that about 10,000 square feet could be built on one acre.

Ms. Marsh explained that the three designs done for that property showed about 20,000 square feet for warehousing and approximately 10,000 square feet for office space.

Commr. Sullivan said that when he considered interest rates and other alternatives available, he was not opposed to letting Senator Hays stay where he was; however, if the improvements were made, it may be more economically prudent to own that building versus leasing. He expressed an interest in making the best economic decision for the taxpayers of Lake County, with recognizing that there had been changes with voting. He opined that this was a long term decision that the County needed to place into its capital improvements program, noting that Senator Hays still had to operate in the meantime.

Commr. Blake agreed with Commissioner Sullivan and Senator Hays that they had to think long term on this. He asked if staff could bring the Board options, and he said that he had discussed with Senator Hays the possibility of the County liquidating some properties to help offset the expense. He then inquired about the cost of the property off David Walker Drive.

Senator Hays replied that he was unsure but noted that the pastor of the adjacent church had indicated that the church was more concerned with the type of neighbor rather than the amount of money they received, and they had indicated that they would welcome the Supervisor of Elections as a neighbor. He added that the church also wanted a joint use agreement for the use of the Supervisor of Elections’ parking lot for their church and school, noting that the church had expansion plans. He opined that this would be an easy agreement to work out.

Commr. Campione said that evaluating the numbers would be the next big step, including the cost of the parcels and the building. She said that she liked the idea of possibly liquidating some County properties if there was a way to generate some funding to reduce what they would have to borrow to construct the facility.

Commr. Blake relayed that he had mentioned to Senator Hays the possibility of co-locating existing County departments or building in a newer facility so that they could offload an existing facility.

Senator Hays mentioned that he would be open to co-location with the Lake County Tax Collector. He also requested some clear direction and said that time was of the essence. He opined that they had a safety issue, and he asked who would pursue the architectural plans and if it would be contracted with a private individual.

Mr. Cole indicated that staff had done a preliminary look at what the cost of the facility might be in the City of Tavares and that in general, a 50,000 square foot facility would be in a range of $10 million to $12.5 million, not including any land costs. He commented that there were several potential funding options to consider, including the liquidation of any existing property. He said that there were currently no plans for the existing animal shelter site and that there would be costs relating to tearing that building down. He added that other options included reprioritizing the sales tax projects and putting money aside over several years, and ad valorem and General Fund funding.

Commr. Breeden said that one of the questions for new construction was how long Senator Hays’ office could exist where they were and if this would be at least a couple years.

Senator Hays responded that he did not want to think about extending their current lease without the addition of the 4,200 square feet discussed two weeks prior. He mentioned that if they were definitely moving toward a new facility, then they could make do with what they had currently. He expressed a concern for another presidential election in four years in the current facility, noting that they could have another 30,000 to 40,000 registered voters. He said that they had the funding to pay for the nearly $500,000 building that they were going to add on, and he indicated that a contractor he had spoken with had recommended to count on likely $300 per square foot of administrative space and $150 per square foot of warehouse space.

Commr. Campione said that the Board had a consensus but needed some options. She expressed a concern for reprioritizing sales tax projects, and she indicated interest in getting creative and seeing what the County could put up for sale. She also expressed interest in what financing might look like if they embarked on financing and paid it down as they liquidated properties.

Commr. Sullivan said that Senator Hays’ lease payments played into the funding side, and staff could put this together.

Commr. Campione said that staff could conduct an analysis to show that based on what the County was paying for the lease payments, what they could afford from a financing standpoint as they tried to generate the funds to pay off as much of debt that they could.

Senator Hays stated that it was around $20,000 per month in round numbers for the lease payment, and this was almost $250,000 per year.

Mr. Cole said that staff would report back at the October 13, 2020 BCC meeting.

Commr. Campione commented that Senator Hays may have some idea for what made sense on the frontend of design, and she encouraged sharing it with staff so that they would have some specifications for a request for proposal (RFP).

Senator Hays noted that November 3, 2020 was a significant day and that his current efforts had to go toward that; however, he could provide information to staff for an architect.

Mr. Cole relayed that it would be helpful to know how much of the 50,000 square feet would be warehousing and office.

Commr. Breeden mentioned that it would be interesting to know other Counties’ ratios, and Senator Hays replied that he could get this information.

appointments to the children’s services council

Commr. Breeden recommended Ms. Joanne Lepold for District 3. She also recommended Dr. Melody Duckins for District 5, noting that the other applicants had been appointed to the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council at the previous BCC meeting.

Commr. Blake expressed support for Dr. Duckins.

Commr. Breeden added that Mr. Russell Mohrbach would be reappointed as the Department of Children and Families representative.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint the following members to the Children’s Services Council: Ms. Joanne Lepold as the District 3 member; Dr. Melody Duckins as the At-Large representative, along with approval of an ethical conflict waiver for Dr. Duckins; and Mr. Russell Mohrbach as the Department of Children and Families representative.

appointments to the arts and cultural alliance

Commr. Breeden reviewed the municipal recommendations for appointees. She then stated that they County had six applications for the one At-Large representative vacancy, and she recommended Mr. David Gustavo Ortiz, who she said had an extensive art background.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint the following members to the Arts and Cultural Alliance: Mr. Christopher Dudeck as the municipal representative for the City of Clermont, along with approval of a waiver of ethical conflict, and Ms. Shirley Draper as the alternate representative; Mr. Dean Bell as the municipal representative for the Town of Montverde, with approval of a waiver of ethical conflict for Mr. Bell, and Ms. Mary-Kay Rath as the alternate representative, with approval of a waiver of ethical conflict for Ms. Rath; and Mr. David Gustavo Ortiz as the At-Large representative.

appointment to the board of adjustment

Commr. Campione commented that this was a District 4 opening, that Mr. Buddy Atkins had resigned after serving for a number of years, and that Ms. Addie Owens, a realtor, had made an application for this position.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Addie Owens as the District 4 member to the Board of Adjustment.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 11:54 a.m. for 56 minutes.

attainable housing workshop

Mr. Kelvin Coachman, Director for the Office of Housing and Human Services, said that the purpose of this workshop was to provide an update to the Board on Attainable Housing and that it would include the following items: background; a statewide update on attainable housing programs and initiatives from Ms. Gladys Cook, Housing Resilience and Recovery Director for the Florida Housing Coalition (FHC); a Lake County update on attainable housing programs and initiatives from Mr. Kent Adcock, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Habitat for Humanity of Lake-Sumter and representing The Lake 100; next steps; and Board discussion. He defined attainable housing as a dwelling that a person or persons could obtain for 30 percent or less of their income, and remarked that attainable housing could refer to both for sale and rental housing. He stated that there were many federal and state programs available to make housing affordable for households at or below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), which was about $58,000 per year for a family of four. He said that the programs Lake County had were the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, which was a federal grant, and SHIP, which was a state grant, noting that these programs were for households with between about $58,000 and $87,000 of the AMI per year. He then relayed the following background information: on December 3, 2019, the Board held an affordable housing and homeless shelter workshop; on February 25, 2020, the Board approved an ordinance to provide for a waiver of impact fees for affordable housing units and create a deferral program for accessory dwelling units; on June 2, 2020, the Board approved an ordinance to expand the affordable housing waiver to include moderate income levels and increase the infill waiver limitation per entity from five to ten waivers per fiscal year; also on June 2, 2020, The Lake 100 updated the Board on its plans to develop an attainable housing strategic plan for Lake County to address affordable housing, workforce housing and entry level housing. He introduced Ms. Cook and said that the FHC was a statewide nonprofit organization and was recognized as the State of Florida’s authority on attainable housing. He added that the FHC’s mission was to bring together housing advocates and resources so that all Floridians have a quality, affordable home and/or a suitable living environment, and that the FHC provided training, technical assistance, and consulting to communities.

