february 9, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake.  Others present were: Mr. Alan Rosen, 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 Kathleen Bregel, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks remarked that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. Jay Vaughn, Chief Licensing Investigator with the Office of Building Services, who had served as active duty in the United States (U.S.) Army from 1986 through 1991 as a Communications Specialist.  He shared that during the 1998 Olympics, Mr. Vaughn was stationed in South Korea, in 1990, was deployed to Panama for Operation Promote Liberty, and in 1991, entered the Florida Army National Guard and served there until 1995.  He mentioned that throughout Mr. Vaughn’s career with the Army, he earned the U.S. Army Superior Unit Award, the Army Commendation Medal, and several other Army Achievement Awards.  He then thanked Mr. Vaughn for his service. 

Mr. Fred Schneider, Public Works Director, gave the Invocation, and then Mr. Vaughn led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Commr. Parks mentioned that this meeting was a hybrid meeting which was a combination of an in-person meeting and one which allowed individuals to participate virtually.  He asked for Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, to explain how citizens who were listening remotely could participate. 

Mr. Ross explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through a Zoom Webinar for members of the public who were unable to attend in person but wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda.  He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to speak during the Citizen Question and Comment Period of the meeting could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 on their phones to virtually raise their hand and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak.  He said that when it was time for public comment, he would then identify the person or their phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and allow the citizen to speak for their three minute timeframe.  He added that anyone wishing to provide written comments could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments presented before 5:00 p.m. the previous day were shared with the Commission prior to this meeting, and that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Commr. Parks welcomed Mr. Alan Rosen as the new County Manager.

Mr. Rosen thanked the Board for the honor to be County Manager, and stated that there were no changes to the agenda.

employee service

Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached service milestones in their careers with Lake County as follows:



Darren Lanier, Stormwater Inspector I

Public Works Department


Melonie Hollis, Delivery Service Driver/Operator

Office of Public Safety Support


Nicolas Fyock, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue


Daniel Lange, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue


William Snyder, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue


Thomas Bliffen, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


David Deland, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Rachel Heisler, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Dylan Mauldin, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Austin Morsett, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Rinker Robinson, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Gregory Sandler, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue



Donald Gardner, Area Maintenance Supervisor

Public Works Department


Leslie Westlake, Construction Inspector I

Public Works Department



Matthew Barton, Firefighter/Paramedic

Office of Fire Rescue


Brenda DeMartino, Office Manager

Agency for Economic Prosperity


Roy Shores, Senior CAD Technician

Public Works Department


James Willis, Sign Assistant

Public Works Department



James Drake, Firefighter/EMT

Office of Fire Rescue


Elise Rainey, Library Assistant II

Office of Library Services



Colleen Smith, Library Technician

Office of Library Services




Cynthia Jones, Office Associate IV

Information Technology Department



Clarence Gillard, Sign & Striping Technician I

Public Works Department


Mr. Schneider mentioned that Mr. Gillard had been a hard worker for the County for 37 years, and commented that Mr. Gillard’s efforts were greatly appreciated.  He remarked that Mr. Gillard started in 1983 working in maintenance for the courthouse, noting that the current building was the courthouse during that time.  He stated that Mr. Gillard eventually moved to the Public Works Department as part of the road striping crew, the surveying crew, and then in his current role of a sign technician.  He said that Mr. Gillard’s experience and knowledge of the City of Clermont area would be missed by the department, noting that he had seen much growth in this area.  He relayed that Mr. Gillard was well liked by his coworkers, and had received appreciation from many residents for the great job he had done in providing them specialty signs.  He mentioned that in retirement, Mr. Gillard would enjoy hunting, fishing, and gardening, and planned to travel to visit his 13 siblings.  He then congratulated Mr. Gillard on his retirement.

covid-19 update

Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, commented that he would provide updates regarding cold weather sheltering, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and efforts regarding the COVID-19 vaccine appointment based system.  He reported that the previous week the County supported cold weather sheltering for three nights with LifePointe Church in the City of Eustis and Trinity Assembly of God in the City of Fruitland Park, noting that there were no issues and everything ran smoothly.  He thanked everyone who assisted with this.  He then shared these statistics regarding COVID-19 cases within Lake County: there were 22,800 total positive tests; the current number of positive cases in quarantine and being monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) was 1,899, with 315 under investigation; Lake County’s positivity rate was 9.55 percent, noting this remained below the ten percent mark set by the State; and there had been 468 deaths to date.  He reported that for current COVID-19 numbers at the county’s three local hospitals, 106 were admitted with 23 being in the intensive care unit (ICU).  He indicated that for Lake County Schools from January 30 through February 5, 2021, there had been 90 positive cases of 57 students and 33 employees, with 556 being quarantined to include 509 students and 47 employees.  He then relayed information regarding the appointment based vaccine site at the Sears location.  He said that training on the Sharecare State system took place and the system was implemented on January 27, 2021; additionally, the Sears site went online in partnership with the DOH.  He reported that during the first five days, they had 700 appointments per day, with 900 appointments taking place the next five days; furthermore, this included second doses of the Pfizer vaccine which the County had originally administered at Lake-Sumter State College during their first endeavor.  He indicated that starting the following day, they would be handling 2,000 appointments per day.  He mentioned that the County’s second endeavor at the college would be held on January 21 and 22, 2021, and that they would administer second doses the Thursday and Friday of the current week.  He relayed that in addition to the Sharecare call center, there was also the MyVaccine.fl.gov site which was similar to a preregistration, noting that they were still learning how this site worked.  He expressed an understanding for some frustrations regarding the system, but noted that staff continued to ask questions, obtain information, make calls to the State, and involve IT staff, noting that they had even requested for the developer of the program to come on site to view issues in real time and help to develop the system.  He reiterated that staff continued to do their best to get questions answered, and to get the system functioning in a format that worked well for everyone.  He also reported on a scam in which people were falsely representing Sharecare and asking people about payment and private information; furthermore, he stated that Sharecare would never make calls such as this and urged residents to be aware of the scam and to not provide such information.  He thanked the volunteers, County staff, municipalities, and the Constitutional Officers who provided staff to assist with this process.

Mr. Aaron Kissler, Administrator/Director/Health Officer for the Florida Department of Health in Lake County, expressed that having 468 deaths was difficult to process, noting that while this number had increased in the last few days, most of it had been due to a backlog of reporting coming in.  He relayed that the number of COVID-19 cases was decreasing, and that the number was in the 100s to 200s currently instead of the 200s to 300s that they had been; however, they were concerned about the new variants of the virus they had been seeing.  He urged residents to continue with preventative and public health measures that were in place.  He then provided information on the three sites being utilized for administering the COVID-19 vaccine as follows: the Amazon site was doing great at administering over 2,000 vaccines per day; St. Patrick Catholic Church was open for second doses of the vaccine and was processing over 1,000 people per day; and the Sears site at the mall was increasing appointments.  He indicated that they had a capacity with the three sites to administer 25,000 to 30,000 vaccine doses per week; however, they were not even close to that amount in regards to the supply of the vaccine as there were issues with obtaining enough of a supply of the actual vaccine.  He thanked the County and the Offices of Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for their assistance at the vaccination sites, and reported that 36 percent of seniors in Lake County had received the vaccine.  He reiterated that overall the vaccination sites were going well; however, there were still issues in getting enough of the vaccine to administer.  He said that the Sears site would continue to be open and that they would provide as much vaccine to that site as possible, the St. Patrick Catholic Church site would remain open to administer second doses, and the Amazon site would fluctuate based on vaccine availability.  He thanked everyone for their patience as they worked through the process, and relayed that lines were getting shorter and the waiting time for an appointment was improving.

Commr. Campione commended Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Kissler for their ability to adjust to changing circumstances over the previous weeks.  She shared that she was pleased to witness recently when there was more vaccine and the lines were short, that they were able to open up the line for first doses of the vaccine, which was also able to be messaged out to the community.  She opined that it helped to have them sent out through email as well as through Twitter; furthermore, the changes made over the last couple of weeks had been helpful in connecting to the public, especially senior residents.

Mr. Kissler thanked the Board for their feedback.

Commr. Blake thanked Mr. Kissler for his efforts and expressed gratitude for the fact that almost 40 percent of the senior population had received the vaccine.  He then inquired about the 468 fatalities, and how many of those were seniors.

Mr. Kissler replied that it was a fairly high percentage, but that he would provide that number to the Commissioners.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Kissler, Mr. Carpenter, staff and volunteers for all they were doing to make this the best program possible.  He opined that it continued to get better each day.  He expressed an understanding that they were limited by the lack of supply of the vaccine, and that volunteers were still needed.

Mr. Kissler agreed that more volunteers were needed, especially as the supply of the vaccine increased. 