Ms. Cook said that the FHC provided technical assistance and training but did not provide any housing or pass any funds through. She explained that they worked from ending homelessness to first time homeownership, that they held one of the country’s largest annual housing conferences, and that they provided a weekly hurricane webinar. She added that they also published the Home Matters Report and a housing network news journal, along with putting on housing forums. She then displayed items included in House Bill 1339, the 2020 Florida legislative session’s omnibus housing bill, and mentioned that the Counties all had affordable housing advisory committees (AHACs), noting that the AHAC report was now an annual requirement. She added that effective October 1, 2020, AHACs must include a locally elected official from each County or municipality. She added that the bill also allowed local governments to approve the development of affordable housing on any parcel zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. She then discussed the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) and said that it was one of 53 State housing finance agencies. She mentioned that in 2019, they had assisted over 17,000 homeowners with repairs or purchase assistance, and had assisted 11,000 renters mostly by building multifamily units. She said that they went through about $2 billion per year, and that Lake County had an active pipeline of 3,500 housing units in their portfolio out of a total of 4,700 assisted units in Lake County. She explained that the FHFC was quasi-governmental, that their board was appointed by the Florida Governor, and that the Executive Director for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) was a standing member. She commented that SHIP was the program that the County directly received funding from the Sadowski Affordable Housing State and Local Trust Fund, with SHIP being the local government trust fund, and the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) being the State program. She noted that the County had its Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) to tell them what their strategies would be, along with the AHAC, noting that one of the AHAC’s responsibilities was to work on an incentive plan each year. She showed a chart of the fiscal year (FY) 2021 State housing budget, commenting that there was about $380 million in trust funds which would have provided $267,000 to all of the SHIP communities; however, even though the Florida Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives approved the budget for full funding, the Governor had to veto $225 million due to COVID-19 but had added $250 million back into the FHFC for COVID-19 rental relief. She explained that single family housing programs included SHIP, which local governments administered, and the FHFC’s single family mortgage revenue bonds, which were issued by the agency and were participated in by lenders for purchase assistance; additionally, the homeownership pool (HOP) was funding that went to the consumer through their builder after their home was built. She explained that multifamily rental housing included the following programs: SAIL, which was one percent interest loans for qualified developers to build affordable multifamily housing; multifamily mortgage revenue bonds (MMRB), which were issued by the agency and went out to developers; the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) for jurisdictions that were not entitlement, noting that the FHFC chose to use their HOME funds for new rural multifamily development; low income housing tax credits, which was a United States (U.S.) Department of Treasury program and was a tax credit that went to investors, noting that when they purchased those credits, the developer had equity to develop housing; and hurricane recovery programs in which trust funds were used, with $30 million in the current year having gone for recovery in areas affected by Hurricane Michael, adding that they also partnered with the DEO to use federal Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. She said that each year, the FHFC had a request for applications (RFA) cycle and the applications were mixed and matched such that the whole state had access to different levels of funding for different projects. She elaborated that some of those RFAs had a local government area of opportunity (LGAO), which meant that the Board could ask developers to submit their proposals to them to be vetted and chosen based on what best met the Board’s needs. She added that this gave the Board the chance to ask the developers for permanent affordability. She explained that the predevelopment loan program (PLP) was a one percent interest loan to nonprofit developers, and they could apply for up to $750,000 to pay for items such as surveys, appraisals and land up front. She said that the National Housing Trust Fund was a federal source of funding which flowed into the FHFC for about $3 million per year which was used for homeless projects as a grant. She mentioned that there were also grants for individuals with developmental disabilities and that there was funding set aside for these individuals. She stated that the preservation program was funding to rehabilitate older properties so they could be kept in the affordable housing portfolio. She then commented that the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida (UF) did intensive research each year based on the census and housing availability, noting that they produced numerous reports about affordable housing. She said that the Catalyst Program was funding set aside for the FHC to conduct technical assistance and training. She recommended visiting floridahousingsearch.org if there was a disaster and housing was being sought for displaced individuals, noting that it was also a good place to find affordable rental units. She commented that the FHFC required green building in all of their construction projects to make the property safer and more energy efficient. She relayed that the FHFC also conducted extensive compliance and monitoring and that an individual would be in their circuit for many years if they received funding from them; additionally, they watched over eligibility of tenants and funding sources on an annual basis. She then noted that of the CRF, $125 million went to the SHIP communities so that they could help with rental assistance or other COVID-19 related housing needs; furthermore, another $125 million went out to the landlords so they could assist their tenants. She said that surplus land was a great opportunity for local governments to encourage the development of affordable housing, noting that there was a surplus land statute that required the County to maintain an inventory of surplus land. She elaborated that even if it did not go towards affordable housing, the best practice was to put those proceeds into affordable housing, remarking that this was where the County could ask for permanent affordability. She explained that a community land trust could be a non-profit organization or a program, and was how the County could take land and housing out of the speculative market using a 99 year ground lease. She said that this was a good way to prevent displacement due to gentrification, and that it was also a good pathway to homeownership. She displayed a guidebook on the FHC’s website to repurpose vacant commercial, retail and industrial properties into adaptive use, noting that it was a good way to prevent sprawl and to have buildings be usable again. She showed a list of the FHC’s publications which included books on topics such as community land trust primer and creating inclusive communities in the State of Florida, guides on developing housing, and a surplus land guidebook.

Commr. Parks asked if the LGAOs was a program that the County would set up.

Ms. Cook explained that it originated within a specific RFA, and it was usually for housing tax credits in medium to large counties. She recommended having a system beforehand for a scoring rubric for projects, noting that the County would be choosing one project over the others.

Commr. Parks relayed that developers with properties or ideas were asking for a formal process with the County to identify attainable housing projects they wanted to participate in.

Ms. Cook said that the applications also had points if they received a local government contribution, noting that they were likely to come straight to the Board and request funding. She stated that communities used their SHIP funds for this, and that the funding of tax credit projects did not require that much of a local government contribution.

Commr. Campione recalled that historically, Lake County really only had the apartment type projects that were income qualified. She noted that the County had given a match in many cases for $37,500, and she did not think that the County had seen anything else like what Ms. Cook described in her presentation.

Ms. Cook indicated an understanding that the Lake County Housing Finance Authority could issue bonds, and it was likely that they would need the County to support the issuance of the bonds.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the projects that Lake County had done were with the Florida Housing Finance Authority. She clarified that Lake County did not have a housing finance authority. She mentioned that Orange County kept Lake County informed, and she thought that Lake County had the opportunity to partner with them; however, Lake County never had a project she was aware of in the county, though residents had the benefit of being associated with the Orange County Housing Finance Authority.

Ms. Cook said that Lake County had some projects but that they may not have needed to ask the Board for anything.

Commr. Campione asked if this was because of the size of Orange County or if Lake County could do this.

Ms. Cook deferred on this point because she was unsure how to start a housing finance authority and said that it was a matter of what they had in their community. She stated that she could provide more information.

Commr. Campione relayed that a local affordable/attainable housing builder asked her about doing a project where they were going to build the homes and meet the requirements, but they were looking for the County to help with their infrastructure costs upfront. She wondered how that would interact with a housing finance authority, or if they would have to fit this into their LHAP.

Ms. Cook clarified that the LHAP was just for SHIP and that most Counties tried to use CDBG funding for infrastructure on these types of projects. She commented that if the infrastructure did not go to the property’s edge, then it was the County’s responsibility; however, if they did not have the funding to do this, then the project did not have readiness to proceed. She said that if the developer was asking for street to property assistance with infrastructure, then the County could do this with their funding, but it was a considerable amount of money. She recommended looking for projects that had enough financing to cover this themselves.

Commr. Campione mentioned that one way could be to partner with someone who wanted to build affordable housing on surplus property owned by the County.

Ms. Drury relayed her understanding that the Lake County Housing Finance Corporation was through Orange County’s housing finance corporation. She said that they had approached Lake County staff about bringing a resolution of support for a project to the Board.

Commr. Campione asked if it would be a project inside Lake County’s boundaries, and Ms. Drury confirmed this.

Commr. Parks said that he had three or four developers approach him over the past few months about the County and the Cities helping with a project.

Ms. Drury stated that there had been several developers who were interested in applying for the RFA that the FHFC was putting out, noting that the local contribution was $460,000. She said that the County would do a RFP, that they would select a development that the Board wanted to support, and commit this year’s funding of $460,000. She added that this would typically come out of SHIP funds, but that with the County not receiving the 2021 SHIP funds, it made it difficult to come up with the finances to do that.

Commr. Parks inquired if it would have to be out of the General Fund or if the County would possibly have to put some of their land forward.

Ms. Drury said that they had been approached recently by a developer for the smaller contribution of about $37,000, which could come to the Board in the near future.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if SHIP funds were used, they would not be available for other items or people already on the waiting list to receive funds for items such as rehabilitation and down payment assistance.

Ms. Drury said this was correct and that the 2019-2020 SHIP funding was about $663,000, noting that funding one developer would use most of those funds. She added that Lake County and all of the SHIP jurisdictions would not be receiving funds for 2021.

Commr. Campione said it would be helpful to see how many counties the size of Lake County were supplementing their affordable or attainable housing programs through other revenue streams.

Ms. Drury replied that staff could research this.

Commr. Parks said that the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) could possibly provide this information.

Commr. Campione asked what other incentives the Counties could give to developers looking to do attainable housing projects without outlaying funding. She noted that they had impact fee credits and building fees.

Ms. Drury added that they had CDBG funding that could help with some of the infrastructure to the curb.

Commr. Campione noted that the project would have to be in a certain area.

Ms. Drury indicated an understanding that Mr. Adcock would be addressing some of these questions in his presentation, commenting that part of the strategic plan The Lake 100 was putting together was to gather the data and come up with solutions.

Mr. Coachman gave an update on the County’s SHIP funding and said that currently, for SHIP year 2017-2018 they had an allocation of $1,414,398, that for SHIP year 2018-2019 they had an allocation of $554,551, and that for SHIP year 2019-2020 they had $666,252. He listed the following programs that were being funded with SHIP funding: Shepherd’s Village, a 40 unit affordable housing complex for seniors; the Clermont Ridge Senior Village, a 70 unit affordable housing complex for seniors; eviction prevention; down payment assistance; and the home rehabilitation and home demolition/construction program. He commented that for an affordable housing pilot program, they had a Rolling Acres property with a partnership with Habitat for Humanity of Lake and Sumter Counties on County owned land west of the Town of Lady Lake, about 1.8 miles south of CR 466. He showed a concept plan for Rolling Acres, noting that it would have 82 cottages varying in size from 720 square feet to about 1,200 square feet, that there would be an environmental review to determine project feasibility, and that there would be a Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment to ensure site density compliance. He said that another potential affordable housing pilot program was the fairgrounds property, noting that the fairgrounds would relocate to County owned property along CR 448; additionally, Habitat for Humanity had shown interest in purchasing the existing fairgrounds property for the development of an affordable housing cottage community. He provided an update on the impact fee study and recalled that the County entered into a contract with Tindale-Oliver on April 21, 2020, with the purpose to prepare categories that would set the fees for the following items: cottage homes/tiny homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs); parks and library fees; and multifamily structures in conjunction with the County's needs. He explained that for The Lake 100 strategic plan update, on June 2, 2020 The Lake 100 updated the Board on its plans to develop an attainable housing strategic plan for Lake County; additionally, Mr. Adcock would provide an update on the status of this project.

Mr. Adcock handed out a preliminary draft of the plan and said that it included a research phase, an analysis phase, and an action plan stage; furthermore, the draft was of the first two phases. He commented that after the second phase, The Lake 100 had enlisted seven different stakeholder groups from different sectors to be part of a task force to establish how to move forward, noting that it was determined that they would conduct focus groups with thought leaders across the County. He commented that they contributed information and that data was recorded, and The Lake 100 had created key drivers from those discussions, which were put into a quantitative survey that was sent out to about 240 individuals across the county. He also mentioned that the presentation today included the results of this survey. He recalled that at The Lake 100, individuals from the education and healthcare sectors had expressed that they had a challenge in recruiting and retaining some good employees because they could not find housing that was affordable or attainable. He said that part of the action steps to follow the plan would be a housing study for both the rental and home ownership sides, and he said that The Lake 100 had obtained an amalgamation of raw data from many sources, which was merged through a community perception gained from the focus groups and quantitative surveys. He noted that page four of the report included statistics which differed from Mr. Coachman’s because The Lake 100 had chosen to look at averages to determine the household size and the need for household size. He elaborated that in the preliminary look, it seemed to him that they were driving house prices so high because houses were larger and larger; however, the average household size in Lake County was only 2.6 people. He expressed concerns that many times, individuals were expected to move into a 1,600 or 1,800 square foot house at a price of $235,000 or $240,000, and they could not afford it. He said that The Lake 100 had recognized that below 80 percent of the AMI, there were about as many people that were renters as there were between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI, so they combined these two when they looked at attainable housing. He explained that the affordable housing up to 80 percent of the AMI was where the resources were available from the FHC and FHFC, though The Lake 100 would present the workforce side of 80 to 120 percent of the AMI. He stated that they compared the housing need in the data to surrounding Counties on page five, and that the numbers were good with 76 percent of people or households being homeowners in Lake County; therefore, only 24 percent were in a rental situation, which was on par with Marion County, though Seminole and Orange Counties had a significantly lower rate. He commented that The News Service of Florida had reported on July 26, 2019 that between April 2018 and April 2024, population was expected to grow at a net new resident rate of 906 people per day in the State of Florida, with about 50 percent of them on average moving into the City of Orlando area. He listed the following challenges that the county was facing: the transfer growth of new people moving there, which drove up the demand for houses, along with prices and impact fees; Lake County’s housing stock was priced lower than Orange and Seminole Counties, and therefore Lake County was seeing an influx of purchasers who commuted to the City of Orlando; Lake County was incurring increased costs for development, land and impact fees; the situation was made more challenging due to Lake County being primarily a service sector economy where wages tended to be somewhat more moderate; and the challenge was not only related to the quantity of new homes, but the price those new homes brought, noting that $230,000 was an entry point for most new houses which was unaffordable for both the affordable and workforce components of attainable housing. He remarked that the attainable housing affordability table on page seven of the report, when broken down by the AMI, indicated that the price of homes that could be afforded based on the income strata of 80 percent to 120 percent of the AMI was $133,000 per year to $234,000 per year. He said that few homes were being built because developers had told The Lake 100 in the surveys that they could not make the numbers work unless something considerable was put forward. He stated that below 80 percent of the AMI, it was challenging to make homeownership viable, with it being near-impossible under 50 percent of the AMI. He reiterated that households that earned below 80 percent of the AMI had certain subsidies, though the State Legislature had not been able to fulfill those distributions. He indicated that individuals making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI were making too much to receive any subsidy, and were not making enough to purchase anything on the market. He elaborated that these were firefighters, police, government workers, and others, and he said that The Lake 100 was hearing from employers that needed to recruit individuals in this income gap but there was no housing available for them. He commented that most of the current rental market was limited to income-restricted residents, and there were not enough market rate rental properties of substance. He commented that only 36 percent of the population in Lake County below 80 percent of the AMI owned a home, and between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI, only 64 percent owned a home. He said that for affordable housing, the cut from SHIP had made a dramatic impact, and the HUD standard was increasingly difficult for those earning under 50 percent of the AMI. He stated that the affordable housing sector consisted of 36 percent being homeowners and 60 percent being renters, with the reasons for this being numerous and varied. He relayed that 40 percent of Lake County residents earned below $50,000 per year, which presented housing challenges for seniors and the disabled. He commented that the analysis on the workforce housing side indicated that those households were earning between $41,600 and $62,400 per year, and this was due to him using 2.6 persons per household rather than Mr. Coachman’s number of four persons per household. He said that there were significant challenges based on HUD guidelines for affordability, and there was little to no housing stock in the range of $133,000 to $234,000; therefore, The Lake 100 had to try to create an action plan to encourage additional housing in this gap, or else they would have increasing issues with retaining those individuals. He added that because most rentals were income restricted, they also needed to look at whether they should add a higher caliber of multifamily housing. He explained that there would be three action plans including a one to three year short term plan, a six year intermediate term plan, and a seven to ten year longer term plan. He relayed that it was clear from discussions with the focus groups that subsidies should be targeted at the below 80 percent of the AMI income level only, along with the consensus that impact fees were problematic whether it was affordable or workforce housing. He said that another special consideration involved serving present resident housing needs over those of people who relocated to Lake County for cheaper housing, noting that this displaced some local residents. He commented that their plan could address whether there was a way to create a residency program for workforce housing to ensure that at least a portion of created housing in those sectors would be reserved for residents of Lake County. He stated that when they considered the numbers, there were these four key drivers: collaboration; access to capital; innovative solutions; and land use. He said that there were 23 attributes divided among these key drivers that The Lake 100 could craft and develop to allow them to get housing built in a scalable way in the $133,000 to $234,000 range for workforce housing. He stated that they had asked the focus group participants who should be responsible for orchestrating this in the workforce environment, noting that the County already had a housing group for affordable housing. He elaborated that the focus group did not feel that adding another sector would be advisable and could stretch the capacity; additionally, he shared that he had worked in Washington, D.C. with a third party public/private partnership composed of a multidimensional comprehensive coalition of government, private business, private enterprise, finance individuals, etc., and that they managed that direction. He was unsure if The Lake 100 was interested in serving in this capacity, and he wondered if there was another mechanism of creating an organization to work with different stakeholders to bring about housing in the workforce side, while the Lake County Office of Housing and Human Services brought about affordable housing. He said that The Lake 100 was ready to craft the action plan, and he expressed interest in feedback from the Board.