Minutes approval

Commr. Smith remarked that since he was not present at the meeting for these minutes, he would vote for approval as long as the other Commissioners agreed that the minutes were as they understood the meeting.

Commr. Campione said they could attest to that.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of October 27, 2020 (Regular Meeting).

commissioners board and committee updates

Commr. Parks explained that this was a new section to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meetings and was added in order to show the residents that there were many volunteer committees which they would be eligible to participate in, that they dealt with a variety of issues, and that they demonstrated how the local government functioned.  He elaborated that these committees typically had a County Commissioner who served as a liaison or Chairperson for them.  He mentioned that some examples of these committees included the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, the Arts and Cultural Alliance, the Mt. Plymouth Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Advisory Board, the Children’s Services Council, etc., noting that these committees made recommendations and accomplished things within the community.  He summarized that this section of the meeting would include a brief update on what was happening with these committees in order to inform residents of what was taking place in their community. 

Commr. Shields reported on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council.  He remarked that the TDC had an issue with a contract which was on the BCC’s agenda for this meeting; additionally, the TDC had approximately $3 million in reserves for capital improvement projects which they decided to table and discuss at their next meeting.  He indicated that they did not have a quorum for the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting; therefore, they suggested the possibility to meet quarterly with possible subcommittees who could meet monthly to address issues.  He added that they also discussed COVID-19 and the vaccine as well.

Commr. Parks expressed an understanding for quorum issues due to COVID-19, and explained that the Elder Affairs Coordinating Council advised on issues relating to the health and welfare of those in the elderly community.  He then reported on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, noting that this council was comprised of seven counties within Central Florida, 20+ cities, and met every other month; furthermore, they primarily discussed issues pertaining to concerns that other counties might be addressing or issues around the Four Corners area which encompassed four different counties.  He indicated that a big issue currently was resiliency and relayed that the planning council had been successful over the previous year or two to garner some grant funding through the State to address resiliency regarding how to come out of the pandemic, as well as how to ensure that counties and cities were planning jointly as a region in order to prepare if there was ever another pandemic or a natural disaster.  He shared that they had received over $1 million in a grant to assist all the counties and cities within the region to plan for the next step of COVID-19 preparation or pandemic preparation.

Commr. Smith reported on the Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB) Advisory Committee, noting that this group worked to keep Lake County beautiful.  He commented that the first meeting was short, and mentioned that there was a cleanup event in the City of Groveland and that they would be placing signage for no dumping in that area.  He encouraged everyone’s assistance to make sure that whatever is done in Lake County was such that it kept the county nice and beautiful for all.  He relayed that there was a program called America in Bloom which the cities and counties could get involved with, and he expressed his desire to bring this to the KLB committee for consideration, noting that he believed the City of Tavares was an America in Bloom partner.  He opined it was a good program to get the citizens involved in helping spruce up the county.  He remarked that he was also on the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board, and relayed that they had a meeting the previous night at which Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, had done a phenomenal job on updating them on all the regional parks throughout the county.  He reported that they had a regional park in every district except the central region, and were currently working to develop a plan to have a regional park in District 3, noting that those plans were moving forward.  He stated that they were also concentrating on the trail systems to ensure there was connectivity between all the cities and counties in the Florida Coast-to-Coast Trail.  He indicated that there was a lot of work to be done, and that hopefully the TDC would be able to assist with capital funding for that. 

Commr. Campione reported on the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Advisory Board and the Arts and Cultural Alliance. She explained that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA was established by the County about nine years prior, and that this was the only CRA in the unincorporated area; furthermore, it was established in the main street district primarily.  She elaborated that because Sorrento was in the Wekiva Protection Area, there was a small node that was permitted to keep its vested rights and zoning designations during the process of the Wekiva Protection Act going into effect.  She indicated that this was an area that had the potential of hopefully being redeveloped, and opined that even though it had some challenges, it had a lot of charm and potential.  She remarked that when the County set this up, the idea was to utilize the increases in property values as they occurred to keep that money in that district in order to help with the beatification of State Road (SR) 46, noting that this road was being turned over to the County as part of the Wekiva Parkway Project completion and would no longer be a state road but would be a county road.  She relayed that the County would have added responsibilities for this, and that there were no sidewalks, no lights, etc.; however, there was the hope that the CRA would be able to assist with this.  She indicated that the current focus of this group was their logo, which they had developed with County staff, as well as placing gateway signs at each entrance to this area.  She relayed that one of the items on the BCC agenda for this meeting was regarding golf cart usage in the Sorrento area which would expand this usage from the golf course area to other streets.  She mentioned that they also had a Sorrento cleanup and that pictures of this were within the packet she had handed to the Board, noting that they were successful in collecting approximately 8.59 tons of trash, bulk items, and lots of hazardous household items.  She commented that another project this group was working on was a façade grant, which would match up to a certain amount with what business owners might put in to improve their facades and the outsides of their buildings.  She mentioned that two other big issues included code enforcement, noting that some wanted to enforce it more than others; additionally, it was important to the CRA to attempt to focus on beautifying the area and to focus on litter issues.  She stated that there had also been a lot of discussion regarding utilities in the area and how to serve that main street district with utilities; furthermore, this was one of her priorities for the BCC to consider options.  She mentioned that the Arts and Cultural Alliance was a new committee for her and she was learning more about what that group did.  She shared that this group worked with the Office of Visit Lake to promote arts and cultural events in the cities, as well as festivals and art museums.  She explained that they were focused on getting information out to the community and coordinating with the County to do this, as well as assisting with artists and those who were working in the artistic fields.  She indicated that one of the reports at their meeting the previous day was on the Mount Dora Art Festival, noting that about 35,000 people had attended the festival and they had worked to make the event as safe as possible.  She reported that the Lake County Fair would be April 8-17, 2021, and that the Eustis Chamber of Commerce was coordinating with the fair event to put on a home and garden show.  She added that the City of Leesburg also reported that they were painting murals on substations and lift stations in order to beautify their community. 

Commr. Blake reported on the Public Safety Coordinating Council and the Children’s Services Council.  He said that the Public Safety Coordinating Council was also experiencing issues with obtaining a quorum, and that they voted at their last meeting to meet quarterly and to have subcommittee meetings.  He explained that the reason the Public Safety Coordinating Council was formed was to address overcrowding at the jail, noting that different stakeholders had an interest in keeping the jail from becoming overcrowded.  He mentioned that people from LifeStream Behavioral Center and the Lake County Sheriff’s Office worked with this group.  He noted that Tab 11 on this meeting’s consent agenda was the grant request that the Children’s Services Council had done; furthermore, their primary reason for existence was to make recommendations to the BCC regarding grant requests for institutions who service children in Lake County.  He mentioned that he lets the committee members know that he is not a voting member but a liaison to the BCC for any issues, and that as a liaison he was not subject to the Florida Sunshine Law and was able to take phone calls regarding questions relating to the county.  He shared that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) provided an update on child fatalities at each meeting, and that he found it notable that in terms of deaths for children under age 12 in Lake County, that four times as many children died from co-sleeping than from accidental fire arm discharge.  

Commr. Campione said that she would report on the Early Learning Coalition of Lake County at the next BCC; additionally, she thought it would be helpful to have an overview of this coalition since it was all the childcare providers of young students in Lake County.  She stated it was important due to COVID-19 for these groups to be able to communicate and ensure they had what they needed.  She mentioned that this group shared information and resources, were private and public providers, and served the purpose of helping with early childhood learning needs primarily in underserved situations and communities.  She thought it would be good to have a presentation to the Board in order to familiarize everyone with what the coalition was doing and where it interfaced with the BCC. 

Commr. Parks agreed that was a good idea, and thought that possibly this could take place when the department that works with this agency has their budget presentation.

Commr. Campione remarked that the BCC played more of a supporting role to that organization as opposed to being a funding source, noting that the BCC can advocate for this group when they seek funding. 

Commr. Parks thanked the Commissioners for their reports. 

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vincent Niemiec, a City of Clermont resident, thanked Commissioners Parks and Shields for holding a community meeting in his area.  He then expressed concerns for traffic safety coming in and out of a new church facility near his neighborhood, and asked the BCC for some assistance in adding some additional safety measures on the road and intersection near this facility. 

Commr. Parks relayed that he had discussions with Mr. Niemiec regarding this, and said that the BCC would be addressing the widening of this road.  He thanked Mr. Niemiec for his offer to help the residents in this area to find solutions, and suggested that he meet with Mr. Schneider regarding these requests. 