Commr. Campione thought that this was a good foundation. She said that the school impact fees had been substantial, and that the Cities’ water and sewer was usually significant.

Mr. Adcock stated that the Cities were participatory in this process, noting that they had meetings with city managers from many municipalities, who had recommended creating a housing trust fund internally within the municipalities to offset these types of items.

Commr. Campione said that the group raised a key consideration about Lake County becoming a magnet for commuters.

Mr. Adcock mentioned that employer-sponsored housing was something that was already moving on the education side, and that healthcare was also discussing the possibility of doing this.

Commr. Campione said that if this was more of a public/private partnership, the County would not be in position to put those types of limitations in place; however, employers could possibly provide housing for their employees or create a co-op to work together with a smaller employer.

Mr. Adcock relayed that the Lake County School District had already identified some parcels and were considering the possibility of creating a demonstration project on an employer-sponsored basis.

Commr. Breeden opined that the County needed to keep the workforce component in the description because it was Lake County’s workforce that they were concerned about.

Mr. Adcock stated that they had a large contribution from Dr. Sidor who indicated that they had many graduates at Lake-Sumter State College earning $50,000 per year but could not stay in Lake County because they could not buy a house on that budget. He indicated that The Lake 100 was questioning if this public/private partnership should work with developers to create a demonstration project with residency requirements. He elaborated that it could be a development including higher end lofts with single family homes or townhomes, and master planned so that it was done according to the quality they wanted in the county.

Commr. Sullivan noted that the medical industry and the school system needed workers, along with there being 600 new employees in the City of Groveland area.

Mr. Adcock added that there were government workers including police, utility workers, and fire rescue. He relayed that developers had said that they would build in the $133,000 to $234,000 price range but could not afford to make a margin due to impact fees and land prices. He questioned if a household with three people needed a 1,200 square foot home to start with. He relayed that Habitat for Humanity was building 727 square foot cottages in the City of Tavares and that they were tested in Sumter County; furthermore, they sold immediately at $115,000. He said that if individuals had a quality entry point into homeownership, then their next level home could be more expensive.

Commr. Campione asked if The Lake 100 had determined an acceptable margin for the developers.

Mr. Adcock replied that they did not have a number. He said that the question was that if they could find a way to decrease the cost so that a developer could make the same difference, then what was that spread. He said that developers had indicated that they would be willing to discuss how they could do this. He mentioned that discussions had included the possibility of creating a community development district (CDD) on a development basis where there would be a bonding of that development and a monthly payment to pay the bonds; therefore, they could find a way to make the approach for the developer work. He added that they could also become their own developer.

Commr. Campione said that items included land costs, infrastructure, dirt work, electricity, water, sewer, and fees. She stated that The Lake 100 might be able to reach out to their site development companies in the county to ask if they would do a certain number of units a year to go towards workforce housing.

Mr. Adcock said that any type of innovative approach that lowered costs could make a difference, and he noted that in the action plan keys, collaboration was number one to get stakeholders together. He stated that the focus group brought about interesting dialogue to propose solutions. He requested some insight from the Board as to how they would want to see the action plan unfold, whether it was through a third party public/private partnership, a coalition, or if the County wanted to take the lead.

Commr. Breeden thought that there needed to be a community education component. She noted that to have something successful like this, it required greater density; however, the County received pushback from the public on higher density.

Mr. Adcock said that in the plan, the top rated item was community education and awareness. He said that they needed a way to educate the community and to explain why this was needed.

Commr. Campione stated that the significant pushback by property owners was usually that they did not want something that was different than what they had in their neighborhood, noting that they were concerned about property values and crime. She remarked that if it would be a water and sewer served project, it would be closely situated to utilities. She said that this was a factor that the Cities could deal with better than the County because the County dealt with the unincorporated areas and typically the lower density areas. She did not see the County having to increase their densities in the unincorporated areas to make this work if they could get the Cities to collaborate. She said that another important item was that in the design of the project, if they were able to show how they could address those issues with items such as buffers and fences. She added that the storage component for homes was also important, and she said that they had to consider how to keep a neighborhood looking nice. She stated there could possibly be a detached area with storage, and she thought that small pockets could show people that this could be done in a way that did not change the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Adcock agreed and said that these items were addressed. He pointed out that The Lake 100 was requested by municipalities to create teams to assist developers going before a city council by educating and offsetting anxiety.

Commr. Campione thought that a design component that was universal across the county could be effective in helping overcome these issues.

Mr. Adcock said that this could be a challenge and relayed that each municipality had indicated that they were different and wanted to be treated uniquely; however, developers had indicated that if these items were standardized across municipalities, it would lower their costs.

Commr. Campione asked if he was looking for direction from the Board.

Mr. Adcock explained that his view was to have a coalition of third party individuals with strong representation from the County.

Commr. Campione noted that the County already had addressed individuals under 80 percent of the AMI, and this was where they would focus their governmental assistance from the State and Federal Government.

Commr. Parks recapped that there would be a strong third party coalition, and he opined that every City should be involved.

Mr. Adcock said that the success of this depended on participation and a broad representation. He said at that point, he would need to talk to The Lake 100 to see what role they could perform or if it would be completely third party. He reiterated that the coalition he was involved with in Washington D.C was successful.

Mr. Cole noted that there was another speaker and then staff could present some next steps.

Ms. Danielle Stroud, Senior Director of Program and Partnerships with Habitat for Humanity of Lake and Sumter Counties, presented information on the challenges and benefits of community land trusts. She explained that a community land trust was a simple mechanism of separating the land from a structure, and that the structure itself would be resident owned and that they would have a relationship with the lender, similar to how any other homeowner would. She stated that the land would be permanently owned by the community land trust organization, which would take away the cost of the land; therefore, this would create access and opportunity for a first generation homebuyer by lowering the cost of entry. She said that the community land trust and the homebuyer were connected by a 99 year ground lease, and indicated that the community land trust organization was typically a community based nonprofit. She remarked that one reason to have a community land trust involved in a partnership with the homeowner and lender was because they offered an extra layer of accountability. She explained that the homeowner was paying a monthly payment for the ground lease, in addition to their mortgage; additionally, if they missed the ground lease payment, this would alert the community land trust organization to step in and provide assistance. She relayed that the ground lease would include the resale calculation to indicate how the homeowner and the community land trust organization would share in the sales price that the next buyer would pay out. She said that the three basic types of formulations included appraisal based, fixed rate, and the indexed resale formulation, noting that the community land trust organization would decide which was used. She commented that the homeowner earned equity but only walked away with what they invested, remarking that this was a way to retain the initial subsidy investment. She commented that there was also a resale stipulation in the ground lease, and that typically that the next homeowner had to be at 80 percent of the AMI or below, though they could be up to 120 percent of the AMI depending on the ground lease. She explained that some of the challenges with community land trusts were the quality of lenders and buyer education about the type of project. She then stated that the benefits of putting surplus land into a partnership with a community land trust organization were lowering the cost of entry and maintaining permanent affordability. She recalled that in 2008, the Pinellas County BCC had helped start the Pinellas Community Housing Foundation with the intent that they would put their resources in their land, and the subsidy invested in the houses would be retained. She said that in 2013, the organization changed their name to Bright Community Trust, became independent, and had continued to do good work in the area. She stated that they had started a subsidiary in the Central Florida area and were working with multiple counties as the Central Florida Regional Housing Trust. She elaborated that they were interested in working with Lake County, and were actively working with other counties in the region.

Commr. Campione said she knew that community land trusts had been used in other areas, and that she had wondered if it could work in Lake County on a limited basis.

Mr. Coachman relayed that The Lake 100 would complete the Attainable Housing Strategic Plan and present it to the Board. He then relayed the following next steps for the County: complete the impact fee study and present the report to the Board; complete the environmental review of Rolling Acres property to determine the feasibility of an affordable housing pilot project; explore opportunities at the current Lake County fairgrounds site; and explore the FHFC’s programs to advance attainable housing. He thanked the presenters and opened the floor for discussion.

Commr. Breeden asked if there were potential completion dates for the impact fee study.

Ms. Barker explained that the impact fee study was ongoing and that they had tentative dates of a presentation to staff in January or February 2021, with a presentation to the Board in March or April 2021.

Commr. Parks inquired if the study would look at updating the impact fee.

Ms. Barker responded that they would update their current studies for items such as library and fire services, and that they were looking at new categories for cottage homes, tiny homes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Commr. Parks asked if they would be new categories or if the County would consider having a per-square footage fee for everything.

Ms. Barker said that both ways could be evaluated and that they were looking at a new category.

Commr. Parks asked if having a per-square footage fee could change everything for all categories, and Ms. Barker said that it could. Commissioner Parks said that building a 400 square foot ADU would be cheaper if the impact fee was by per-square foot than having the categories. He added that doing a category for ADUs and cottages could still be by square footage and this may make it even cheaper.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there might be a cutoff where it would be deminimus below that amount. She concluded by thanking the presenters.

reports

county attorney

Ms. Marsh said that earlier on the current day, she sent an email to the Board with a report, and that the Board had asked staff to provide a report each year indicating how many County-owned properties they had transferred for affordable housing; additionally, in the past year, they had given six properties to their affordable housing partners with four having gone to Habitat for Humanity and two having gone to the Christian Worship Center.

Commr. Campione asked how much acreage was involved.

Ms. Marsh relayed an understanding that the addresses were in the report, and that she could provide the acreage information.

commissioners reports

commissioner parks – district 2

thanking staff

Commr. Parks thanked staff for helping him with some issues over the past week in South Lake.

commissioner breeden – vice chairman and district 3

myteamflorida article

Commr. Breeden thanked Commissioner Parks for having someone share a My Team Florida article with the Board titled “New Highway Planning Can Protect the Character of Rural Communities.” She added that this was in relation to the state’s new Multi-use Corridor of Regional Economic Significance (M-CORE), and they used Lake County’s example of the County Road (CR) 455 extension project development and environment (PD&E) study, along with discussing the good process that Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, and his group went through.

county manager selection process

Commr. Breeden relayed that Mr. Ed Holder, a Lake County resident, had asked to meet with her and that he brought up a recommendation for the possibility of having members of the public be part of the selection process for the new county manager; however, she did not think that the Board should do this.

acknowledging mr. cole

Commr. Breeden noted that this was the last time that the Board would see Mr. Cole in person at a BCC meeting. She expressed that she was glad he would still be with the County through the end of December 2020.

Mr. Cole said that he would continue to be in his position until December 18, 2020, and would remain fully engaged.

Commr. Parks stated that he was expecting input from many people on the county manager position.

Mr. Cole explained that they were on a fast track and that the position closed on the following day: additionally, he, Ms. Marsh, and Mr. Jim Kovacs, Director for the Office of Human Resources and Risk Management, would be meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2020. He elaborated that Mr. Kovacs would then be making the shortlist recommendation to the Board on Friday, October 2, 2020, and access to all of the other applications would also be provided. He commented that this would come to the Board on October 13, 2020 to consider approving, adding to or subtracting from for interviews in late November 2020 for the new Board.

COMMISSIONER CAMPIONE – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 4

Commr. Campione mentioned the Thrill Hill area and said that it was a unique geographical location. She relayed her understanding that the City of Eustis was utilizing Lake May Park, a passive County park, for contiguity for annexation, as permitted by a statute; however, she said that this was when a City was already closely joined. She stated that the City did not have much property touching the area that they wanted to annex, and she displayed a map of the area. She commented that the city limits ended at the corner of Estes Road and CR 44A, and she noted the park location along with the first parcel the City would annex. She opined that it was a small connection for contiguity, and she questioned if it would meet the intent of the statute. She relayed that this was an issue for residents of the Thrill Hill area because it was a rural area; additionally, it was viewed as an agricultural area with large tract home sites. She asked if the Board would support a letter indicating that this was not an orderly and logical development pattern and that it would significantly change the character of the area. She questioned how the City had the services to do this, and she saw this as a situation that could create confusion about traffic issues. She stated that residents were asking the Board to take a position and oppose this, in addition to presenting this opposition to the City at their hearings in October 2020.

Commr. Breeden asked for input from Ms. Marsh.

Ms. Marsh said that there was case law discussing contiguity and the percentage of the property boundaries that abut the city. She noted that the area in this case which abutted Lake May Park was only about three percent of the property boundary marked in red. She relayed her understanding that when considering all of the parcels in red, green and blue, the part that was contiguous to Lake May Park was about 0.8 percent. She mentioned that there was a case from Volusia County that went into detail about percentages and could be helpful if the Board wanted to write a letter of opposition. She remarked that in the County’s joint planning agreement (JPA) with the City of Eustis, their boundary ended at Thrill Hill Road; therefore, the parcel in blue was outside the JPA boundaries. She said that the JPA was from the 1980s, was not very detailed, and that the City did not agree to not annex outside of that boundary; however, it said that the parties would jointly plan for that boundary. She was unsure if the County could enforce this legally, but it was another component of this if the Board wanted to include it as part of a letter of opposition. She explained that the case was going before the City of Eustis planning board on October 2, 2020, or early the following week, and it would go before the City Commission for their first reading immediately after that. She stated that it would come back to the City Commission in December 2020 for their second and final adoption. She indicated that the Board had some time if they wanted to draft a letter and have it brought back on October 13, 2020, or staff could draft something and make sure that the City’s planning board and City Commission had it for their initial meetings in October 2020.

Commr. Campione urged everyone to visit the area, and she opined that it did not make sense to put higher density on Thrill Hill Road when considering the character of the area, along with transportation and traffic issues. She elaborated that CR 44A was a narrow road without shoulders and that Thrill Hill Road had its own challenges; additionally, there were issues with Britt Road east of the intersection of Thrill Hill Road and CR 44. She expressed concerns for this compounding the issue and changing the character of the area. She also opined that this was not what the statute contemplated when it indicated that a county park could be used for annexation. She expressed a concern that using a small part of the park to meet a contiguity requirement could set a negative precedent.

Commr. Blake asked what kind of density was being discussed.

Ms. Marsh indicated her understanding that the Lake County Public Works Department had asked the City about this, and the City’s planner had replied that currently, no conceptual plans had been provided and it was just a straight annexation request.

Commr. Campione opined that this was problematic because it was not known what the purpose behind this was. She thought that the City’s land use went up to five units per acre for the designation they were asking for. She said that the JPA would give them a chance to figure these kinds of things out.

Commr. Parks said that he had seen properties annexed with even less connection in South Lake.

Commr. Campione asked if this was a good thing.

Commr. Parks responded that in some cases it was, though he could not qualitatively speak on it currently. He asked if the Board was going to decide on this item at the current meeting, noting that he had just received emails about it, that this was the first time he had seen the map, and that his question would be about the process and wanting to talk to the City before writing a letter of opposition.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Board could write a letter requesting more information. She relayed that the idea of joint planning was to have an idea of why it made sense.

Commr. Breeden proposed drafting a letter for discussion on October 13, 2020.

Commr. Sullivan proposed writing a letter asking for more information, and in the meantime have staff prepare a letter that the Board could act on at the October 13, 2020 BCC meeting. He said that he was familiar with the area and that it was unique. He agreed that the Board needed to look further into this to make an educated decision on if this was a proper way to move forward with the City’s annexation.

Commr. Campione asked if it could be stated in the letter that the Board was concerned about the impact on the character of the area and whether it met the intent of the statute, and that this was why they were seeking more information. She did not want the City to think that the County was standing in the way of them growing, noting that these items could not be looked at in a vacuum. She recalled that the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) discussions were about joint planning and trying to do things that made sense. She also recalled that when the County brought up joint planning, they started receiving pushback from the City because they did not want to do this; additionally, the County was concerned that the City would not listen to County residents if they were annexing areas surrounded by them.

Commr. Sullivan said that the Board owed it to their constituents to at least look into this.

Ms. Marsh asked if the letter requesting more information would be coming from staff or from Commissioner Campione as the Chairman, with the consensus of the Board.

Commr. Breeden proposed that it could be from staff for more information, and then the letter on October 13, 2020 could be from the Board.

Commr. Campione thought that the residents would prefer if the letter came from the BCC.

Ms. Marsh recapped that staff would draft a letter requesting more information for the Chairman’s signature, and then the draft letter on October 13, 2020 would also have the Chairman’s signature if it was approved. She then said that at 3:30 p.m., they would have a closed session which was different than the ones they had in the past. She explained that they did not have to reconvene on the record and that they were doing this under Section 447.605, Florida Statutes. She commented that the Board would come back and that the room would be secured, and then they would reconvene at 5:05 p.m. for their budget meeting.

Commr. Campione asked her to provide more information about this according to the statute.

Ms. Marsh explained that under Section 447.605, Florida Statutes, this was a closed session to discuss union negotiations.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

The Chairman called a recess at 3:07 p.m. until the 5:05 p.m. Budget Public Hearing.