Mr. Steve Smith, Founder of New Beginnings of Central Florida, shared that the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition had up to $4 million in funding available from the Federal Government to provide rent and utility payments for people who had currently lost their house or were unemployed, noting that it was different than the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that Lake County had been receiving.  He mentioned that there were many homeless individuals in the county, and expressed concerns for the lack of affordable housing in Lake County.  He relayed that the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition had 58 individuals who could be housed, with funding for rent and utilities being provided, if there was an available place for them to stay.  He suggested for the County to find some property to purchase, such as an existing apartment building, renovated hotel, or office building, in order to assist with the goal of getting people housed. 

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Smith for the work he did to address homelessness and attainable housing.  He opined that this would be a big issue this year with the rollout of the comprehensive housing and economic development plan which the BCC was helping to set up by using the business community to implement and put these issues into action.

Mr. Smith opined that they did not want people to camp out in businesses.  He stated that he works with the homeless and tries to help those living in the woods to get into housing, noting that not everyone wants housing.  He mentioned that Commissioner Campione had sent an article the previous year regarding how Orange County was considering passing a mandate for those causing a nuisance for businesses that would give them the two choices to either go to jail or go to a housing force.  He indicated that he supported that but that Lake County did not have an alternative at this time.  He opined that jails were busy and not the place for them, and that they needed to find housing to place people in, noting that The Salvation Army was discussing options.  He said that many were talking about what could be done, but he opined that everyone needed to focus on getting a plan together on what could be done.

Commr. Campione inquired about the $4 million referenced and if it was United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding that could be used for capital use.

Mr. Smith responded that it was not from HUD but was from the CARES Act for homeless coalitions throughout the United States; furthermore, the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition could acquire up to $4 million to go towards rent and utility payments, and it could not be used for capital.

Commr. Campione summarized that it could not be used to purchase land, and that it was strictly to assist with paying rent if there were facilities to place people in.

Mr. Smith remarked that housing could not be built overnight, and that the funding had to start being used by July 2021.  He relayed that he had realtors looking for existing buildings that could possibly be quickly acquired so that they could make attainable rents on a scale based on income.

Commr. Shields summarized that if they could find places to put people, then rent money was available.

Commr. Campione asked how long the rent money was available.

Commr. Shields replied it was available for a year.

Mr. Smith commented that if there was no debt service on the property, then they could do a sliding scale similar to what HUD does and could keep the rents down.  He mentioned that many homeless people live in the woods and need social security.  He indicated that the funding could also be used for case management; therefore, they could work with these individuals to get them into housing for a year, work to get them back to sustainable incomes, or work to help them attain social security so they could cover their rent thereafter. 

Commr. Campione recalled that when the BCC started working on their homelessness mitigation program the previous year, they did put some funding aside to help with rapid rehousing.  She reported that the latest information she had was that there were 124 households on a waiting list within the coalition.

Mr. Smith noted that 58 of those on the list were within Lake County.

Commr. Campione said that there were people who had actually been vetted by the caseworkers within the coalition with the goal for them to be qualified for long-term assistance; however, there was a gap in funding as well as not having places for people to be placed in which they could rent.

Mr. Smith indicated that in the past, Lake County was receiving funding from HUD to cover permanent supportive housing after they obtained a full time caseworker; however, Lake County lost that funding last year.  He encouraged the Office of Housing and Human Services to apply for that funding this year as there was funding available to cover housing for people with a permanent disability.

Commr. Campione relayed that there were some issues related to this, noting that if permanent supportive care in housing was going to be provided, then there had to be an entity to oversee that.  She indicated that some of the other counties within the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition had an organization that did that, but that was something that Lake County needed to work on.

A person participating virtually and representing the Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society (OVAS), mentioned that OVAS desired to recognize the efforts of the County and the BCC in addressing the illegal borrow pits within Lake County, and offered support to the County in their endeavors.

Commr. Campione thanked OVAS for their offer of support.

Commr. Parks thanked them as well, and shared that there might be some legislative changes to this with a possible update regarding it from the County’s lobbyist. 

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 and 2, 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.

Department of Economic Opportunity Final Order

Request to acknowledge receipt of the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity's final order DEO-21-001 pursuant to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, approving land development regulations adopted by Lake County, Florida, Ordinance No. 2020-57.


Commr. Campione requested to have a brief discussion regarding Tab 14 before the vote.  She explained that this tab was a request from the Public Works Department to apply for a St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) grant for a stormwater project related to the Lake Joanna situation which the Board had previously discussed.  She relayed that the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) had indicated their support, and that many residents had participated in LCWA meetings, including virtual meetings, and that Mr. Ron Hart, Executive Director for the LCWA, had provided much historical information.  She said that there seemed to be a willingness by the LCWA to partner and cooperate on this overall project, noting that this agenda item was merely for one component of this project and was for an advanced treatment system which would pull out sediment and provide some nutrient reduction.  She reported that this item was requesting for the LCWA to fund approximately $150,000, with the County putting in about $30,000 as their match.  She remarked that they were uncertain if they would receive this grant, but wanted to relay the LCWA’s willingness to partner with the County if it was unable to receive the grant from the SJRWMD.  She hoped that the County could potentially return to the SJRWMD for the next component of the project which would involve acquiring property and building a pond, noting that Mr. Schneider had been working with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to attempt to obtain part of FDOT property that could be used to assist with the treatment pond.    

Commr. Parks thanked Commissioner Campione for her comments, and remarked that this item addressed an issue regarding water quality and the protection of water quality and resources.  He then recognized LCWA staff in the audience.   

Commr. Campione commented that this was merely the beginning and that this item would be more directed at small to medium storm events since larger rainfall events would be more difficult to treat as water would bypass the system.  She opined that until they were able to obtain a system through which water could be retained long enough to then go through a treatment system prior to going into the lake, then they would not be able to accomplish the full project. 

Commr. Smith remarked that he did not have an issue with this grant; however, when he did his due diligence for this item, he noticed there was a County park that needed to be addressed since there was no parking at the park.  He said while it was not on this agenda, it would be something that the Board may need to address in the near future for all of Lake County to enjoy it.

Commr. Campione opined that this was a difficult situation because the park was there as a part of an old plat, that they could not get rid of the park, but to add to the park would require acquiring property.  She indicated that how it currently existed, people could park somewhere else and walk to the park, or be dropped off to canoe, etc.  She said that this seemed to be something that was working well for the residents, noting that the County had performed some improvements to the park so that people could launch a canoe or go swimming.  She commented that there would be a lot of perspectives to take into account.

Commr. Smith said that was the reason he said it should be something addressed separately since it did not relate to this item.  He reiterated that it merely came to his attention as he was out doing his due diligence for this item.

Commr. Campione suggested that Commissioner Smith also review the Lake Gertrude park as it was a similar situation, and the compromise was to make it more for passive use instead of opening Lake Gertrude up completely.  She shared that there was a controversy and that the compromise that was reached for it was to be only for passive type uses, noting this was similar to what had happened with the Lake Joanna park.

Commr. Parks recalled that they had workshops on parks and trails in previous years which would be a good time to discuss some of these items. 

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 23, as follows:


Request approval to make tax deed applications on County held tax certificates for properties on the Property Appraiser’s roll for years 2015 and 2017. Currently, the fiscal impact for Fiscal Year 2021 is $430.00 (expenditure). Commission Districts 4 and 5.


Procurement Services

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


Request approval to:

1. Amend the sponsorship agreement for the potential Big Ten softball tournament at the Sleepy Hollow Sports Complex in Leesburg from a three-party agreement between Lake County, the City of Leesburg and THE Spring Games to a two-party agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg.

2. Authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement with the City of Leesburg, subject to County Attorney approval, if the sponsorship is approved and if selected as event host location.

The fiscal impact is not to exceed $290,000.00 (expenditure – Tourist Development Tax funding) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 1.

Request approval of a sponsorship agreement with THE Spring Games, LLC (Clermont, FL) to provide funding for the 2021 THE Spring Games to be held at multiple softball venues across Lake County. The fiscal impact is not to exceed $50,000.00 (expenditure - Tourist Development Tax funding) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 2 and 3.


Emergency Management

Request approval of the updated 2021 Lake County Local Mitigation Strategy and authorization for Chairman to execute supporting Resolution 2021-19. There is no fiscal impact.

Fire Rescue

Request approval to apply for a Florida Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services Matching Grant and authorization for the County Manager to execute grant documents. The estimated fiscal impact is $44,540.02 (revenue/expenditure - $33,405.02 revenue in grant funding and $11,135.00 expenditure in County funding for required 25 percent grant match) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 5.

Request approval to apply for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2020 Assistance to Firefighters Grant for Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) packs, and authorization for the Chairman to execute all related documents. The estimated fiscal impact is $149,271.00 (revenue/expenditure - $135,700.91 revenue in grant funding and $13,570.09 expenditure in County funding for required 10 percent grant match) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 budget.