5:05 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING

PRESENTATION OF MILLAGE RATES

Ms. Barker introduced Ms. Allison Teslia, the new Director for the Office of Management and Budget, who came from the City of Deerfield Beach. She said that the purpose of the current meeting was to adopt the final millage rates and the final budget for FY 2021, noting that she would present the proposed millage rates over the rollback rates, and then the FY 2021 final budget. She elaborated that she would then turn it over to the Chairman to open the public hearing, and following this, they would have three actions which were to adopt the FY 2021 final millage resolutions, adopt the changes to the tentative budget which the Board adopted on September 15, 2020, and adopt the final budget for FY 2021. She remarked that Chapters 129 and 200 of the Florida Statutes, which outline the procedures for the annual adoption of tax rates and budgets, required that she identify the proposed millage rates for FY 2021, as well as any adjustments that the Board would consider on the current evening. She began presenting the proposed FY 2021 millage rates and said that the proposed Lake County General Fund Countywide Millage was 5.0327 mills, which was a decrease of 0.0407 mills from the FY 2020 rate, and was a 4.84 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 4.8002 mills. She related that the proposed FY 2021 Lake County Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) millage was 0.4629 mills, which was equal to the FY 2020 rate and a 5.68 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4380 mills. She stated that the proposed FY 2021 Lake County Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU millage was 0.4957 mills, noting that this was equal to the FY 2020 rate and a 5.99 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4677 mills. She commented that the proposed FY 2021 Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU millage was 0.4704 mills and stated that this was equal to the FY 2020 rate and a 6.09 percent increase over the rollback tax rate of 0.4434 mills. She concluded that the proposed FY 2021 Lake County Public Lands-Voted Debt Service millage, which did not factor into the rollback calculations as it was approved by a referendum, was 0.1100 mills and was equal to the FY 2020 rate.

PRESENTATION OF FINAL BUDGET

Ms. Barker said that the final proposed budget, as presented, showed the reduction in the projected sales tax revenue in the General Fund for the current fiscal year; additionally, as a direct result of COVID-19, they had seen a large reduction in their revenue receipts from sales tax. She explained that this affected them in the current year, and the balance would be reduced carrying forward into the new fiscal year. She commented that they had a reduced General Fund millage rate of 5.0327 mills, that they had incorporated the approved project list for the Infrastructure Sales Tax, that this budget fully funded Judicial Support, Constitutional Offices, and County departments, and that the General Fund reserves totaled about $15.6 million, which was 9.91 percent of the operating budget with CARES Act expenditures included. She said that the County had received $16 million in CARES Act funding to date that they had not completely spent, so they needed to roll it forward to have it available on October 1, 2020 to be able to continue with the business assistance program; therefore, they budgeted about $8.8 million, and their reserve requirements had gone up due to a minimum goal of seven percent of the operating budget for reserves. She said that if they removed the CARES Act funding, they would have 10.5 percent in the operating budget reserves. She then presented these FY 2021 staffing changes: an addition of a program associate in Judicial Support, which was funded by the General Fund; the Office of Building Services added a chief licensing investigator and an office associate IV, funded by the Building Services Fund; the Office of Animal Services added three animal care technicians funded by the General Fund; the Office of Planning and Zoning added an associate planner funded by the General Fund; and the Office of Fire Rescue added three firefighters and three lieutenants as a result of assuming the duties of the City of Mascotte fire service. She added that they had four deletions in the Office of Extension Services for two mobile irrigation specialists and two mobile irrigation technicians, which were funded by the General Fund through a grant from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS); additionally, the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District chose not to renew the contract with the County to provide oversite in managing the Mobile Irrigation Laboratory (MIL) program. She summarized that there was a net change of nine new positions.

Commr. Campione asked if the CARES Act funding going into the budget was because the percentage of reserves was calculated on the overall budget.

Ms. Barker said that it was on the operating budget, and because their expenses went up so much higher as a result of carrying forward the $8.8 million, their reserve requirement went up as well. She commented that it was a temporary situation.

Commr. Campione opined that they would settle at 10.5 percent if they left things the same, and if they reduced the millage at the current meeting, they would reduce expenses of Constitutional Officers or County departments.

Mr. Cole added that the only reason why they showed the CARES Act component was because the numbers did not work and they were trying to explain why this was. He said that she should look at the 10.5 percent because this was the real percentage of the operational budget.

Commr. Campione noted that they spent the CARES Act funding and then it was replenished, and that it was State funding from the Federal Government. She commented that if the General Fund millage was reduced, it would either be taken out of reserves or the budgets. She asked how much the sales tax reductions equated into next year’s budget, considering what they lost in this cycle.

Ms. Barker replied that between the state sales tax revenue the County received, as well as the state revenue sharing they received, which had both seen a decrease, they projected a loss of slightly over $2 million. She stated that this reduced what they ended up with in the current year, which reduced their beginning fund balance for the following year.

Mr. Cole clarified that this was not referencing the Infrastructure Sales Tax and was just the sales tax.

Commr. Campione mentioned that this was the funding that the State gave every County government that assisted with a variety of items.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that it was based on the six percent sales tax, and the Infrastructure Sales Tax was based on the discretionary one percent penny sales tax that Lake County had adopted.

Commr. Breeden inquired if another agency was picking up the MIL program.

Ms. Barker said this was correct and that the MIL was a function of the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District, who had contracted with the County to provide the program on their behalf. She relayed that FDACS provided the Lake Soil and Water Conservation District the grant funding, which they reimbursed the County for the cost to implement the program. She added that those organizations had decided to work together to provide the program without the County’s administrative oversight.

Commr. Parks asked to clarify that assuming the duties of the City of Mascotte fire service was an efficiency that would help those residents.

Mr. Cole confirmed this and said that the County would be compensated from the City through the MSTU, which would be implemented on October 1, 2021; furthermore, they were paying the County for these services in the meantime. He stated that eliminating boundaries between entities added an efficiency.

Commr. Campione inquired if the displayed positions under County departments were under the purview of the BCC.

Ms. Barker said this was correct.

Commr. Campione noted that for the line item of expenditures on their overall budget moving into FY 2021, it showed the County departments, offices and divisions adding $1.588 million, or 3.59 percent. She asked if this was representative of these positions and offsetting the losses.

Ms. Barker explained that the $1.588 million referred only to the General Fund portion of the County’s budget, which would apply with the positions identified as funded by the General Fund. She commented that the $1.588 million for the most part was items such as utility service increases, increases in rates of repair and maintenance costs of facilities, some increased mandated costs such as Medicaid, an increase in mandated costs for juvenile justice, an increase for enhancing IT support, enhancing cybersecurity, and the new animal shelter to complete construction costs and increase the operating expenses due to the larger facility.

Commr. Campione asked about the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and if it was included.

Ms. Barker relayed that the FRS was associated with every employee, so those increases were throughout the County budget and were part of the $1.5 million as well.

Commr. Campione noted that there was a CRA payment of $1 million and that almost all of the Cities had a CRA. She commented that regardless of what happened with the rollback rate, the Board had to pay this, and Ms. Barker confirmed this. Commissioner Campione then pointed out that medical examiner costs increased 8.9 percent from the previous year.

Ms. Barker said this was correct and that it was not a cost the County controlled; furthermore, the County was subject to whatever their budget was adopted at, noting that it was split between the counties they served.

Commr. Campione inquired if Lake County was sharing with Marion County.

Ms. Barker stated that it was five counties, plus Seminole County.

Commr. Sullivan said that they had gone through this budget and that it was justified. He remarked that the pandemic had created issues for them and increased the cost.

Commr. Campione commented that the County had an outlay with regards to revamping the Lake County Property Appraiser’s system for about $1.5 million.

Ms. Barker stated that Mr. Carey Baker, Lake County Property Appraiser, had let the County know several years prior that he was in need of a new mass appraisal system for upwards of $1 million. She added that in the previous year, the County had additional funding from some Hurricane Irma receipts that they earmarked for that purchase; furthermore, they were rolling that funding of slightly over $900,000 forward and were taking the balance of the need out of the FY 2021 budget to bring it up to the approximate $1.5 million cost.

Commr. Breeden asked if this was showing up under County support for Constitutional Officers.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, noting that it was about a $26,000 increase without the purchase of the appraisal system. She said that this included items such as utility costs, facilities, insurance, etc.

Mr. Cole asked if funding was from excess fees returned from the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, and Ms. Barker clarified that some of it was.

Commr. Campione noted that the Property Appraiser and the Tax Collector were returning excess fees as well, and that this was appreciated. She also recalled that the Lake County Sheriff had indicated that his increase was about 3.6 percent, or about $2.7 million. She then stated that between 2014 and 2015 was when there was a significant increase to 5.6124 mills from 4.7309 mills, and in 2016, there was a reduction from about 5.6 mills to approximately 5.3 mills. She added that in 2017, the current Board adopted a rollback rate of 5.1180 mills and that in 2018 and 2019, they held this rate, noting that they had Hurricanes Irma and Matthew.