Facilities Management

Request approval of Contract 21-0413 with CJ's Sales and Service of Ocala, Inc. (Ocala, FL) for generator maintenance and repair services. The estimated annual fiscal impact is $81,197.00 (expenditure - $61,197.00 for scheduled services and $20,000.00 for unscheduled repairs) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Housing and Human Services

Request approval of grant funding and related agreements for nine organizations that submitted applications through the Human Services Grant Request Proposal process. The fiscal impact is $122,500.00 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Request approval of grant funding and related agreements for 10 organizations that submitted applications through the Children's Services Council Grant Request Proposal process. The fiscal impact is $195,000.00 (expenditure - includes an additional $20,000.00 to Easter Seals Florida, Inc. from the previous year's unspent grant due to COVID-19) and is within the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Library Services

Request approval to accept a Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act Library Funding Grant through the State of Florida, Division of Library and Informational Sciences, and approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-20 amending the Office of Library Services budget to receive these funds. The fiscal impact is $15,000.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Public Works

Request approval to apply for St. Johns River Water Management District and Lake County Water Authority Cost Share grants, and authorization for the Chairman to execute associated documents if funding is awarded. The estimated fiscal impact is $180,000.00 (revenue/expenditure - $149,400.00 in grant funding and $30,600.00 in Stormwater MSTU funding). Commission District 4.

Request approval of Resolution 2021-21 supporting the Lake County list of projects to be included on the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization's List of Priority Projects. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-22 to receive funds from the Florida Department of Health, Division of Disease Control and Health Protection, for the Lake County Mosquito Management Program, to be used for domestic mosquito control services, including vector-borne disease surveillance, and prevention of and response to the Zika virus. The fiscal impact is $10,000.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Request approval of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-23 to receive funds from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the Lake County Mosquito Management Program to be used for domestic mosquito control services, including vector-borne disease surveillance, prevention, and response. The fiscal impact is $4,492.59 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Request approval of Resolution 2021-24 to post “No Trucks Over 10 Tons Local Delivery Exempt” signs on Lake Emma Road, in the Groveland area. The fiscal impact is $300.00 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 1.

Request approval of Resolution 2021-25 to reduce the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH on Dora Avenue, from David Walker Drive to Lake Saunders Drive, and approval of Resolution 2021-26 to designate segments of Dora Avenue and Dillard Road as appropriate for golf cart usage, in the Tavares and Eustis area. The fiscal impact is $400.00 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission Districts 3 and 4.

Request approval of Resolution 2021-27 designating certain County maintained roads within the Sorrento/Mt Plymouth neighborhood as appropriate for the operation of golf carts. The estimated fiscal impact is $1,890.00 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 4.

Request approval:

1. Of Contract 21-0903 with Witt O'Brien's LLC (Washington, DC) for disaster debris monitoring services throughout the County as needed.

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The fiscal impact (expenditure) cannot be determined at this time as costs are incurred only during an emergency event.

Request approval:

1. Of Contract 21-0904 with Integrated Environmental Technology, LLC (Lakeland, FL) for on-call landfill maintenance services.

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated annual fiscal impact is $95,390.00 (expenditure) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 3.

Request approval of Resolution 2021-28 authorizing the Director of the Department of Public Works to execute developer's agreements for construction and maintenance of improvements related to subdivisions and accept and release performance and/or maintenance bonds, letters of credit, or cash sureties posted for construction and/or maintenance of improvements related to subdivisions or right-of-way utilization permits.

recess and reassembly

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

public hearing: Shoreline ranch rezoning

Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, relayed that he was reopening the Shoreline Ranch rezoning, case #RZ-20-29-5, public hearing which was continued from the January 26, 2021 BCC meeting.  He recalled the following background on this case: the subject property was 350 acres in size; was located on the south side of Wiygul Road; was within District 5; and the applicant was requesting to rezone the property from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to develop a 60 lot subdivision with supported equestrian uses.  He stated that as directed by the BCC at their January 26, 2021 meeting, the applicant had subsequently met with all of the Commissioners as well as the Lake Dalhousie Estates Homeowners Association (HOA); furthermore, through those discussions, the applicant had agreed to amend their proposed ordinance in order to become more compatible and consistent with the surrounding development.  He mentioned these notable changes: reducing the number of lakefront lots, noting that the original plan identified 11 lots and the applicant was currently proposing nine lots; requiring lakefront lot homes to be a minimum of 2,500 square feet in size with internal lot homes at 2,000 square feet; septic tanks located on lakefront lots would be required to have them in the front yard in order to help mitigate any potential environmental impacts to the lake; the subdivision would be gated with the interior roads being private; and a 20 foot landscape buffer consisting of Florida native species along with a three board fence separating Lake Dalhousie Estates and the proposed Shoreline Ranch subdivision, noting that the fence would run the length of the buffer that separated the two subdivisions.  He said that concluded staff’s update presentation, and mentioned that there was a notice to appear filed by Colonel Steve West.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that it was a 20 feet buffer, if it was an equestrian type of fence, and if this was in the ordinance.

Mr. McClendon confirmed it was a 20 feet wide landscape buffer separating the two subdivisions, and that the fence had the typical type of equestrian look and would be in the ordinance.

Ms. Merideth Nagel, representing Shoreline Ranch, displayed a visual which showed the concessions as just outlined by Mr. McClendon and pointed out the following: the Florida native landscape buffer which would be installed prior to construction of any homes; the compensating water storage area as inquired about previously by Commissioner Parks; removal of the two lots that would become open space, noting that quite a bit of open space had been added to the project and that they were down to 59 lots with these concessions; and the areas where the lakefront lots’ septic tanks would be placed.  She thanked everyone for working through this process with them, noted that County staff was great, and acknowledged that the HOA was understanding of development.  She stated that their engineer was present and could answer any questions regarding water issues.

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Nagel for working quickly on this.

Commr. Campione asked about average lot sizes.

Ms. Nagel showed a chart of lake lot comparisons between Lake Dalhousie Estates and Shoreline Ranch in terms of upland buildable acres. 

Commr. Blake inquired if the septic tank concession was the same at the Lake Dalhousie Estates, and if they were in the front yard. 

Ms. Nagel replied that she did not know if they were.  She remarked that they had placed into the ordinance a lot of items that they would not normally do, such as the quality of the house, how the neighborhood would be kept, etc., and that they voluntarily asked the County to include them in the ordinance so that the neighbors would be comfortable that they would be protected long term.

Commr. Parks said that the septic tank setback language came from another project from about two years prior, the Hilochee Partners Property PUD. 

Ms. Nagel opined that with the additional open space that was added, it was almost like a conservation subdivision.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Rob Sullivan, an adjacent property owner to the proposed PUD, thanked the BCC for listening to their concerns and for making time in the process to work through issues.  He relayed that many of the items the developer had documented were items that they had mentioned to residents, noting that it was reassuring to see them actually written down.  He thanked the developer for the concessions, and acknowledged the added expense for them.  He expressed appreciation for the 20 foot buffer, the fence, and the open space; furthermore, he relayed the request to not have a gate in the cul-de-sac area along with the desire to ask the County to vacate the land there.  He thanked everyone for listening and for making it a thoughtful and responsible development. 

Ms. Ella Finlayson, a concerned neighbor, remarked that she did not understand why the development still wanted to have a boat ramp into the lake when there was a public park and ramp already on the lake.  She expressed concerns for additional activity on the lake and how it might impact the lake, as well as concerns regarding increased traffic on the roads.

Ms. Janet Depaz, a local resident, asked the Board to vote on this item conservatively as she was concerned about what impacts it might have to the lake, noting that the lake level was already quite low.  She also asked about school capacity, and if the 2,500 square foot minimum included what was under heat and air or merely what was under roof, such as did it include the garage, lanai, etc.     

Mr. Phillippe Pai, Vice President of the Lake Dalhousie Estates HOA, commented that he was representing the approximate 60 families of this HOA.  He opined that often attention is brought to things that do not go right; however, this process went smoothly and should be a model of a good, tightknit community.  He thanked the BCC, staff, and everyone involved.  He relayed that their concerns were for Lake Dalhousie impacts, and that they were guardians for this lake.  He also thanked Shoreline Ranch for working with them, for understanding their position, and welcomed them as a neighbor.

Colonel West, President of the Lake Dalhousie Estates Board of Directors, thanked the Commissioners for meeting with him and Mr. Pai, and for making this process run easily.  He acknowledged that they were treated with respect, and that this was a team effort.  He expressed appreciation to the BCC, from the Lake Dalhousie Estates Board of Directors, for listening to them with an open mind, for genuinely taking their concerns to heart, and for giving them a voice in the process.  He also acknowledged that the Office of Planning and Zoning always responded quickly to their requests, and thanked them for all their hard work.  He expressed appreciation to the applicant for listening to their concerns and for the changes that they made to the PUD.  He then thanked several residents for their assistance in this process and for their support of the Lake Dalhousie Estates Board of Directors. 