Ms. Barker said that in 2020, the Board reduced the millage from 5.1180 mills to 5.0734 mills.

Commr. Campione recalled that at the Board’s truth in millage (TRIM) notice meeting, they reduced the millage to 5.0327 mills, which was where they were currently. She commented that while it was not a full rollback, it was a reduction as they worked their way back down. She thought that the Board had been making progress while addressing having increased costs with law enforcement, noting that the Sheriff had items such as body cameras and technology he wanted to add for the safety of his officers and the public. She stated that it was important to provide context to all of this and that in addition to funding the BCC budget, they were also funding all of the Constitutional Officers and the State mandated items; additionally, they were dealing with a reduction in sales tax revenue.

public hearing

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bud Beucher, President of Mission Inn Resort & Club, read a note from Niagara Bottling, LLC, regarding the effects of COVID-19 in Lake County, the reduced demand for hotel rooms, hesitancy to return to activities once the pandemic ended, an increase in unemployment, and encouragement for adopting the rollback rate. He then advocated for rolling back the millage rates for all of the citizens in Lake County, and said that Mission Inn had witnessed revenues and room nights declining by almost 40 percent from 2019. He stated that when the pandemic was declared, they were forced to lay off approximately 200 of their 320 staff members, though they recently had some staff return to work due to a slight uptick in business. He remarked for the 2021 season, they were budgeting in anticipation of a minimum 30 percent decline from 2019, with similar room nights. He relayed that industry experts had indicated that it would be the end of 2023 before their industry and broader tourism restaurant industry were fully recovered. He commented that there were thousands of individuals and businesses in the county who were also struggling, and he asked the County to do the same things he was doing in his business such as delaying purchases and cutting costs. He indicated that his salary staff took a 17 percent pay cut and that their hourly employees took a 20 percent pay cut, opining that COVID-19 was more significant than previous recessions. He questioned what the County had done during the pandemic and what they would do in support of their citizens and businesses. He commented that not raising the millage rate did not mean that his taxes decreased; rather, they increased because his valuation went up.

Commr. Campione indicated that the Board commiserated with the situation that he and residents were facing. She clarified that it had not been business as usual at the County and that there had been many sacrifices, overtime, and that they had worked hard on the CARES Act funding to provide it to businesses and residents. She said that they were working off a smaller amount of reserve funds when compared to surrounding Counties, and that they were working with funding they could get from the State and Federal Government to be provided to residents. She opined that it would be easier to do a rollback and that it was more challenging to do what they were doing, noting that they needed reserves to address some of these issues. She expressed concerns for if the County could not be there if someone dialed 911, and for not having PPE for firefighters and paramedics. She also indicated concerns for the bond rating issue because if interest rates went up countywide on the County’s debt, then this translated into more costs. She said that they knew that Mr. Beucher, his business, and his employees were having issues, and she relayed that the Board cared and appreciated his comments. She added that the Board had discussed adding some categories under CARES Act funding addressed to resorts, short term rental facilities, and banquet facilities with higher amounts, with the understanding that impacts had been greater on those industries; furthermore, staff had been authorized to work on this,

Mr. Cadie Carter, a Lake County business owner with six Ace Hardware locations throughout the county and with The Lake 100, noted that his business had done well but expressed his concerns for other business partners who were struggling. He requested consideration for other businesses in Lake County.

Mr. Jimmy Nussbaumer, with South Lake Electric, discussed the history of his company. He said that today, they employed over 22 employees, and had a multimillion dollar business that performed work for many governmental institutions and large companies. He commented that he and his company earned the tax dollars they paid, and he opined that the County’s customers were its taxpayers. He wanted the County to consider its major responsibilities, which he opined included public safety, transportation, and planning and zoning. He urged the Board to consider the nonessential items that could be reduced to affect him as a business owner. He noted that his company would not have extra items this year and that they would have to reduce employees if the situation continued.

Mr. Andy Dubois, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, expressed appreciation for the Board’s efforts. He opined that the Board should not raise taxes, and he indicated support for a proposal that had previously been made by Commissioner Blake. He expressed concerns for the Chairman’s comments at a previous meeting about a proposal to not raise taxes to being symbolic, and he relayed his consideration of this proposal to be the first purpose of the Board members. He opined that this may be one of the worst times to raise taxes, and that government at all levels had interfered with the market economy. He opined that the BCC’s response at a minimum should be to not raise taxes, and stated a preference to lower taxes.

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

Commr. Campione opined that it was not easy to balance these items, and relayed that she did not consider a reduction in the millage rate to be an increase in taxes; additionally, she would not vote for increasing the millage at the current time. She said that she offered the reduction in the millage rate that the Board adopted at the TRIM notice hearing, and she stated that property values did not always go up for everyone; furthermore, it was the function of an appraisal of an assessment system, and they could be coming down on January 1, 2021. She commented that the Board had a primary responsibility to ensure that basic items were taken care of, which were provided in many cases by the Constitutional Officers such as public safety, noting that the Sheriff’s budget came out of ad valorem taxes. She remarked that she had considered how the CARES Act funding could offset some of the losses, noting that this funding was going out to businesses and residents for mortgage assistance and rental payments. She noted that if Lake County businesses applied for the business assistance program, it was likely that they would receive at least $4,000. She commented that they were trying to offset the economic impacts, not knowing what would happen as of January 1, 2021 for property values. She mentioned the possibility of hurricanes, along with services associated with this which were funded with reserves, noting that they were at around 10 percent of their operating costs. She stated that they were currently at around five or six percent if they did not stay with the millage being considered at the current meeting. She remarked that they would potentially have to borrow money for services after a hurricane, and she urged residents to apply for CARES Act funding.

Commr. Parks supported Commissioner Campione’s comments and thought that her comments from a previous meeting about a proposal being symbolic were misunderstood. He opined that it would be easy to perform a tax cut but that without a proposal, it was just symbolism. He opined that they had to keep reserves, noting that they were currently only at 30 or 40 days’ worth of operating funding. He stated that the County was not a business but it had businesslike principles; additionally, they did not answer to shareholders or owners, though they had to answer to everyone in Lake County. He commented that they had a zero based budgeting approach that Mr. Cole went through with his staff, and there were efficiencies each year in the range of millions of dollars.

Commr. Blake said that after the previous BCC meeting, he thought about some creative ways to get to a rollback rate. He stated that he would present three options, and noted that the Constitutional Officers were elected officials with mandates to handle their budgets. He remarked that the largest Constitutional Officer requested increase this year was the Sheriff’s budget at $2.7 million, and he mentioned that about $1.2 million of this was a request for a helicopter camera. He said that if the Board used seven percent of the operating budget in reserves as a minimum policy, then they would only have to find $1,146.214 in savings in other places to reach the rollback rate. He proposed that for option one, to move the camera cost to the Infrastructure Sales Tax and paying for this by taking the $4.35 million in the quality of life column, along with doing a onetime annual reduction of 30 percent. He added that this would raise $1.3 million to pay for the Sheriff’s camera without having to use property taxes, and get to rollback with seven percent of the operating budget in reserves. He then remarked that there were some additional unanticipated expenses for the animal shelter of $350,000, and he proposed transferring this to the Infrastructure Sales Tax, noting that to cover this, they could do a onetime temporary reduction of 35 percent in the quality of life column to cover the Sheriff’s helicopter camera and the additional $350,000 for the animal shelter; additionally, this was option two. He said that option three was his preference and expressed appreciation for County employees, though he thought that the realistic thing to do was to be sensitive to the people who had suffered financially, and he thought that at a minimum, having a flat pay year was to be called for. He noted that the Board had already agreed to do this with the County, and he opined it was important for the Constitutional Offices to do the same. He opined that if for one year they could all agree that it did not look good to provide pay increases when individuals were being assessed based on values from January 1, 2020, the Board would have more money to put into reserves, or they could go below rollback. He opined that all three of these options were doable and that two of them were politically realistic. He added that the Board could also defer the additional hires funded by the General Fund for the animal shelter for one year.

Commr. Breeden asked what seven percent of the operating budget in reserves was.

Commr. Blake replied that it was over $10 million.

Commr. Campione expressed a concern for creating a larger issue for Lake County and for not being able to provide services. She said that if they had reductions in the animal shelter funding, then she would want to hear from staff about what this would look like. She commented that the animal shelter was also about public health.

Commr. Blake said that option one would get them to a rollback and that all it did was an accounting shift and temporary reduced parks spending.