Commr. Parks thanked everyone for their comments regarding the process and community involvement, noting that was what the BCC strived for in their effort to represent residents.  He expressed appreciation for the residents attending the meetings and for being prepared as they presented.  He opined that the community seemed to be stronger together and had built relationships, and he encouraged continued discussions and efforts to make a strong community.  He realized that there were still some items regarding water resource and permitting with the SJRWMD that needed to be done, noting that the applicant was aware of this; additionally, regarding the school concurrency concern, he explained that County staff did coordinate with the Lake County School District to ensure there was capacity.  He thanked the applicant for working quickly to address the concerns, noting that there was a lot of detail within the PUD which he thought would protect the neighboring residents.

Commr. Shields relayed that he had spoken to a neighbor, Mr. Nickerson, who had been there for 40 years, who had watched the water during flooding and where it flowed, and who mentioned that the ditch on Wiygul Road was on the incorrect side of the road.  He stated that he had sent this concern to Mr. Schneider who had some ideas of how to address this, and he asked for him to talk on this. 

Commr. Campione commented that one of the issues from some emails she had received was that this site did not have an established flood elevation, noting that the idea was that this might help if it was done prior to preliminary plat to ensure that houses were built at the correct elevation so there was not a flooding situation.

Mr. Schneider responded that in regard to Wiygul Road, there could be some swale issues that the Board might want to address.  He stated that he had looked at the drainage system in the area, and that Lake Dalhousie drained to the east and did not necessarily cross Wiygul Road to the north; therefore, anything north of Wiygul Road would drain north and cross County Road (CR) 439, noting that they were separate drainage systems.  He indicated that the applicant had shown a compensating storage area, and as he understood was not putting lots in the flood zone.  He explained that it looked like the compensating storage area was due to building a road in the flood zone so that as they built the new road, they compensated for it.  He said that one of the items that staff would be looking for was a detailed engineering analysis of the flow way to ensure that if water flowed through, it continued under the roadway unimpeded as it naturally would; furthermore, they would need to design the size of the pipes and such to make sure the water continued to flow through. 

Commr. Campione asked if that was what Mr. Schneider had described in his email as a detailed flood study.

Mr. Schneider replied that currently Lake Dalhousie, the small lake to the north, and the wetland area did not have established Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood elevations; therefore, if this was to be significantly in the flood zone, then staff would want them to update the evaluation, engineering study and the FEMA flood elevation.  He commented that other times they could use the established historical information, contours off the geographic information system (GIS) and aerials to interpret what the flood elevation should be, noting that when a lot was built, the requirement was to be two feet finished floor above the established 100 year flood elevation.  He remarked that the applicant may or may not be planning to perform a FEMA flood evaluation update and submitting those numbers to FEMA; however, that may be something they should consider or something the Board may want to consider having them do.

Commr. Parks asked if the flood plan manager would make that determination during the development process.

Mr. Schneider responded that typically if the only thing they were doing was to cross the flood zone and they were not impacting the flood way or anything, then staff would evaluate it from an engineering calculation and hydraulics of passing the flow through.  He explained that it was almost as much work as to do the stormwater evaluation, or hydraulic flow, from that small lake under the road as to do a full FEMA submittal.  He elaborated that typically they might not require a full FEMA submittal if the home were substantially higher than the flood zone, noting that staff would review this more closely during the design. 

Commr. Campione asked if the Public Works Department would have the authority to ask for that or would it need to be in the PUD.

Mr. Schneider believed that they would have the authority to ask for that, noting that there was usually some discussion that occurred when they did it, if it was not in the PUD.

Commr. Campione indicated that she had seen some subdivisions in which there would be someone who might place the pad of their house up two and a half feet with fill, then the house next door might not like that because their house was only eighteen inches above what was thought to be the flood plain.

Mr. Schneider specified that there may have been other homes built on this lake over the last 20 to 25 years, and that the GIS mapping system kept a record of every flood determination made; therefore, if ten years down the road someone built, then staff could go back to the records and provide the same flood elevation so that people did not have different flood elevations around the same lake.  He said for new subdivisions that come in, the County approves the grading plan and lot grading plan, and then during the building process, they have a lot grading inspection to make sure they were adhering to what was on the approved engineering plan as far as the elevation of the home. 

Commr. Campione confirmed that there would be a grading plan which would be in the subdivision plans, and said that the example brought up at the last meeting, which was not part of a subdivision, was different because it was unlike a whole subdivision which is planned with a grading plan.  She thought the concern was for flooding outside the neighborhood due to impervious surface and grading in the subdivision; therefore, she was looking for assurance that the adjacent property in this situation would not be impacted by grading inside this subdivision or changes in elevation. 

Mr. Schneider clarified that when they review a subdivision plan, they want to make sure they are not impacting their neighbor.  He relayed that staff requires that they keep their water on site and that it does not drain off onto neighboring properties, that there should be swales on the edges of the lots to redirect it internally, and that they treat the stormwater hopefully in dry retention ponds which function better than wet ponds.  

Commr. Campione said that was helpful as they had received questions about flooding issues, and that she had concerns that there was not an established flood elevation. 

Mr. Schneider stated that once the preliminary plat was submitted, if staff had concerns then they may require them to do a more detailed flood study evaluation; however, if they were comfortable with the fact that the homes were reasonably higher than what historical flooding and evidence showed in the aerials or contour maps, then staff could use the interpretive method which was to take the current FEMA flood map as shown and to transpose it on top of the existing contours to interpolate where that line should be.

Commr. Campione remarked that regarding the comment made about the boat ramp being internally to the subdivision versus requiring people to go out to the public boat ramp, she thought that having the boat ramp in the subdivision enhanced the values of the properties.  She opined that while it may seem like there was more use on the lake, in reality there would be a higher price point and value which was better in the big picture as far as ensuring compatibility.  She also thought the under air comment was good, and that if they were going to go with a deed restriction, then they should make sure that the 2,500 square feet on the lake and 2,000 square feet for homes not on the lake would be under air.  She indicated that in her idea of a perfect world, things would stay the way they were currently; however, she attempted to consider everything and thought there was a benefit to having the additional restrictions in the PUD, noting that the alternative could end up being a five acre development in different shaped lots that might not be a good project.  She also thought that the neighborhood taking care of its own roads was a plus to the rest of the county residents.    

Commr. Smith remarked that this situation reflected compromise and people working together, noting that he had seen many times when a builder tried to build but neighbors attempted to keep them out.  He reiterated that in this case, the neighbors and the builders got together and came to a compromise that was palatable for everybody, and that there were concessions on both ends.  He thought this was the best opportunity for both the land owner and the neighbors’ surrounding land; furthermore, he saw it as a nice gated community that enhanced the area, was one dwelling to five acres, and had a lot of open space.  He commended the neighbors and the developer for working together.

Ms. Nagel specified that the 2,500 and 2,000 square feet under air was an oversight and she expressed thanks for the clarification on it.  She also reminded the Board that the person doing the landscaping was FEMA certified and would be gathering as much data as possible to make sure the houses were out of the flood zone.  She indicated that she had informed the HOA that they would be glad to participant if they wanted to get the public road vacated that was leading out of the property, noting that they would cooperate with the County regarding this as she thought this would give the neighbors assurance that no one could later come back and make it a connecting road.  She thanked the Board for their help and input.

Commr. Campione inquired if they were to vacate Timberlane Drive, how far would it need to be to accomplish this.

Mr. Schneider explained that there was a road vacation process for which they could apply and submit an application which would be reviewed by staff.  He elaborated that if the application looked good, then staff would bring it before the Board for approval at a public hearing.  He indicated that they could vacate as little as five feet and not allow legal access to the neighbor’s property, although he said he would want to review the plans.  He reiterated that they would need to submit an application with the Public Works Department.

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

Commr. Parks indicated his support of this item, and thanked everyone for working together quickly on it.

Commr. Blake thanked the neighbors for meeting with the Commissioners, and disclosed the ex parte communications he had with Mr. Nickerson as well.  He relayed what he had previously mentioned regarding his concerns with the government getting too involved in the details; additionally, as far as he knew since his time on the BCC, they had not gotten in the business of capping or specifying square footage.  He indicated that he was not comfortable with that; however, since it was a concession that the applicant was fine with, he was willing to vote approval of this item.

Commr. Campione asked for confirmation that the statements made with regard to the square footage being under air would be included; furthermore, she thought that Mr. McClendon had confirmed that the three board fence would be inside the buffer, and to ensure that was included as well.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, confirmed that those conditions were included.

Commr. Campione also expressed appreciation for the time that everyone took to work together and find common ground; additionally, she thought the quick turnaround of the revised document for everyone to review from the previous BCC meeting to this one was extremely helpful.  She relayed that in the name of good compromise she would support it, even though in her perfect world it would stay the same.

Commr. Parks thought that many wanted Lake County to stay the same, but making the best of it would be the challenge moving forward.

Commr. Campione noted that the lots were all over one acre, and when considering the total acreage, including credit for wetlands, it was one unit to five acres, noting this was being consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and was following the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which allowed for modifications to subdivision plans in order to come up with a better plan that complied with the Comp Plan.  She thought that was important to note as she said there would continue to be pressure in this area, but that sticking to the Comp Plan and using the LDRs to help come up with solutions such as this would be a win in the long run.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2021-3, Shoreline Ranch rezoning case # RZ-20-29-5, to rezone from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agriculture (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to establish a sixty lot residential subdivision with equestrian and non-intensive agriculture uses, recreational amenities, and requesting a waiver to Land Development Regulations Section 9.04.01.A.1.B (Access).

regular agenda

groveland’s proposed expansion of its Cra

Mr. McClendon provided information on this tab regarding the City of Groveland’s proposed expansion of their Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) which included parcels that were in the unincorporated boundaries of Lake County.  He then provided the following information: on January 15, 2021, staff received notice from the City of Groveland that they were expanding their CRA boundaries; 386 acres of this expansion were currently within the unincorporated Lake County boundaries; these parcels were contiguous to the existing city limits; and all of the parcels were within the City’s urban service boundary, which meant that should these parcels ever develop and need utilities, they would be more than likely annexed by the City.  He displayed a map and explained that the existing City of Groveland CRA boundary was outlined by the blue dotted line, the expansion areas were highlighted in red, and the parcels highlighted in orange were the unincorporated Lake County parcels.  He indicated that from the County’s perspective regarding the future land use (FLU) standpoint, 212 acres were identified as Green Swamp Ridge FLU which allowed up to four dwelling units per acre, 107 acres were Rural Transition FLU, and 64 acres were Urban Low FLU; additionally, the zoning was a mix of Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Agriculture.  He relayed that it was his understanding that the City was considering entering into an interlocal agreement with the County to formalize the inclusion of these parcels which would give residents, property owners, and business operators the ability to access the infrastructure improvement and redevelopment programing that the City of Groveland CRA would allow.  He indicated that the Florida Statutes gave the County 30 days upon receipt of the notice on January 15, 2021 of the CRA expansion to notify the municipality that the County had competing goals or plans for the public funds which would have to be deposited into the CRA Trust Fund; furthermore, if there were issues or competing policies or goals, then the two governing bodies would then have a joint meeting to discuss those issues.  He indicated that the City of Groveland CRA guideline was in the material for this agenda item, and that there was no requested action from staff but that they were merely looking for discussion and direction from the Board.  He stated that the City of Groveland CRA Director as well as the City Attorney were in the audience if there were any questions about the redevelopment plan. 

Commr. Parks pointed out that Mr. Mike Smith, Groveland Vice Mayor, Mr. Dan Murphy, Groveland CRA Manager, Ms. Anita Geraci-Carver, Groveland City Attorney, and Mr. John Jones, Project Manager with S&ME, were in the audience.

Ms. Marsh indicated that the Board would need to take action at this meeting if they wanted to object to this, which would need to be done by a motion and vote, as the County would need to submit the letter of objection by the coming Sunday since the City’s final adoption hearing was Monday evening. 

Commr. Parks specified that the action was to either object, or not take any action and the City would move forward. 

Mr. Murphy thanked the Board for their consideration of this item, and stated that it would require an interlocal agreement to include the unincorporated county properties into the CRA and to allow tax increment financing (TIF) to be collected and deposited into their account.  He confirmed that it was part of the urban service area. 

Commr. Campione inquired how it would work, and asked that even though it was in the unincorporated area, the increment as the value went up would go to the City of Groveland CRA so that the value that it was the day this was established, would be the millage and revenue which would come to the County; therefore, anything over that would then go into the City of Groveland CRA.

Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct.  He stated the base year would be 2021, and anything incremental beyond 2021 would go to the Groveland CRA, while anything prior to that continued to be County owned property.

Commr. Campione indicated that the County had done some rebate and refund type programs for taxes with the City of Groveland, such as for the Kroger-Ocado project, noting that the County did an impact fee waiver through which they took funding out of the General Fund to help pay for transportation impact fees for that project; furthermore, she said that the County had given up the opportunity for anywhere from five to ten years to get the property taxes that would come in from these significant commercial improvements under the tax refund project.  She expressed concerns about what this would do to the County’s bottom line because she thought that if they were going to have those other types of programs in place, the County might be giving up their opportunity to realize the return on investment in going out and diversifying their tax base.  She knew that the ultimate goal was jobs and that there was a synergy that happened when there was more activity around a city and job creators were brought in.  She remarked that the tradeoff may be that the County did not see tax revenue; however, in return they have good job creation and enhancements.  She indicated that the County would get capped and their tax revenue would not reflect these increasing values as she understood it; additionally, the County might be giving away a lot of money because of the incentives. 

Commr. Parks asked that in regards to the 386 acres that were in unincorporated Lake County that could be added, what the money that would come from that and go to the CRA would be spent on.

Commr. Campione said that the CRA would make the decision of what it would be spent on, such as infrastructure, façade grants, lighting, etc.

Mr. Murphy responded that the reason for the expansion was due to issues of slum and blight along the commercial corridor, to the west and east of the City of Groveland, noting that was where the expansion was taking place and that they were adding approximately 1,100 acres, including the County owned portion.  He stated that the purpose would be to increase the use of the commercial acres, noting that about 37 acres were commercial or light industrial which would be most affected; furthermore, they were aggressively marketing to improve that area of the town.  He added that they had conducted stormwater and other analysis and had plans for infrastructure in that area including streetscape and stormwater improvements.

Commr. Campione asked for confirmation that 37 acres were commercial or light industrial and that the rest of the acreage would most likely be residential type development.

Mr. Murphy replied that it was mostly wetlands or zoned agriculture.

Commr. Shields asked where the park was that they were working on together.

Mr. Murphy stated that it was just beyond the boundary of this area, south of SR 50 and to the east.

Commr. Parks showed that on the displayed map, it was on the right, back towards the City of Clermont and outside the proposed CRA expansion, which he noted was along the corridor of SR 50 through the City of Groveland. 

Commr. Blake indicated that this was the first time he had been involved in an expansion of a CRA; therefore, he asked Ms. Marsh if the property owners affected by this request would get notified and would they have to agree to it.

Ms. Marsh said that she did not believe that they got notified, but it did not impact their taxes; rather, was it was about where the money was distributed to.

Commr. Blake relayed that through his experience, it could impact another layer of government going over them in terms of architectural design standards and such, giving the example of the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA which implemented their own architectural design standards.  He said that this could be an additional layer of requirements that they may not even be aware of which they were about to come under as it could happen later on.

Mr. Murphy said that the City of Groveland had complied with all the public notice.  He indicated that they started by conducting a finding of necessity analysis in 2019, extending into 2020; furthermore, that finding of necessity identified areas of slum and blight in the proposed expansion area and recommended that they be added.  He commented that another factor was that they were extending the timeframe of the CRA, noting that it was created in 2002 and would have expired in 2022; however, they were extending it to 2062 which was the maximum extension possible.  He stated that in addition to notifying the property owners during the finding of necessity period, they conducted a three day public hearing of the finding, noting that they were required to publish a new CRA plan so it was opened for the public to comment on.  He reported that due to COVID-19, they only had about 15 to 20 people attend the actually presentation, either online or in person; however, they received approximately 65 responses to the survey.

Commr. Campione felt that they needed an interlocal agreement that would address governance or questions such as zoning or overlay districts or added requirements on the property owner; furthermore, she opined that if that was imposed by the CRA but no one from the County had input, then that could be problematic.  She wondered if there might be a way to distribute the increment so that it did not all go to the CRA and so that the County received some benefit as it seemed like a long time to 2062; furthermore, all of the hard work that the County and City put into economic development, that all of the benefits would go straight to the CRA.  She remarked that on other projects around the county, the funding went into the same place and then was distributed out as far as services to the community.  She indicated that she was not saying she did not support this; rather, that they should think about it and examine it further.  She said she was supportive of the City of Groveland’s efforts to address blight, bring in businesses, enhance streetscape, etc. as well as the concept for Lake David and the park project that they were working on with the County. 

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had the opportunity to visit the City of Groveland the previous week and meet with the City of Groveland City Manager, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Police Chief to discuss this.  He relayed that he mentioned to the Vice Mayor that the BCC was here for all of Lake County and not merely the unincorporated area, and that it was their job to help the citizens of Lake County, whether they were in a city or out of the a city.  He commented that the money that would be spent was de minimis, noting that he had gone to the Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office (PAO) to obtain the list of the properties in order to determine how much funding would go back into this area.  He indicated that by the year 2062, it would be about $200,000 for the whole area, noting that this was not his concern but that he had other concerns and said there might be another way to do this other than creating a CRA in unincorporated Lake County.   He shared that he had spoken to the property appraiser and asked what type of impact it would have on his office, and mentioned that the property appraiser had responded via a letter indicating that the PAO would need to perform a few things within their system to address this.  He then displayed the letter from the property appraiser on the screen for the Commissioners to see his response.  He opined that it was a bigger issue then money.  He remarked that the other issue was that the City of Groveland would not have any zoning or building input regarding what happened in unincorporated Lake County since there would be a CRA in which the City of Groveland would not have input on what could be done there since it was in the county; therefore, he thought it would be better if the City annexed the area and then performed the expanded CRA.  He suggested that while they were waiting on an annexation, the County could attempt to develop another solution to help them beautify this area without an actual CRA.  He liked the idea, but expressed a desire to figure it out a different way.

Commr. Campione remarked that maybe it could be some type of overlay that did not have the effect of a CRA but might be similar to a joint planning overlay.  She inquired that as the City annexed, could they amend the CRA to add those parcels in.  She thought that they could amend the map and add parcels as they went along.  She expressed a desire to discuss the $200,000 further, and if it was based on no major improvements or merely an average annual growth rate.

Commr. Smith thought that as they annexed they could amend the CRA.  He replied that the $200,000 was based on what it was currently according to the PAO.

Commr. Campione asked what would happen if a big subdivision was built on this parcel, and opined that it would then change that number significantly. 

Commr. Smith said that then they would be in the City of Groveland because they would need utilities.

Commr. Campione commented that then the County would have capped their revenue for what comes to the County for the County services side of it.

Mr. Murphy explained that typically annexation was a separate issue, and reiterated that the expansion of the CRA was proposed to address issues of slum and blight within the area identified.  He elaborated that this area was along a continuous commercial corridor and that they would have to address some significant stormwater issues along that corridor in order to make it usable; additionally, on the east side of town coming from the City of Clermont there were streetscape issues for which they had a full streetscape program they were looking to implement.  He reiterated that the solution which was recommended in the finding of necessity was to expand the CRA area; additionally, the incremental revenues which would come into the CRA would be used entirely to improve that district, with or without annexation.  He indicated that it was part of the City’s urban service boundaries, and was already serviced by city water, sewer and other utilities; furthermore, there would typically be some annexation naturally occurring over the next 15 years or so, although he did not want to address that issue in this expansion.

Commr. Smith said that was correct; however, it was an issue for the PAO and was the concern that he had.  He reiterated that there had to be another way to figure this out besides an actual CRA, that the BCC was there for all of Lake County, that this was a great idea, but that he did not want to place unintentional pressure or work on other departments. 

Mr. Murphy mentioned that this was not an unprecedented initiative as there were other cities in which the CRA had expanded, had included unincorporated County land, and had received the incremental TIF from those lands.  He reported that the finding of necessity was performed by S&ME, noting that Mr. Jones from S&ME could comment specifically on other cities in which this had precedent. 

Commr. Parks asked for clarification on the number of acres highlighted in orange on the map, and how much of it was wetlands and unusable.

Mr. Jones replied it was approximately 384 acres.  He then addressed the comment regarding the number of CRAs which were a hybrid of unincorporated county areas and municipal areas, and said that the City of West Melbourne in Brevard County had a shared CRA; additionally, Seminole County had the U.S. 17/92 CRA which included five municipalities and the county.  He indicated that there were examples and precedence where interlocal agreements, CRAs, municipalities and Counties could work together. 

Mr. Murphy addressed the wetlands question, and stated there were 212 acres of Green Swamp Ridge FLU designated as four dwelling units per acre maximum, 107 acres of Rural Transition FLU parcels, and 64 acres of Urban Low Density FLU.

Commr. Parks asked to clarify that there was no indication of approximately how much was wetlands that would rarely or never be built on.

Commr. Campione asked if the density would be transferred.

Commr. Blake inquired about what the cluster of smaller parcels in the bottom right in the middle of the expansion area were within the orange area on the displayed map.

Mr. Murphy responded that was essentially Green Swamp border areas.  He said that one of the issues that needed to be confronted was development along the south side of SR 50 where the designation for Green Swamp ran up to SR 50 on the south side.  He relayed that the City planners and County planners were looking at impermeable surfaces, permeable surfaces, setbacks, etc. currently in order to identify future land use for that whole area.

Commr. Blake remarked that the areas on either side of Montevista Road looked like residential, noting that this was the area with a lot of small parcels.

Mr. McClendon replied that a majority of that area was undeveloped or single family.

Commr. Blake inquired that as it related to the Board’s previous experience with the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA when they came up with certain standards and different programs, how that applied to an existing single family parcel that had been brought into an expansion such as this.

Ms. Marsh responded that if the CRA had adopted city code requirements for design or whatever the case might be, and if they were in the CRA and they developed in the city, then they would have to meet those requirements; however, if they were in the CRA but developed in the county, then they would meet County codes. 

Commr. Parks inquired that as it related to the architectural design standards that the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento CRA put into place, and since this proposed CRA expansion would pull in existing residential parcels, would they then have to comply with the possible new overlay of regulation.

Ms. Marsh stated that they would have to annex to be subject to the City’s CRA code requirements.  She said that to her knowledge, she did not believe that the City was going to do an involuntary annexation; therefore, these folks would have to voluntarily apply to come in.

Commr. Parks commented that essentially it was only the TIF part of the CRA that would be applicable to the unincorporated parts of Lake County, and that funding would go towards whatever the CRA plan said they wanted to spend the money on.

Ms. Marsh said that was correct, and stated that if they brought in the unincorporated into their CRA, it would lock in that base year, and that anything over that as far as funding would go to them; however, it did not impact the residents in what they paid, merely the distribution.  She indicated that the other consideration would be the PAO and their issues with having to create a way to monitor that.

Commr. Parks said that was a good question mentioned by Commissioner Smith.  He also saw an issue of not knowing the CRA plan and what the funding would be spent on.  He asked if there was a way to have representation since they would have the part of the TIF structure which would affect unincorporated Lake County.  He inquired if there was a way to have a representative from the County on the CRA Board.

Mr. Murphy responded that it was his understanding that they had been trying to initiate this process for over 18 months, starting with the finding of necessity.  He reported that they had presented the plan to the CRA Board, then to the Groveland City Council, noting that the City Council accepted the new boundary and the extension of time.  He remarked that the next step was to develop a comprehensive plan which he said had taken them about four to five months to develop; furthermore, he relayed this had just recently been approved by the CRA Board and had gone to the Groveland City Council, noting that the council was meeting on February 1 and 16, 2021 to discuss a new ordinance.  He explained that as part of the procedure, one notifies the taxing authorities towards the 30 day window of opportunity, and indicated that the County had been notified; furthermore, the point was always to negotiate an interlocal agreement. 

Ms. Marsh stated that prior to the 30 day letter, the County had not been notified at all of this process; therefore, this was the dilemma as the BCC was seeing this for the first time at this meeting.  She explained that if the BCC was to send a letter of objection, that would give the BCC, the elected body, the ability to meet with the City of Groveland elected body, at which point they could work through all the various concerns and issues, noting this had to be done within 90 days.

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Marsh for that option, and relayed that another option he wanted to explore, based on the various questions and conversations at this meeting, was to table this and have the City of Groveland delay the second reading until the BCC could have some of their questions answered.  He said the word objection could be misinterpreted and might send a message to the City of Groveland that the BCC was objecting to what they were trying to do to progress the city forward, noting that the BCC was supportive of what the City was doing.

Ms. Geraci-Carver thanked the BCC for allowing them to present and address some of the BCC’s concerns.  She thought that one of the points of a joint CRA, as it was proposed by the City of Groveland as expanding the boundaries, it was set up in the Florida Statute that it was the City’s CRA; furthermore, because it included incorporated and unincorporated properties, she did not think the statute provided for members of both boards to be on this particular CRA.  She commented that the City and the County could consider a separate CRA for just the unincorporated area, which she thought in the statute allowed for a joint board of County Commissioners and City Officials.  She relayed that while there were some discussions with County staff, the City could have done a better job of coming to the County Manager and staff at a higher level to discuss this, for which she apologized.  She reported that this item had been scheduled for the following week on the Groveland City Council’s second meeting in February 2021 for a second reading and adoption.  She specified that the statute provided for either the objection letter and a joint meeting of the County Commission and City Council, or it allowed for staff to work on it and bring a proposal if the parties agreed.  She thought that was another option so that they would not have to assemble a full public meeting, and indicated that she thought the City would be willing to do that.  She recommended, although she noted that she had not had time to consult with Mr. Murphy, that at this point, rather than having an objection raised, it would be in the City’s best interest to agree to table it at their next meeting with a possible 30 days to work with staff, and then if a joint meeting was necessary, they could ask for one. 

Commr. Parks said he liked that option.

Commr. Smith commented that in reviewing the map, the City of Groveland was already expanding the CRA quite a bit in already incorporated City of Groveland. 

Ms. Geraci-Carver confirmed this.

Commr. Smith suggested drawing a line around the unincorporated area, since it would not be that much, and then they could figure out another way to help with that area.

Commr. Parks remarked that setting up another CRA could be a possibility.

Commr. Campione mentioned that if a second CRA was set up, and if it was unincorporated, then they could work with the PAO to make it easier for the transition as if properties were annexed into the city.  She thought they could amend the CRA, but possibly it could be timed so that it coincided with when the PAO changed their records for tax bills. 

Ms. Geraci-Carver stated that she was unable to read the property appraiser’s letter, but that they would work with him in order to assist him in that process if the County did end up approving it. 

Commr. Campione opined that Commissioner Smith made a good recommendation for a way to easily address it, which was to pull the County properties out so that the City could move forward with their expansion.  She commented that even if they were agreeable to tabling, the Groveland City Council would have to decide to do that; therefore, the BCC would almost have to make their objection contingent on this, or would withdraw it if the expansion was tabled or something such as that. 

Ms. Geraci-Carver remarked that from the City’s perspective and from a processing standpoint, if the BCC wanted to make an objection, then it would not be an issue.

Commr. Parks understood that Ms. Geraci-Carver could not speak for the City Council, although he preferred that they table it for 30 days.  He stated that the BCC could possibly say that if the City did not table it at their next meeting, then the County would file an object.

Ms. Marsh explained that the way the statute was set up, if the BCC did not do the objection within the 30 days of notice, then they did not get the right to object afterwards.  She elaborated that the letter did not necessarily have to use the terminology objection; however, if the BCC did not do it at this meeting, and if the City did not agree to postpone it and adopted it on the following Monday, then it would be a done deal.

Mr. Rosen commented that any chance that they might have to work with the City of Groveland to get more details based on the County Commission questions would be helpful, even though it might end up being an objection; therefore, if hopefully they did have the joint meeting, then they would either be able to move forward in agreement or work out another solution that might work for everyone.  He thought that would give time to get answers and come back to the joint meeting. 

Ms. Geraci-Carver pointed out that any of the funds that the City would receive in the CRA, the unincorporated properties would also be eligible for any of the CRA programs; therefore, they would get the benefits of the stormwater management system put in, or if they wanted to apply for a façade grant through the CRA then they would have access to those funds.  She recognized that those funds may not be available to the County to use throughout the county; however, they would be utilized within the CRA boundaries which they hoped would include the unincorporated areas and the Board’s constituents in all regards.

Commr. Parks said he had an idea of what the CRA would spend the funding on, and noted he was supportive of that.  He reiterated that there were still questions that the BCC had and some items that they should still work through.  He questioned how they could move forward without necessarily objecting.

Ms. Marsh stated it was really one or the other, and that under the statute the BCC would object and then it stopped the City of Groveland’s process. 

Commr. Parks remarked they could table it, although he noted that those present at this meeting could not speak for the City Council.

Ms. Marsh commented that the City could table it; however, if they chose not to table it, and the BCC did not object at this meeting, then it was done.

Commr. Shields relayed that he was impressed with the planning happening in the City of Groveland and that he was supportive, but agreed they needed to work through the details.

Commr. Campione said that they could use the fact that they just got a new county manager the day before this meeting as the reason they needed time to process everything.  She indicated it would be a friendly objection, and that they just needed to meet the requirements of the statute and give some time.

Commr. Smith motioned to object to the CRA expansion in hopes that the City of Groveland and the Lake County BCC could come together with a viable solution, and Commissioner Blake seconded the motion.

Commr. Parks asked to clarify that this would include explaining that the BCC merely had questions and was asking for some time to work it out, noting he liked using the word friendly.  He stressed that he did not want this to be misinterpreted. 

Commr. Smith asked the Groveland Vice Mayor Smith if it was clear to him what the BCC was attempting to do.

Groveland Vice Mayor Smith commented that he understood the BCC’s concerns, and said that he would convey to the Groveland City Council that this was really more of an opportunity, and that if there had been a way to table everything and be able to ensure that the table had been done, then there would not have been an objection.  He indicated that he would relay that it was not that the BCC objected, but merely that they needed time to actually discuss, understand and work this through, noting that they had not had that opportunity to do so; additionally, he would make sure the City Manager understood what happened so that he could convey to the other council members.  He remarked that if it did end up being tabled, then he would relay that the BCC was supportive of what the City wanted to do, but the issue was about how this could best work for both the City, the County, and those in that area, noting that they desired more time to consider this.

Commr. Parks noted that it was more procedural.

Commr. Campione asked that if the BCC letter was issued, and the City of Groveland did actually table it, then could the BCC withdraw their objection or did that make it too complicated.

Ms. Marsh thought that they could withdraw it.

Commr. Campione opined that the way to phrase it was that if the City ultimately agreed to table it, then the BCC could withdraw their objection since the objection was merely procedural.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board voted to object to the CRA expansion in hopes that the City of Groveland and the Lake County BCC could come together with a viable solution, noting that this objection was merely procedural and that the BCC desired to work with the City regarding this item and would consider withdrawing the objection if the City decided to table this item at their next City Council meeting.

other business

sales surtax oversight advisory committee

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to reappoint Mr. Gary Cooney, Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, and Mr. Carey Baker, Lake County Property Appraiser, to the Sales Surtax Oversight Advisory Committee.

board of adjustment appointments

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to reappoint Ms. Rosemary “Marie” Wuenschel, as a District 1 member, and Mr. James Argento, as a District 3 member, to the Board of Adjustment, with a potential ethical waiver for Mr. Argento.

commissioners reports

commissioner smith – district 3

tours of lake county libraries

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had started doing tours of the Lake County libraries, and thanked everyone who had welcomed him during his tours.  He shared that he had toured the City of Tavares Library, and was planning to tour the City of Leesburg and City of Clermont Libraries.  He noted that he was supposed to have attended the Town of Howey-in-the Hills Library grand opening, but was unsure if they would be able to hold that. 

hope 2 restoration opening

Commr. Smith relayed that he had attended a soft opening for Hope 2 Restoration, which was a nonprofit organization in the City of Tavares, noting that they were also in other parts of the county.  He shared that this organization helped transitional families, and opined that it was nice to see that come into the community and to see people reaching out and wanting to help.

welcome to Mr. alan rosen

Commr. Smith welcomed Mr. Rosen as the new County Manager, and said he was glad to have him here.

commissioner CAMPIONE – district 4

commissioners committee reports

Commr. Campione indicated that she liked the new portion of the BCC meetings during which the Commissioners could report on their committees, and she thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the backgrounds behind some of the organizations and committees they serve on.  She also thought it was a good way to keep the rest of the BCC informed on what the Commissioners were doing on their committees. 

commissioner blake – district 5

welcome to Mr. alan rosen

Commr. Blake also welcomed Mr. Rosen to the county, and expressed his excitement to have him onboard.

commissioner parks – district 2

toys for tots recognition

Commr. Parks shared a certificate of recognition for all County staff who had participated in the Toys for Tots program, noting that that this was something that was only received for organizations that significantly participated.  He thanked staff for their support of this program, and explained that it went directly to residents and had a great impact.

school career days

Commr. Parks relayed that several of the local schools had approached him regarding participating in career day in the spring, and asked if he or other Commissioners would be willing to participate in a career day.  He encouraged the other Commissioners to participate in these school events.

appreciation to ms jo-anne drury

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Jo-Anne Drury, Deputy County Manager, for her service as Interim County Manager over the previous months.  He expressed appreciation to her for the great job she had done in this role.

Commr. Campione echoed these sentiments for Ms. Drury.  She recognized that it was a team effort of all the department heads working together, and that Ms. Drury had done a great job of keeping up with everything.  She thanked staff for their help with everything too.

welcome to Mr. alan rosen

Commr. Parks also welcomed Mr. Rosen, and said he was looking forward to all the ideas he would bring to the county.  He offered his assistance for anything that Mr. Rosen might need.

Mr. Rosen thanked Commissioner Parks, and echoed his appreciation to Ms. Drury for holding everything together over the last few months and getting things done.  He also thanked County staff for making his first day smooth, and he was looking forward to many years ahead.


There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.









SEAN PARKS, chairman