Commr. Campione indicated a concern for changing the Sheriff’s budget without him being present and being able to discuss how it could affect him long-term. She said that if it was looked at as an expense that he asked to be paid for out of his operating budget, then he could be planning on it being in his budget in the following year.

Commr. Blake stated that the camera cost $1,263,347 and opined that it did not affect the Sheriff’s budget in any way; furthermore, he would receive everything he requested. He added that it would not affect the Sheriff’s implementation of a salary study and that the only reduction was a onetime 35 percent reduction to parks spending. He also said that the camera was not purchased each year.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the Sheriff was looking five years out.

Commr. Blake said that he was only dealing with the Sheriff’s request this year.

Commr. Campione reiterated her concern for discussing the Sheriff’s budget when he was not present, and she thought it could create issues. She asked if Commissioner Blake had discussed this with him.

Commr. Blake opined that it was the same funding and that they would not be taking it out of property taxes; rather they would be using it out of Infrastructure Sales Tax. He questioned why this would be an issue for the Sheriff.

Commr. Breeden thanked Commissioner Blake for going into detail, and she expressed that her largest concern was reserves. She said that Hurricane Irma cost slightly over $10 million, and commented that at 10 percent of the operating budget, they were up to $15 million. She thanked everyone for their comments and concerns, noting that the Board’s job was to make the best decisions for the residents and ensure they had resources in case of an emergency. She said that over the past four years, they had enough emergencies to know that the reserves were critical. She was unsure how the Board could continue to not add to the reserves, noting that they had been warned about their bond rating.

Commr. Sullivan shared this concern and added that the reserves could pay dividends into the future. He stated that not having a reserve hurt the County because when bond ratings decreased, then interests rates went up and this cost them money. He indicated that he was not willing to negotiate on having 10 percent of the operating budget in reserves, noting that a government association indicated that 16 percent was the correct number. He stated that this was a number that the County had operated below and that it took years to overcome those issues. He said that he would like a rollback and that he was open to discussing areas that were not the reserves.

Commr. Breeden said that the following year could be challenging, and she did not want to leave the County in a position where they could not provide the required services.

Commr. Campione recalled a unanimous vote to proceed with a line of credit to fund the additional $48 million in CARES Act funds; furthermore, the bond rating mattered and it needed to be as good as possible for short term bridge loans and refinancing.

Commr. Sullivan noted that the COVID-19 funding had to be spent by December 30, 2020, and he said that Mr. Beucher had brought items to the County’s attention that made significant changes in getting the funding out. He mentioned that the County provided emergency services and that they had spent $1 million already reacting to this. He thought they did a great job developing the budget, and said that he wanted to leave the County in good shape. He supported moving forward with the budget they had but mentioned the possibility of saving money with the animal shelter employees by delaying it for six months. He stated that he was open to using the Infrastructure Sales Tax for the Sheriff’s approximate $1.2 million, but thought that quality of life issues had to be addressed. He thought that the Sheriff had $1.5 million used to purchase vehicles each year, and he opined that this could be delayed. He commented that the funding may not all have to come out of quality of life items, and indicated he was willing to reduce the millage even if it did not get to rollback. He mentioned that there were capital projects that kept being delayed, and he did not think that the Infrastructure Sales Tax would generate as much funding in the following year.

Commr. Campione noted that the Infrastructure Sales Tax revenue could come in lower, and expressed a concern that could be an issue.

Commr. Parks indicated that moving items around at the current time without looking at the effects two years down the line could be an issue. He commented that Lake County had the lowest millage rate in the region, and that while there were additional employees added, they were only around 2004 staffing levels. He mentioned that there was an efficiency that they did each year and built into the budget; additionally, they were not growing, and were trying to keep up with the population.

Commr. Breeden commented that the County operations budget for the current year was 39 percent less than in 2008, and Commissioner Parks added that they had 100,000 more residents.

Commr. Campione said that there were also more animals coming through the animal shelter. She stated that they had a large county with much of it being rural, and this was a responsibility that they had to address. She opined that they had done a great job with the no-kill program by getting animals adopted, along with saving money by not having them sit in the shelter. She commented that while the facility was larger, Lake County was barely meeting the needed square footage to take care of the animals when considering the square footage in relation to other Counties of a similar size or larger. She said that the technician positions were not large salaries, and that with a facility of this size, there needed to be people to provide services. She expressed a concern that if the positions were cut, it could hamper the ability of that facility to be used as intended. She said that she was not comfortable with modifying the Sheriff’s budget, nor was she comfortable with modifying the Infrastructure Sales Tax priorities because it would likely decrease.

Commr. Breeden said that they had great Constitutional Officers who had spoken about their excellent customer service. She noted that these services were funded by tax dollars, and that the technology upgrades for the Lake County Property Appraiser were necessary.

MILLAGE RESOLUTIONS

Ms. Marsh recommended that the Board have separate votes on each resolution.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County General Countywide Levy of 5.0327 mills (Resolution 2020-177).

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County Municipal Services Taxing Unit for Ambulance and Emergency Services Levy of 0.4629 mills (Resolution 2020-178).

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Sullivan, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County MSTU for Stormwater, Parks and Roads Levy of 0.4957 mills (Resolution 2020-179).

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU Levy of 0.4704 mills (Resolution 2020-180).

Commr. Blake voted no.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the final millage rate for the Lake County Voter Approved Debt Levy of 0.1100 mills (Resolution 2020-181).

CHANGES TO FY 20201 TENTATIVE BUDGET

Ms. Barker presented a summary of changes since the first public hearing on September 15, 2020. She provided the following information for County departments and office budgets: updated fund balance and revenue projections based on more recent numbers; removed MIL program funding; re-budgeted CARES Act funds countywide; included funding for security enhancements at County facilities; included funding for the newly awarded Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, which would be coming to the Board for approval in October 2020; additional capital projects were re-budgeted; updated purchase order (PO) carryforward estimates; and made other miscellaneous changes and adjustments. She said that for Constitutional Officers, they had reduced the Sheriff’s budget as far as his revenue received by the Lake County School Board. She elaborated that the County received notification from the Sheriff that the school board was going to be using City of Leesburg officers for the City of Leesburg area schools, along with some guardians in some cases; therefore, the school board would be paying the Sheriff $250,000 less for the school resource officers. She said that the next requested action was approval of the changes made to the budget since the tentative budget was adopted on September 15, 2020, noting that the changes totaled $14,157,131. She explained that of the $14 million, $11.5 million was CARES Act funding countywide, and the majority of the rest was PO carryforwards.

Commr. Campione said that the CARES Act funding came from the Federal Government to the State of Florida and then to Lake County based on their population.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and stated that they were re-budgeting what had not been spent in the current year so that they would have access to it on October 1, 2020.

Commr. Campione recalled that at the current meeting, the Board approved to move forward with an expansion of their rental and mortgage assistance, along with extending the time to apply for business assistance, which could be found at ReopenLake.com. She added that they were also broadening the parameters for rental and mortgage assistance.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Breeden and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the adopted changes to the FY 2021 tentative budget totaling $14,157,131.

Commr. Blake voted no.

FINAL BUDGET

Ms. Barker said that this was the adoption of the final FY 2021 budget Resolution 2020-182 totaling $503,240,970.

Commr. Campione stated that the total budget amount included different funds of money with some being restricted and some being unrestricted. She noted that the General Fund was about $164 million.

Ms. Barker said this was correct and that they received many funds from many places including transit funds, gas tax funds and grant funds, noting that the General Fund was only part of the budget.

Commr. Campione mentioned enterprise funds such as for solid waste, where the funding came in when paying for the service and then the service was provided; additionally, it did not flow through the General Fund.

Ms. Barker said that it was a self-supporting fund and that the Office of Building Services was supported 100 percent from the fees charged for building permits.

On a motion by Commr. Breeden, seconded by Commr. Sullivan and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Resolution 2020-182 for the Fiscal Year 2021 Final Budget totaling $503,240,970.

Commr. Blake voted no.

Commr. Campione thanked staff and everyone who was involved in the preparation of the budget, along with all of the department heads who worked throughout the budget workshop process to bring their budgets forward. She expressed appreciation for all of the sacrifices that everyone had made. She commented that this had been an unprecedented situation and that they were hopefully getting closer to the end of it. She said that they were doing their best to be prepared because they did not know what the next few months could hold; additionally, they were trying to put themselves in a position where they could respond to the needs of county residents. She expressed appreciation for everyone who had reached out to and contacted them, along with those who had given input. She said that the Board was doing their best to look after the needs they were responsible for.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

_________________________________

leslie campione, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK