A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
May 25, 2021
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 25, 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: 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 Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting, and noted that they were meeting in person and also virtually. He mentioned a tradition they had of having a staff member who was a veteran lead the Pledge of Allegiance, and he introduced Mr. Kieran Johnson. He explained that Mr. Johnson had been a Probation Officer with the Office of County Probation since February 2016, and that he had served in the United States (U.S.) Army from 2013 until he was medically honorably discharged in 2016 as an Army Specialist. He elaborated that after completing basic training, Mr. Johnson went to Quartermaster School at Fort Lee, Virginia to become a Petroleum Supply Specialist, and that during his time there, he quickly worked his way up to becoming a Platoon Leader. He commented that after completing his advanced training, Mr. Johnson was stationed at Fort Drum, New York, where he worked on the airfield and participated in several training exercises involving fueling various helicopters. He thanked Mr. Johnson for his service.
Ms. Rebecca Johnston-Garvin with the Baha’is Community then gave the invocation and Mr. Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
virtual meeting instructions
Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that this meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 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 read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.
Commr. Parks noted that he had some comment cards and that the rezoning agenda may be addressed in between some of the presentations.
Mr. Alan Rosen, County Manager, said that Tab 35 was pulled and would be included as a joint presentation under Tab 31, the Public Works Road Workshop. He added that there was also a request to pull Tab 8, which was a request for a closed session that was no longer needed.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that this item would be on the June 8, 2021 agenda rather than a closed session.
Commr. Parks noted that this would be the last regular coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) update, and that the County would soon be ending the large vaccine site at the former Sears site.
Mr. Tommy Carpenter, Director for the Office of Emergency Management, commented that the Sears vaccination site would close on the current day at 2:00 p.m. He added that there were 91 operational days with just under 115,000 vaccines provided for first and second dose administrations. He relayed that they had been providing the Pfizer vaccine, and that it was currently available for individuals age 12 and up. He commented that as of the previous day, they averaged about 1,270 shots per day, and said that they planned to turn the site back over to the owners on the following Friday. He thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), their local and federal elected leaders that had supported them, County employees and volunteers, and all of the Constitutional Officers and municipalities that had helped. He stated that as they turned over vaccine operations to the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), anyone who had received a first dose would know to contact their physicians, any available pharmacies, or the FDOH to follow up with second doses.
Commr. Parks pointed out that Lake Support and Emergency Recovery (LASER) was an agency that was going to some sites within churches and supporting places that wanted to do this locally, and was supporting this through FDOH. He thanked LASER for doing this.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione, and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of February 23, 2021 (Regular Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Mr. Rick Ault, a resident of the City of Clermont area, recalled that in 2015 or 2016, Commissioner Shields, who was a citizen at that time, and Commissioner Parks had met with communities in the Lakeshore Drive corridor; additionally, communities had been told that the road was at or over capacity. He opined that the standard used to measure changed and that the capacity was increased because the wrong speed limit was used when figuring out the capacity. He displayed data from the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) using the Lakeshore Drive corridor, noting that in 2019, a section of Lakeshore Drive from Hartle Road to Lake Louisa was rated “F” and was three percent overcapacity during the peak direction hour of the evening. He added that it was suggested that the road was scheduled to be extremely congested in 2024. He questioned land development applications indicating that roads had capacity and that schools had seats. He indicated that he had inquired about Lakeshore Drive and had received a response that a new traffic count was done in 2020, though he mentioned that people were told to stay home in that year. He relayed his understanding that only four roads in the area were measured, and he opined that it looked like only the high capacity roads were being measured to get a low reading during a pandemic.
Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills area, discussed the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) with the City of Leesburg signed in 2015 and how it affected the rural protection areas of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). She opined that this agreement did not appear to favor any of the rural communities and residents in the rural protection areas; however, she noted that the agreement shall be periodically reviewed every five years, and that there was an option in the agreement that allowed the parties to renegotiate. She mentioned the rural areas plan formulated in 2006, and that the 2030 Comp Plan was subsequently adopted and included many aspects of the rural plan. She remarked that in 2014, the ISBA agreement was signed, and she opined that it appeared that the BCC at that time gave away their ability to effectively manage the growth in the rural protection areas. She expressed concerns that the agreement was creating conflict, and she opined that it negated many of the planning efforts protecting rural communities, lifestyles, and the residents in the transition zones. She relayed that there were several places in the agreement with language stating that the City of Leesburg and the County wish to avoid incompatibility between uses, and she expressed concerns that the agreement did not favor rural communities of residents in the Yalaha/Town of Howey-in-the-Hills area. She asked the Board to initiate the process to renegotiate the agreement in an open process with input from the community. She stated that one of the most important things the Board could do was to remove the rural protection area boundaries from the ISBA boundary, opining that it was counterproductive.
Ms. Kim Cronin, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, displayed a map of protected areas, pointing out the Yalaha/Lake Apopka rural protection area. She mentioned that she attended a City of Leebsurg meeting regarding an annexation of property on Dewey Robbins Road, and she displayed a map of this area. She questioned how a property could be in a protection area under the County, but then be unprotected if it was annexed by the City of Leesburg. She relayed her understanding that the ISBA had not been reviewed, and mentioned that the Whispering Hills development that also fell into this protected property would be scheduled for a public hearing. She was unsure why this property was included in the ISBA, and she thought that it needed to be reviewed so that the public could be involved.
Commr. Parks recalled that the BCC had recently received questions about the ISBAs, and that the Board had concerns with the agreements. He said that the ISBAs did allow a City to annex a property that was noncontiguous, but it did not mean that the County could not have strong objections.
Ms. Cronin expressed concerns that two potential developments made up nearly the entire protected property.
Commr. Parks stated that the County would be looking at this.
Commr. Campione commented that during the County Attorney’s report, the Board could possibly get more information regarding to what extent the Board could use the negotiating provision to reopen the ISBAs in those areas.
Mr. David Serdar, a resident of the City of Fruitland Park, made comments related to government issues.
Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a resident of Lake County, mentioned the protection areas and the ISBAs. She urged the Board to consider the protected areas, opining that there were water issues. She relayed her understanding that a promise was made to residents when the county was advertised as “Real Florida, Real Close” that they would have a rural lifestyle and a small town atmosphere. She commented that the protection areas were either valuable recharge areas, or the water going through them was being purified. She opined that a stormwater retention pond did not serve the same purpose as a natural wetland and recharge area, and that the water was not going back into lakes or the aquifer with the same quality.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 6, 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.
Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay CDD Annual Financial Audit Report for FY 20
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay Community Development District Annual Financial Audit Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes, and Section 189.418, Florida Statutes.
Cascades at Groveland CDD Proposed FY 21/22 Budget
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Cascades at Groveland Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2021/2022 in accordance with Section 190.008(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information.
Southwest Florida Water Management District Annual Financial Reports
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, and the District's Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Financial Report (AFR), which was filed electronically with the Department of Financial Services, Bureau of Local Government on April 28, 2021.
Country Greens CDD Proposed Operating Budget for FY 22
Notice is hereby provided of having received the Country Greens Community Development District’s proposed operating budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.
City of Eustis Ordinances
Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 21-03, corresponding Future Land Use Ordinance 21-04, and corresponding Design District Amendment Ordinance 21-05 from the City of Eustis.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Parks mentioned that Tab 8 had been pulled from the agenda.
Commr. Smith asked to pull Tabs 13 and 15 to the consent agenda; additionally, he had a statement on Tab 20.
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 27, pulling Tab 8, and pulling Tabs 13, 15 and 20 to the regular agenda, as follows:
Recommend adoption of Proclamation 2021-54 designating May 22-28, 2021, as National Safe Boating Week in Lake County.
Recommend adoption of Proclamation 2021-77 designating June 2021 as Tobacco-Free Parks Month in Lake County.
Recommend adoption of Proclamation 2021-78 designating the second Sunday of June as Race Amity day, per Commissioner Parks.
Recommend adoption of Proclamation 2021-75 honoring Dr. Diane Culpepper for her commitment, dedication and leadership while serving in the capacity as the Executive Director of Lake Technical College.
Request approval of Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between Lake County and PRVR of Tavares, LLC, for the Office of Housing and the Office of Community Services located at 2004/2008 Classique Lane in Tavares. The fiscal impact is $15,425.28 (4 months) for Fiscal Year 2021 and $46,275.84 for Fiscal Year 2022 (expenditure). Commission District 3.
Request for a Closed Session to be held June 8, 2021, regarding Collective Bargaining Negotiations pursuant to Section 447.605, Florida Statutes.
Management and Budget
Recommend approval of the Veterans Treatment Intervention Program Agreement that provides financial support to Lake County for aid in felony and/or misdemeanor pretrial or post-adjudicatory veterans treatment intervention programs. The total estimated fiscal impact is $133,813.00 (revenue). This includes revenue of $66,913.00 in Fiscal Year 2021 and $66,900.00 in Fiscal Year 2022.
Recommend approval to declare items as surplus and grant authorization to remove them from the County's official fixed asset inventory system records. The fiscal impact (revenue) cannot be determined at this time.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Recommend approval of a Workers' Compensation Claim Settlement for a former employee who sustained an injury on 5/1/2019 in the amount of $125,000.00 (expenditure); and authorize the Chairman to sign the Settlement Agreement and Addendum.
AGENCY FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and the Greater Orlando Sports Commission’s bids to host the 2022-2024 Big Bass Tour, 2022 Bassmaster Elite Series, 2022 Bassmaster College & High School Series, 2022 Major League Fishing (MLF) BIG5 Tackle Warehouse Pro Circuit, and the MLF BIG5 Toyota Series fishing tournaments to take place on the Harris Chain of Lakes.
2. For the Chairman to execute the agreement with B.A.S.S., LLC, MLFLW, LLC and the Central Florida Sports Commission, Inc. dba Greater Orlando Sports Commission, if selected as tournament host location.
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $325,000.00 (expenditure - TDT funding) Commission District 3.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1. Of the Interlocal Agreement for Public Emergency Shelters with the Lake County School Board.
2. To designate the Office of Emergency Management Director as the primary County representative.
3. To authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement.
There is no fiscal impact.
1. Of Contract 21-0912 for the restoration of the training burn prop to Alpine Metal Tech North America, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation; and
3. Of the associated Fiscal Year 2021 budget transfer moving funds from non-capital repairs/maintenance to capital improvements other than buildings.
The fiscal impact of $40,890.00 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 3.
Request from Fire Rescue to recommend approval to utilize Florida Sheriff Association Contract FSA20-VEL28.0 to purchase a command vehicle pickup truck from Duval Ford (Jacksonville, FL) for the Office of Fire Rescue. The fiscal impact is $39,083.00 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission Districts 3, 4, and 5.
1. For the utilization of Xybix Systems Inc. NASPO Contract # 05715, State of Florida Participating Addendum #43190000-18-NASPO-ACS-2 for procurement of furniture; and
2. Of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-79 recognizing the Sheriff's payment for a portion of the project cost; and
3. To authorize related budget amendment; and
4. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting project documentation.
The fiscal impact is $736,397.72 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Recommend approval to adjust approved Contract 20-0462 for Fire Alarm System Services from $30,000.00 to an estimated $49,000.00 (expenditure). The fiscal impact is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.
Housing and Human Services
Recommend approval of First Amendment to Lake County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Sub-Recipient Contract with Forward Paths Foundation, Inc. The fiscal impact is $100,000.00 (expenditure - 100 percent grant funded). Commission District 4.
Recommend approval of subrecipient agreement with Lifestream Behavioral Center for Community Development Block Grant Fiscal Year 2020-21 funds to expand homeless services. The fiscal impact shall not exceed $120,000.00 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 4.
Request approval of corrected Resolution 2021-80 supporting and authorizing County staff to apply for a Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant for funding of design, right of way acquisition, and construction of the Wekiva Trail segment 1 and segment 5 in Tavares, Mount Dora, and Sorrento.
The fiscal impact is $13,000.00 (expenditure) for the application preparation cost and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. After construction, the anticipated annual fiscal impact to the County for maintenance of the approximate 4 miles of the 11.5 mile length, is $23,000.00 to be funded from the Parks Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Commission Districts 3 and 4.
Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-81 to advertise a public hearing to vacate tracts and platted rights of way in the plat of Groveland Farms, located west of County Road 561 and east of Montevista Road. The closest municipality is the City of Clermont. The fiscal impact is $2,295.00 (revenue-vacation application fee). Commission District 1.
1) To execute a Joint Participation Agreement and supporting Resolution 2021-83 with the State of Florida Department of Transportation for analysis, design, and construction of a replacement pump and pipe system on Lake Woodward for flood control.
2) Of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-82 to receive the grant funding.
The estimated fiscal impact is $729,950.00 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded). Commission District 4.
1) To execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) and associated Resolution 2021-84 with the Florida Department of Transportation for the transfer of roadway segments of State Road (SR) 46 and the Realignment of SR 46A (a/k/a County Road (CR) 46A0 to Lake County;
2) Adopt Resolution 2021-85 accepting SR 46 and SR 46A into the County Road Maintenance System;
3) Authorize the Chairman to sign the MOU and all associated Road Transfer Agreements; and
4) Adopt Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-86 to recognize the additional funding for programmed maintenance associated with the roadway segments.
The fiscal impact is $3,000,000.00 (revenue).
Tab 13: hickory point beach volleyball facility improvements
Commr. Smith noted that Mr. Steve Bishop, Executive Director and President for the Florida Region of USA Volleyball and who managed the Hickory Point Beach sand volleyball complex, was in attendance and he asked if they could have Lake County logos on their ball stop boards.
Mr. Bishop replied that they had some existing ball stop boards with a combined Hickory Point Beach and Lake County logo used for photograph opportunities and between courts; additionally, they also had banners, and they could increase the number of these.
Commr. Smith expressed support for increasing the number of ball stop boards with the Lake County logo.
Mr. Bishop said that this could be done.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved funding associated with various facility improvements at Hickory Point Beach Volleyball Facility, and approval of a budget transfer from the Resort/Development Tax Fund reserve account to fund the improvements, with Commissioner Smith encouraging increasing the number of ball stop boards with the Lake County logo.
Tab 15: madden preprint media, llc contract
Commr. Smith asked staff to present this item.
Mr. Brandon Matulka, Executive Director for the Agency for Economic Prosperity, said that this item was recommending approval of Contract 21-0512 for professional advertising and related destination marketing services to Madden Preprint Media, LLC, out of Tucson, Arizona, and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation; furthermore, the fiscal impact was $750,000, an expenditure out of Tourist Development Tax (TDT) funds, and was within, and would not exceed, the fiscal year budget. He said that this was part of what they did for general marketing purposes, and that they had Akers Media, out of the City of Leesburg, for the past three or four years; additionally, they were the County’s general marketing agency of record for the Office of Visit Lake. He explained that the County performed a request for proposals (RFP) over the past several months, and they had a selection committee who heard about 10 proposals for a general marketing agency. He elaborated that the selection committee recommended approval of Madden Preprint Media, and that as a part of this, they received two proposals from every company. He commented that one was for the amount that they had been doing in general marketing for $500,000 annually, which was what had been done under the Akers Media contract, and they also received proposals for $750,000. He elaborated that they took this to the Tourist Development Council to see which annual amount they wanted to move forward with; furthermore, they had recommended $750,000.
Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that this marketing was funded from one penny of the heads in beds tax, and he asked if the County could take one half of a cent and use it toward their new multiuse building. He mentioned that the County was receiving a matching grant and that this funding had to come from somewhere.
Ms. Marsh explained that according to the code, the County had a four cent TDT that they levied, and that the fourth cent could only be used specifically for professional sports franchise facilities, training facilities, convention centers, or tourism marketing. She elaborated that the code designated the fourth cent for tourism marketing; however, the Board could amend the code and use half of the fourth cent toward a convention center and half of it toward marketing. She mentioned that the Attorney General’s Office had opined that a multiuse facility would qualify as a convention center.
Commr. Campione noted that a code change could not be made at the current meeting, though they could discuss bringing it back at the next BCC meeting and not awarding the contract in the meantime, in addition to looking at possibly reducing the amount of funding spent on marketing for this contract or if they would have to go back out to bid.
Commr. Shields said that they should also consider the extra cent that Polk County charged, for a total of five cents.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that there was an additional penny that the County could levy, and it could be done by a four-fifths vote. She added that the additional penny could only be used for a professional sports franchise or spring training facility, which the county did not have, or they could use it for tourism marketing and take all of the fourth penny and use it toward the convention center.
Commr. Campione inquired how the Tourist Development Council (TDC) felt about this. She expressed concerns that some hotel owners would not be amicable with an additional cent.
Commr. Shields said that the TDC had not discussed this yet, but that he could bring it up at the next TDC meeting.
Commr. Campione commented that the Board could address the issue of funding for the grant match, and Commissioner Shields could then go back to the TDC to discuss this.
Commr. Parks supported including if construction of trails could be funded.
Commr. Campione asked how Lake County’s hotel tax compared to Orange, Polk, and Marion County.
Commr. Shields responded that Lake County was four cents, Polk County was five cents, and Osceola and Orange Counties were six cents, which was the maximum and a county needed to be receiving $10 million per year in bed taxes to get to six cents.
Commr. Smith inquired if it would affect the proposed contract if the Board tabled this item until the next meeting.
Mr. Matulka relayed that this contract was only a part of what the County did for general marketing; therefore, the Board could approve this today and it would not affect what the County did with the funding moving forward. He stated that there was enough funding in the budget toward marketing that they could approve this today, noting that they also had funding for event sponsorship, cooperative sponsorship, and in-house advertising for the county. He mentioned that the County could adjust it as they went, and that this was part of the reason why they scheduled the joint TDC/BCC meeting in September 2021 to discuss these kinds of strategies moving forward.
Commr. Shields added that it was about a $3 million per year budget currently.
Commr. Smith said that he would like to at least have the TDC consider the additional penny because there were two hoteliers on that board. He relayed his understanding that if the BCC approved this item today and then decided to go to one half of a cent or a full cent, it would not affect Mr. Matulka’s office either way, and Mr. Matulka confirmed this.
Commr. Campione indicated concerns for the types of things that Mr. Matulka might have to pull funding from, noting that sponsorships were relied upon by chambers of commerce and Cities that used that funding to promote their festivals and events. She expressed a concern that by shifting things around, they may take funding away from the promotion of local events.
Commr. Smith agreed with this and asked when the next TDC meeting was.
Mr. Matulka replied that it was in July 2021, and added that it was about a $250,000 difference when considering what the County was doing in general marketing to what they were looking to do currently. He clarified that the shift would not impact it because they should also be receiving about $300,000 from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act for reimbursement. He added that there was also potential American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding that could possibly replace lost revenue for tourism dollars. He remarked that the adjustment was not something that would heavily affect the event sponsorships, noting that they did close to $1 million in event sponsorships each year, and they never really had issues funding requests. He commented that there was some concern in April 2020 where the County had considered placing a cap on it, though the cap would have still been about $750,000 to $1 million in event sponsorships.
Commr. Parks said that the County could make it clear that it would not affect sponsorships, noting that the capital reserve continued to grow.
Commr. Shields confirmed this and added that people were traveling frequently; additionally, the County now had Airbnb and Vrbo collecting and paying the bed tax.
Commr. Parks explained that because of the Lake County Tax Collector working with Airbnb and Vrbo, they were able to reach an agreement for them to collect the heads in beds tax; however, this was not a new tax and was what should have been collected all along. He opined that this made it fair with brick and mortar, and the County estimated that it could be an addition of a couple hundred thousand to $1.2 million per year for TDT. He thought that it was important to make a policy decision on how the County was going to spend the money and invest it in facilities, which he expressed support for doing.
Commr. Smith asked if he needed to make a motion to bring an ordinance back to the Board after the TDC meeting.
Ms. Marsh clarified that they could not vote it on today but that by consensus, staff could include it on the next BCC meeting.
Commr. Parks asked to confirm that this would not preclude Mr. Matulka’s office from action if they felt there was an opportunity to partner locally to market a niche sport.
Mr. Matulka said that this item was not an exclusive marketing piece, and was the core marketing that they did generally outside of Lake County; furthermore, it did not stop them from entering into any unique marketing situations.
Ms. Marsh reminded the Board that this contract had a 30 day no cause termination clause.
Commr. Blake reiterated that this was funding that did not come from property taxes, and that it was generated when people stayed in Lake County hotels; additionally, it had to be spent in a similar way.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Contract 21-0512 for professional advertising and related destination marketing services to Madden Preprint Media, LLC (Tucson, AZ), and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
Tab 20: gw systems, inc. contract
Commr. Smith commented that this item recommended going with the second lowest bidder, and he thanked Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, and his staff for providing some good backup that explained it well and saved him time.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Contract 21-0445 with GW Systems, Inc. (Longwood, FL) for replacement fire alarm systems for the Sheriff’s Administration Building, Historical Courthouse, and County Administration Building, and to authorize a budget amendment reclassifying funds from operating expenditures to capital expenditures for this project.
Commr. Parks supported addressing Tab 28 and Tab 31, and then the rezoning agenda.
central florida expressway authority presentation
Ms. Laura Kelley, Executive Director for the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX), provided a presentation regarding CFX’s master planning process. She thanked the Board and noted that CFX had been serving Lake County for over six years; additionally, Commissioner Campione had formerly served on the CFX board, and Commissioner Parks currently served on the board as their vice-chairman. She relayed that when going into the master plan process, it was important to listen to the people they served to ensure that they were prioritizing spending in a way that served them best. She recalled that in 2014, the Florida Legislature expanded their agency as a regional agency, and she showed an image of their current board members. She stated that CFX owned, operated and maintained 125 center line miles of expressway throughout Central Florida, and that they had a few roads planned for Lake County. She commented that a few months prior, they had realized that they were surpassing miles traveled pre-COVID-19. She elaborated that they did not pause from a construction standpoint in the City of Orlando when COVID-19 hit; rather, they were able to accelerate many of their expansions. She explained that the master plan was the foundation for their five year work plan and their 15 year capital improvement program, noting that they met with hundreds of people in a year to receive their input. She mentioned that the previous master plan process was done in 2016, and they identified $11 billion of need in Central Florida, though were only able to fund about $9 billion. She stated that the CFX board recently passed a $3.2 billion work plan to serve Central Florida, and she listed the following projects from the master plan: a State Road (SR) 408/SR 417 interchange, noting that SR 417 nearly doubled in traffic volume in five years; improvements to the SR 528/SR 436 interchange which would be done in slightly over a year; and they were able to work with other transportation providers to allow them to use CFX’s right of way, noting that Brightline was the first example of this and that it would be open for service in 2023. She said that CFX was currently looking at expansions throughout their system, and that their portions of the Wekiva Parkway were opened to traffic a few years prior. She believed that FDOT would finish their portions of the Wekiva Parkway in 2023, and she mentioned that CFX acquired the Poinciana Parkway in Osceola County a few years prior. She commented that they were adding 55 lane miles of capacity through the system, and that SR 429 and SR 417, the beltway around Central Florida, had greatly increased in traffic; therefore, they were working to address this. She added that they had many studies going on in Central Florida, pointing out the Lake-Orange County Connection to connect U.S. 27 near Lake Louisa Park, to SR 429 where the Schofield Road interchange was. She explained that this project was currently under design and was funded for construction, noting that it could be a reliever to SR 50 and could help the development in that area. She stated that CFX also looked forward to making the Lake-Orange County Connector a proving ground for green research that they were doing with Commissioner Parks. She asked the Board how the CFX could serve them better, commenting that the BCC’s input was important and that the BCC could also help by distributing a survey to their residents.
Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Kelley, and he advocated for toll roads. He noted that the State of Florida was not an income tax state and that they had limited FDOT budgets. He clarified that these roads did not come out of the FDOT budget and that this was how they were built so quickly. He also pointed out that they had user fees.
Ms. Kelley confirmed this and said that CFX was the answer when there was no other way to fund an expressway; additionally, they were 100 percent self-funded. She said that the 125 center line miles they operated were the foundation for funding future roads.
Commr. Shields asked where they were with getting different toll passes such as E-PASS and SunPass synched up.
Ms. Kelley responded that they were a member of E-ZPass and that E-PASS or E-ZPass could be utilized on Central Florida expressways. She added that FDOT would be accepting E-ZPass in a few months, and individuals could also purchase the Uni toll pass which was a transponder that worked in 18 states along the eastern seaboard.
Commr. Smith inquired where the Brightline train ran from.
Ms. Kelley replied that it went from the City of Miami to the Cities of Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach; additionally, it would go to the Orlando International Airport in about one year.
Commr. Smith pointed out that from the City of Eustis to the City of Orlando, there were continuously welded tracks that could handle passenger train service.
Commr. Campione mentioned that Brightline was a private project.
Ms. Kelley confirmed this and added that CFX was just giving them an easement for right of way.
Commr. Campione recalled that when she was previously on the CFX board, they were launching a pilot for rental cars and E-ZPass. She asked if this had materialized or if they were relying on the online system.
Ms. Kelley said that they paused this service when COVID-19 happened, but they now had a visitor toll pass application which could be used to obtain a temporary pass for a rental car. She added that this would start in a few weeks with the Orlando International Airport and that they could now distribute transponders in places such as the Lake County Tax Collector’s Office.
Commr. Campione noted that there was an issue with visitors having to pay through the rental car companies and who were getting charged more to use the toll roads; furthermore, this was a great way to address this.
Ms. Kelley commented that this made rental cars able to pay tolls just like locals did, with no extra charges.
Commr. Parks thanked her for the Lake-Orange County Connector, noting that it would be a good example of a road that tried to address conservation and environmental issues. He said that there could be a future update on this road.
public works road workshop
Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented information related to County road infrastructure, operation and maintenance. He explained that road construction and maintenance were core functions of County government, and that the Lake County Public Works Department was responsible for the planning, implementation, and maintenance of the County road infrastructure. He said that for planning, the 20 year long range plan was coordinated with FDOT and the Lake-Sumter MPO which looked at state highways, collector roads, etc., and whether they needed to be improved.
Commr. Campione asked if he could elaborate about the Lake-Sumter MPO.
Mr. Schneider commented that the Lake-Sumter MPO was a federally required organization for area designated as urban in the census. He believed that around 2010, Lake County became an urbanized area; additionally, northeast Sumter County, which was a large area of The Villages, was urbanized, and it was required to have an organization that determined through local participation how federal funding would be spent within that area. He said that the two Counties and representatives of the Cities came together to annually look at the priorities and how to fund the system using federal and state funding. He mentioned that the BCC had the responsibility of how to spend the local funding and that this was coordinated closely with the Lake-Sumter MPO. He then resumed his presentation and said that the Public Works Department had regular inspection, maintenance, and repair of the County road infrastructure and that in Lake County, they had 1,285 miles of roadways which converted to about 2,700 lane miles. He listed the following items that were maintained in a roadway aside from resurfacing: shoulders; 110 miles of clay roads; curbs and stormwater systems; sidewalks, guardrails; 27 bridges; mowing, tree trimming and litter pickup; and traffic signals. He remarked that the county had 1,262 miles of asphalt, along with tar/gravel, concrete and clay roads; additionally, they had 193 miles of sidewalks and 20 miles of guardrails. He said that for maintenance for clay roads, the County addressed 113.5 for miles, noting that 3.5 miles were due to agreements with the Florida Forestry Service and the City of Umatilla to trade off maintenance. He elaborated that they had one remaining clay source in Lake County which had been in operation for about 40 or more years, and that it was located in the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park; furthermore, the remaining life of the clay borrow pit was about five to six years. He stated that expenditures for County maintained clay roads was about $327,000 annually, or about $3,000 per mile per year. He then remarked that there were hundreds of miles of non-County maintained roads that may or may not have public right of way, though the BCC had tasked the Public Works Department with trying to keep them open for emergency purposes using the clay material from the County borrow pit. He added that in the past year, they had used about 8,000 cubic yards of clay, and this was where most of the clay from the borrow pit went to. He mentioned that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 expenditure was $275,000 from the gas tax, noting that the County did not provide this service on private roads or roads that did not have dedicated public right of way. He said that if residents living on these roads wanted to have them paved, the County had a special assessment program to help fund this; furthermore, the BCC funded it out of gas tax for one-third to one-half of the cost, and the other two-thirds to one-half of the cost was assessed to the property owners. He clarified that there was a formal petition process for more than 50 percent of the owners who owned more than 50 percent of the roadways. He said that the County recently bid out the Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive project for about $972,000, noting that they were permitted and designed in-house to absorb those costs. He added that two other projects included Carlton Village and Cypress Drive which were awaiting funding to move forward with the special assessment process. He then stated that tree trimming provided safety for sight visibility and height clearance, noting that the County performed in-house tree trimming and contracted out $300,000 per year from the gas tax to do about 20 miles of roadway per year. He said that shoulder work was also a safety issue and that addressing drop offs prevented rollover crashes; additionally, it improved drainage and road safety, and the County currently did about five miles per year for about $250,000 from the gas tax. He stated that the County had 238 miles of sidewalks and that they had gotten caught up with much of it, noting that they had spent $1.6 million in the past five years for repairs; additionally, the Land Development Regulations (LDR) required new subdivisions to have sidewalks. He commented that for road resurfacing, they had 1,285 roadway miles, and the roads were reviewed annually and rated from one to ten, with ten being like a new road and one being the worst. He mentioned that some roads had gotten down to a level of four, noting that a roadway should start being treated at a six or seven; furthermore, it took more funding to repair roadways once they got to level four. He said that pavement typically had a 15 to 20 year surface life and that they should be addressing about five percent of their roads annually, or about 64 miles. He relayed that in FY 2020, the BCC took out about a $10 million loan to expend $5 million in the first year, and $5 million in the current year, along with three years of allocations of sales tax for resurfacing in the third year. He said that they were going to address all of the four rated roads, or 63 miles, and 28 miles of five rated roads. He stated that the County also saved $200,000 with a new bid rather than using the continuing contract, which allowed for the resurfacing of a few more miles of road. He indicated that there were still 262 miles of five rated roads and another 66 miles of four rated roads, and that it would take about $18 million to resurface all of the four rated roads and 56 miles of the five rated roads. He explained that they had 18 bridges and nine bridge culverts, and over the next five years they were looking at a refurbishment and replacement need that was currently unfunded for a number of culverts and bridges for a total of about $3 million. He mentioned that for road signal maintenance and equipment, they currently leased graders and loaders to save funding over the long run; however, the smaller trucks were kept for 12 to 20 years. He then provided the following summary of their infrastructure operations and maintenance: they maintained everything that went along the roadway and the side of the roadway; they did not have much time left for their clay borrow pit, noting that if another pit was not found, it would be about $100,000 annually to replace that clay; and their special assessment road paving program had relied on the gas tax and they were unable to move forward with a few of the projects currently.
Mr. Schneider then discussed revenue sources, and he showed a graph indicating revenue sources over the past 20 years. He pointed out the following revenue sources: gas tax; service fee revenue; municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) revenue which was only used for about four years; resurfacing loan; sales tax revenue; road impact fee revenue; and grant revenue mainly for new construction. He commented that gas tax revenue was their standard operation and maintenance fund and that it was a penny per gallon of gas, regardless of the cost of the gas; therefore, a penny in the year 2000 did not buy what it did currently. He noted a line on the graph that showed where the revenue should be if they kept up with the cost of inflation. He listed the following gas tax revenues: $13 million in 2018; $13.2 million in 2019; $12.2 million in 2020 due to COVID-19; $11.6 million in 2021; and they were hoping it would go up to about $12 million in 2022. He added that since the revenue dropped about $2 million over the previous two years, this was their reserve and was why they did not have gas tax available to do the other special assessment projects. He explained that they had about a 74 percent increase in population, more gallons of gas sold, more paved road miles, and an average required fuel economy increasing by 60.7 percent; additionally, electric vehicles were not paying to maintain roads due to not purchasing gas, and one could also drive much further in a hybrid vehicle without paying the gas tax. He also mentioned that inflation had a large increase. He displayed a chart with the projected five year need, noting that the currently unbudgeted maintenance need was about $9.3 million, or slightly less than $2 million per year. He said that the projected five year funding need was approximately $32 million if they were to put the $9 million into the previous three years for resurfacing, which was where the County should have been. He said that the five year transportation construction program was the capital program for new roads, sidewalks, etc., and that it would be discussed in September 2021. He added that FDOT often provided grant funds, but they needed a match; additionally, in the impact fee district areas, FDOT was projecting in the next budget year CR 466A Phase 3B at a cost of $7.2 million to finish that four lane roadway, noting that FDOT had agreed to fund $3.6 million with a match from the County of $3.6 million. He thought that the County’s impact fee funds would only have $237,000, so they would need about $3.37 million for that match. He commented that they may be able to delay the Eudora Road roundabout in the north central impact fee district due to the cost and the City of Mount Dora having to move utilities, and he thought that for Round Lake Road, they would have about $700,000 in the account; however, they still needed $1.3 million to meet FDOT’s $2 million match. He commented that the south impact fee district currently had a large fund, and that some items on the program that the Board had approved may have to be moved to accomplish the FDOT grant funding. He then discussed funding options and said that options to provide funding for the county road infrastructure maintenance included an MSTU, municipal service benefit unit (MSBU), five-cent local option gas tax, sales tax, and allocation of funds from other sources. He mentioned that the 2021 ARPA may provide funding to replenish the gas tax, and that Lake County currently accepted all new subdivisions into the County maintenance system, noting that they used gas tax revenue for maintenance of the new roadways. He stated that they used sales tax revenue for resurfacing, and that staff had researched how other jurisdictions maintained their roadways. He showed an evaluation of some other Counties and mentioned that some Counties which adopted a five-cent local option gas tax were still using other funding sources to supplement their needs. He then relayed the following funding options for road maintenance: option one which was status quo to continue with the current allocation of gas tax and sales tax if it increased over time; option two which was an MSTU allocation, or an MSBU/MSTU/private road allocation; option three for a five-cent local option gas tax; and option four for a General Fund allocation. He explained that the pro for status quo was that tax rates did not increase, though road infrastructure would continue to degrade over time. He added that for option two, staff had also considered allocating a portion of the existing Stormwater, Roads and Parks MSTU to road infrastructure, noting that there had been some funding from 2007 to 2011; additionally, they had also looked at how new subdivision roads would be maintained. He said that option 2A was to establish an MSTU or MSBU at the time of development approval to fund resurfacing, and option 2B could be to require all new subdivisions to have private roads. He gave the example that if there was a 16 lot rural subdivision with five acre lots, the cost to residents would be about $136 per year, or if there was a dense subdivision with less road frontage per lot, it could work out to be about $75 per year to resurface roads in 20 years. He said that the pro for option 2A was that it was a consistent designated funding source, and that the cons included that new residential development would require each lot owner to contribute to the fund, and that it was a long term needs option. He commented that for option 2B, pros would include that the road maintenance tied directly with the user, and the cons would include that the homeowners association (HOA) would have to manage its own funds. He said that for option three, the five-cent local gas tax, proceeds would be shared with municipalities, and it would bring in about $6 million per year with $4 million for the County and $2 million for the Towns and Cities. He elaborated that this option would provide a consistent designated funding source to help preserve the roadway system, and as vehicles became more fuel efficient, it would help keep the fund stable. He commented that the cons include an increase in gas tax, that it did not account for inflation over time, and that it was subject to downturns in the economy. He relayed that option four would allocate a portion of ad valorem tax revenue to the maintenance and resurfacing of roads, noting that the pro would be that it helped maintain the system, and the con would be a tax burden on all property owners. He then said that the Board could ask questions or staff could bring this item back at another time; additionally, there would be budget presentations on the following day and the Public Works Department would have a status quo budget.
Commr. Parks said that he had comment cards for this item and supported addressing them first.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Dan Robuck, speaking on behalf of the One Lake Team and The Lake 100, opined that there was a serious road issue, and relayed that the business community had been concerned about this for some time, noting that it affected economic development and quality of life. He commented that the One Lake Team had submitted some proposals, and he said that the County could possibly spend a certain percent of new construction ad valorem revenue for one year for roads. He also proposed possibly using federal funding to free up other funding for road resurfacing. He relayed his understanding that it was more economically feasible to pave unpaved roads, and he offered the business community’s help.
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the offer to help, noting that the One Lake Team was a group of chambers of commerce, businesses and stakeholders who were coming together to assist with the road issue.
Mr. Todd Drennan, with The Lake 100 and the Commercial Contractors Association (CCA) of Lake-Sumter, relayed his understanding that they had identified $700 million in new road construction needs in the county; furthermore, he believed that there was only $120 million budgeted over the next five years. He opined that this was something that was more challenging to do later when land was more expensive, and he expressed support for this. He opined that there were bits of budget that could be moved, and that there needed to be a priority for new roads and maintenance.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:42 a.m. for five minutes.
public works road workshop continued
Mr. David Colby, President of the South Lake Chamber of Commerce and with the South Lake Chamber Alliance and the One Lake Team, opined that this was a critical issue for businesses and that it was concerning to the business community that there was not a solid plan to move forward on this. He also said that the One Lake Team was here to support the BCC.
Mr. Mike O’Berry, with the One Lake Team and The Lake 100, opined that there needed to be additional investment in roads and infrastructure. He also opined that existing roads were deteriorating, and that there was a need for additional capacity in key areas. He commented that such investment was key to the economic viability of any community, and that it was critical to Lake County if the county wanted to participate in the growth and development of Central Florida. He supported choosing a funding option and remarked that it had to be the best mechanism to support the county’s need. He opined that the County also needed to show the State that it was making a good faith effort and therefore attract State investment. He opined that investment in infrastructure would also attract private investment, and that there was a payback in terms of jobs and the standard of living for existing and future residents. He urged the Board to give consideration to the funding of roads and infrastructure in the county.
Mr. Geoffery Chernault, Public Policy Chair for the Realtor Association of Lake and Sumter Counties, expressed concerns for the amount of funding that would have to be invested in roads, and he opined that the County would have to make some choices and come up with some funding. He noted that his organization, with the One Lake Team, had given some suggestions which included getting a general fund together and funding it over time. He expressed interest in supporting the Board in getting backing for these initiatives, noting that they had involvement in the business and residential communities.
Mr. Greg Beliveau, with The Lake 100 and the CCA of Lake-Sumter, said that his organization came up with some recommendations that were similar to Mr. Schneider’s; however, they recommended for the BCC to consider both options two and three as a comprehensive package. He mentioned that other Counties had MSTUs countywide, noting that Polk County expended $10 million to $12 million annually on road programs. He asked the Board to address this, and said that revenues would decrease as cars became more efficient.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Parks said that he agreed about a General Fund allocation, and opined that at some point the Board needed to make a commitment on that. He then asked Mr. Schneider to address Mr. Ault’s question from earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Schneider recalled that the question regarded roadway capacity, level of service (LOS) and concurrency. He explained that originally, the Federal Government came out with the Highway Capacity Manual, and that FDOT customized it for the State of Florida in the early 1990s as the FDOT LOS Manual. He elaborated that it was a planning document that attempted to replicate quality of life as a number, though there were methods and procedures that went beyond the planning tables to determine the capacity of the roadway. He recalled that when the Lake-Sumter MPO was formed, they took on the responsibility of managing concurrency for the County and the Cities; additionally, they ran their numbers through a consultant to determine the available capacity or LOS on a roadway. He added that they recently updated it with their 2040 plan, and that there were some minor changes in the FDOT LOS Manual which could affect this. He said that for concurrency, the Florida Legislature had curtailed the regulations which did not really allow any leeway for local agencies to require certain commitments from development. He stated that if a road was currently overcapacity and a developer came in, the statute said that the County could not prevent them from moving forward with their development; furthermore, the developer was not responsible for the previous overcapacity of the roadway. He added that if a development would make a road go overcapacity, then they were responsible for their proportionate share which would mainly be five percent of the cost of the roadway. He did not believe that this gave the landowner the right to change a land use to increase density. He also believed that the north section of Lakeshore Drive was still at capacity, but not necessarily where some other developments were coming in at the south end.
Commr. Campione noted that this also did not stop the landowner from using the density they already had. She questioned what authority the Board had to deny something based on the road capacity, and to require a developer to pay to bring a road up to standards or increase capacity. She relayed her understanding that the Florida Legislature took transportation concurrency away from local governments.
Mr. Schneider reiterated that there was still a proportionate share.
Commr. Campione noted that it was only a percentage of the overall cost.
Mr. Schneider mentioned that the Board could consider other things such as increased traffic on roadways creating a safety issue, if the road had paved shoulders, etc., as part of an evaluation of a development.
Commr. Campione said that capacity was strictly the number of cars, whereas the safety issues were a public safety consideration that local government could make when considering projects.
Mr. Schneider remarked that the FDOT LOS Manual was designed for state highways, noting that it was one of the planning tools that could be used, but it was not the only thing that the Board may want to consider.
Commr. Parks expressed concerns for roads just under the failing category and that if they went above it, there was nothing that could be done at that point according to the statute.
Mr. Schneider added that a LOS “F” road in Orange County might be different from one in Lake County. He was unsure if this was a requirement under concurrency to allow an increase to the zoning.
Commr. Smith asked to confirm that if a development came in and a road was overcapacity, then that developer had to pay a proportionate share.
Commr. Campione clarified that they did not have to pay once it went overcapacity; rather, they had to pay a proportionate share if they were about to exceed it.
Mr. Schneider added that they were not required to repair previously overcapacity roadways, noting that impact fees helped widen roadways and that the developer would pay this.
Commr. Campione said that the County would be looking at its impact fee study in the future and that it seemed that a number of roads in this category should be reflected in their impact fee.
Commr. Parks noted that the County was currently in the budget process, and that the business community and stakeholders were saying that this issue was critical for them in terms of making funding decisions in the current year. He thought that the Board had to do something that was not status quo when budgeting this, and he agreed with making some kind of General Fund commitment, noting that it had been recommended at two percent by the One Lake Team; additionally, this was also recommended 10 or 12 years prior by the Capital Facilities Advisory Committee. He said that there could be some way to graduate into this year by year if they started a commitment in the current year, and he believed that MSBUs could be key for new subdivisions. He also proposed possibly examining using MSTUs for the impacted collector roads.
Commr. Campione asked when they were going to be discussing federal funding and how they may be able to move things around and put funding into transportation.
Mr. Rosen replied that they were looking at a July 2021 timeframe. He said that the loss of revenue was aggregate, though they thought that there was the capacity to get some of that money back and that there may be an opportunity to possibly take some of it and put it toward roads as a one-time thing. He added that it may go into the next few years because the lost revenue was not just what was lost over the last year, but what would be lost during the three year period of the grant. He added that there may be an additional amount for the next two years; however, it would likely be significantly diminished from the first amount.
Commr. Campione stated that she would be in favor of looking at a draft ordinance, or MSTU or MSBU model, and possibly giving developers the option of going with the HOA funding versus the MSTU to fund roads. She noted that it was challenging enough to keep up with collector and primary roads, and she thought that the County should considering going this route in the future. She remarked that for the General Fund calculation, it could help for staff to do some modeling to show the Board what that revenue would look like and how much they could accomplish from a maintenance standpoint if they were to allocate a percentage of the General Fund.
Commr. Shields relayed that he was not a fan of the HOA model, noting that the HOAs could go away and the County would not have any influence over what happened. He added that the County could not fix something if they did not own it.
Commr. Parks agreed with this said that he had concerns with HOAs. He also noted that there would be an administrative cost to manage an MSBU.
Commr. Campione commented that they could make sure in the ordinance that they would grant access to the County to access the subdivision and address issues utilizing these funds.
Commr. Parks added that it could include right of way, sidewalk costs and water infrastructure within the MSBU.
Commr. Smith inquired if there would be a deeper dive on this on the following day.
Mr. Schneider clarified that the Public Works Department budget presentation would not get much more into this.
Commr. Smith agreed with Mr. Rosen that the federal funding they had coming in may be able to be utilized for other parts of their budget and then take that budget portion and put it toward roads. He also believed that they needed to have a long term solution, and he expressed support for the County doing the MSBUs rather than the HOAs because an HOA could go away.
Commr. Shields noted that the County could cover the administrative cost with the MSTU.
Commr. Campione pointed out that it would go on their tax bill and be perceived as a tax. She commented that this was an advantage she saw using an HOA, and she mentioned that some larger HOAs would have to stay around if they had amenities and it made sense. She mentioned that the Board could possibly do this based on a threshold of size for the project.
Commr. Smith said that this would be for new subdivisions and the person buying a house would understand it before buying the house.
Commr. Parks asked about the statute to vote on an MSBU if a neighborhood wanted to do this.
Ms. Marsh responded that MSTUs and MSBUs were established by the BCC through an ordinance, noting that they could use their special assessment process and ask for a 50 percent type of buy in from the residents, or they could just impose it and the residents would be notified and could come to a hearing to give their thoughts; furthermore, at that point the Board could choose whether to impose it or not.
Commr. Parks thought that the intent if they were to pass a new ordinance, it would be for new development.
Commr. Campione was unsure how they would address collector roads unless it was something like Wellness Way where everything was being built from scratch as part of a larger master plan.
Commr. Blake said that he liked the idea of an HOA being part of this, noting that when an HOA went defunct, they still had the option of putting up one third of the cost, and they could always come into County maintenance.
Mr. Schneider said that this had been implemented 20 years ago and if the HOA did not collect the funds to resurface the roads, there would likely be something similar to a special assessment, but it would be 100 percent paid by the property owners.
Commr. Blake expressed that he liked a combination of these options, that the HOA idea was good, and that the MSTU was worth looking at. He mentioned that in the past, he had brought up leaning more heavily on the Infrastructure Sales Tax which was about $17 million per year, though about $2.7 million was dedicated to bond payments. He noted that this left a significant amount of funding, and in the past he had recommended a one or two year reduction to help them catch up on certain projects. He also mentioned a possible 30 percent reduction in one year for items such as parks and trails. He thought that there could possibly be a combination of a percentage of new construction in the General Fund, and a temporary reduction in overall spending from the Infrastructure Sales Tax to help them catch up.
Commr. Parks asked what was available from their five year penny sales tax budget from ARPA funding that could replace $3.5 million immediately.
Ms. Jennifer Barker, Deputy County Manager, replied that they were still evaluating the guidance they received from the U.S. Department of Treasury, noting that there was a question of whether the County could use it for public health facilities and if a fire station counted as a public health facility. She mentioned that the County could use the lost revenue calculation which had to account for four percent growth per year, and then in each year they could recalculate their loss based on 2019 numbers. She added that this would be funding allowable for any usage at that point because it was based on lost revenue of the County in the aggregate. She said that there could possibly be items in the penny sales tax five year plan that they adopted for the current budget year that they could shift over and use ARPA funding for; however, she could not commit to this.
Ms. Marsh added that the interim rule the County was looking at was about a 160 page document, and she did not believe that it had been completely adopted yet. She mentioned that they also had separate guidance from the U.S. Department of Treasury, and they would probably do what they did with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act where they would update it every two or three weeks, answer questions, add uses, and take uses away. She stated that it was a work in progress and that staff was still trying to go through the 160 page interim rule to ensure that they were using it appropriately.
Ms. Barker remarked that as questions were asked of the U.S. Department of Treasury and they were answered, then the guidelines were further refined.
Commr. Smith stated that the Board understood that transportation infrastructure was a great need, and that they would do everything they could to enhance their infrastructure and roadways because they understood that it was a large economic development impact.
Commr. Parks agreed and thought that something had to get done in the current year. He said that other pressing questions included electric vehicles, noting that some Counties charged a fee for vehicle charging stations which went into their road fund. He noted that these vehicles could be heavier due to their batteries and could cause more wear on the roads, opining that it was something that the Board had to consider. He relayed that the additional five cent gas tax was not something that could be just rolled out and expect people to support them without it being clear what it would be spent on, when it would sunset, if it would go on the ballot, or if it was voted on by the BCC with a four-fifths vote. He said that this could take a lot of time, noting that what the Lake County Office of Communications was doing would be important to get the word out on a continuous basis for what the issues were and upcoming decisions.
Commr. Blake said that this option started out at a much smaller amount than one would think, and that it would shrink; furthermore, the other discussed options with the General Fund and Infrastructure Sales Tax would do a better job of keeping pace naturally.
Mr. Rosen relayed his understanding that the BCC was interested in seeing some version of a change to the code that would allow either an MSBU or a combination of an MSBU/HOA model to decide upon in the near future; therefore, staff could work on something like this to bring back for consideration. He added that staff had discussed some sort of consideration of the MSTU versus General Fund, and that it may be an issue to cover some recommendations from The Lake 100 and the BCC to address things without increasing the overall tax rate but still providing funding for some ongoing road issues. He said that the gas tax could be a long term proposal, and staff could bring back a presentation on it for consideration.
Commr. Campione expressed concerns that it would be a big deal if they workshopped a gas tax increase. She expressed opposition to it.
Commr. Blake stated that he was on the record opposing it.
Commr. Parks indicated his opposition without any further effort to educate and inform residents. He said to think about this issue before it was workshopped, but expressed interest in the other options. He indicated a concern with MSBUs and HOAs and said that the bar would be high for him with an HOA. He stated that he foresaw issues where future BCC members may have to make a decision if an HOA was not handled responsibly, and the County would be responsible for paying for the entire neighborhood.
Commr. Campione noted that sometimes in the past, the County had approved a subdivision which was annexed into a City, though the City refused to take care of the roads. She added that if this was in place, then she thought an MSTU imposed by the County would stay intact. She asked to confirm this, or if the City would receive the proceeds.
Ms. Marsh replied that she would have to look into this.
Mr. Rosen remarked that there were certain things that could be done to increase the life of a roadway, noting that this may be cheaper in the short term. He added that these were the kinds of things that he was discussing with staff, in addition to putting a plan together for the budget, what they had to spend, and what their ideas were when they came back for the actual spending plan. He elaborated that it would be looking at a four or five year plan to wean themselves off clay roads, noting that the maintenance and cost would be cheaper for asphalt roads; furthermore, over time they could use this funding toward maintaining items that they could not address at the current time.
Commr. Parks agreed that this was a long term decision that the Board would have to make. He then proposed addressing the rezoning agenda at the current time.
public hearings: REZONING
rezoning consent agenda
Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the Florida Statutes and LDR. He commented that there were four cases on the agenda; however, only Tab 1 was on the consent agenda. He mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of Tab 1, and staff requested that the BCC accept the recommendation and approve the consent agenda as presented.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Doc Kirby, the property owner for Tab 1, explained that they were trying to get the property rezoned to where they could have a nonprofit organization in the building. He clarified that it was a motorcycle club and was not a motorcycle gang.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tab 1, as follows:
Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2021-16
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-10-5
Southern Brotherhood Property
Amend Ordinance #2007-6 to allow office and private club uses.
rezoning regular agenda
Tab 2. Ordinance No. 2021-17
Rezoning Case # RZ-21-08-4
Davis Property Rezoning
Rezone approximately 25.65 +/- acres from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Agriculture District (A).
Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2
Lake Nellie Crossing PUD
Rezone approximately 117.05 +/- acres from Urban Residential District (R-6) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate a 102 dwelling single-family residential development.
Rezoning Case # FLU-21-01-1
Holiday Travel Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal)
Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 277.93 acres from Urban Low and Urban Medium to Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Category (FLUC) and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Holiday Travel RV Park which will include 995 temporary RV spaces, 112 mobile home sites, and associated facilities.
davis property rezoning
Mr. McClendon presented Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-08-4, Davis Property Rezoning. He said that the case was located on the north side of Wolf Branch Road, in Commission District 4, with a tract size of approximately 25 acres; furthermore, the request was to rezone the 25 acres from the existing planned unit development (PUD) to Agriculture. He showed maps of the subject property, noting that the future land use (FLU) of the property was identified as Rural Transition, noting that the applicant was looking to downzone the property. He commented that there was an existing 2006 ordinance on the property which allowed up to 25 single family lots with a gross density of one dwelling unit per one net acre, and that the request was consistent with the Rural Transition FLU. He added that the applicant was only looking for a single family dwelling unit on this property, with associated accessory uses of a barn. He mentioned that the request was consistent with the surrounding Agriculture zoned lands, and the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval; furthermore, the requested action was to find the application consistent with the Comp Plan and approve the downzoning.
Commr. Campione asked why this case was not on the consent agenda.
Mr. McClendon recalled that it was pulled at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and that there were some initial questions from surrounding property owners as to what exactly was happening.
Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 2, Rezoning Case # RZ-21-08-4, Davis Property Rezoning.
lake nellie crossing pud
Mr. McClendon presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing PUD. He explained that the case was on the east side of Lakeshore Drive, north of Suggs Road in Commission District 2. He elaborated that total tract size of the property was about 117 acres, with roughly 102 acres being developable. He relayed that the requested action was to rezone the approximately 117 acre property from Urban Residential (R-6) to PUD to accommodate a single family subdivision. He showed maps of the property and pointed out that the FLU was identified as Rural Transition, and he displayed the concept plan, noting that it exhibited the required 50 percent open space. He then added that none of the proposed residential lots would abut Little Lake Nellie. He relayed the following staff analysis findings: the application was requesting a 102 lot subdivision; Rural Transition had three development options with the first being a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres, the second being one dwelling unit per three net acres with some substantial open space requirements, and the third being one dwelling unit per acre with 50 percent open space, noting that the plan was developed as a rural cluster subdivision; the plan exhibited the 50 percent open space down to one unit per acre, which was consistent with the Comp Plan; there were central water services to the site, though there was no central sewer to the site; the Public Works Department and the Lake-Sumter MPO reviewed the application and noted that this segment of Lakeshore Drive was not overcapacity; the Lake County School Board reviewed this proposal and had indicated through their adequate public facilities determination that, if this were approved, Pine Ridge Elementary School would be at 90 percent capacity, Cecil Gray Middle School would be at 73 percent capacity, and South Lake High School would be at 87 percent capacity; and the surrounding subdivisions were consistent with regards to density. He displayed information for similar subdivisions to the north, south, east and west, and pointed out that they were in the range of one dwelling unit per acre to 2.68 dwelling units per acre. He recalled that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of this request and had found it consistent with the Comp Plan and LDR; therefore, the requested action was to approve the rezoning to PUD.
Commr. Parks asked the Board to disclose ex parte discussions.
Commr. Shields remarked that he had discussions with Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant.
Commr. Smith said that he had emails and personal conversations with several people.
Commr. Parks stated that he had emails, along with discussions with Ms. Bonifay and the applicant.
Commr. Campione commented that she received emails.
Commr. Blake relayed that he received emails from individuals in the neighborhood and had a phone conversation with Ms. Bonifay.
Commr. Shields asked what would be the total number of homes allowed if they had not gone through the PUD process.
Mr. McClendon replied that based on the net developable acreage of 102 acres, and with the base density of one unit per five acres, it would be 20 units that could proceed as a straight plat. He added that when utilizing the one dwelling unit per acre option, the Comp Plan basically forced going through the PUD zoning process.
Commr. Campione asked if the 20 allowable units was because of the underlying land use, and Mr. McClendon confirmed this. Commissioner Campione then inquired if the adjacent subdivisions were on septic systems.
Mr. McClendon believed that the nearest sewer line was almost two miles to the north, though there was potable water.
Commr. Smith asked to confirm if there was a new septic service that turned wastewater into a reclaimed water condition.
Commr. Campione wondered whether the BCC would have the authority to impose a condition that the applicant utilize something like the Onsyte wastewater system, though the County would have to serve as the utility provider because there was a bill associated with it.
Commr. Parks mentioned that she was probably referring to distributed wastewater treatment systems (DWTS), which were different than high performance septic tanks, noting that septic tanks did not really treat nutrient loading. He commented that a DWTS was basically the same as a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Rosen commented that he and Commissioner Campione went to see a DWTS, and since that time he had the Public Works Department work with staff to evaluate the science and ensure that it was something that could work for sensitive areas or areas that may not have the ability to get sewer.
Mr. Schneider explained that staff was working on a presentation for the Board at the second BCC meeting in June or early July 2021 to look at the efficiency of existing septic tanks, advanced treatments and the Onsyte system, which was permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as a utility and required a utility operator. He said that they would want to look at how this could work for new subdivision requirements that may be needed in the code or LDR, noting that this was currently being evaluated by staff. He commented that the Board could have the requirements countywide, could require it for new subdivisions, or could require it near sensitive areas.
Commr. Campione said that if this was done countywide, people could be given the option to do this and the County could serve as the provider. She noted that one did not have to put sewer lines in and that there was not a central plant.
Mr. Rosen added that this may be a possible use for ARPA funding.
Commr. Smith remarked that it served as an individual wastewater treatment plant which he opined was better for the lakes, aquifer, and everything else involved.
Ms. Bonifay showed the site plan and said that they started this process in November 2020, noting that they applied for a Comp Plan amendment to low density residential along with a PUD zoning. She elaborated that after having a community meeting in January 2021 and talking to Commissioner Shields, who was concerned for Comp Plan amendment changes, the applicant went back and reduced the proposed 243 units to 109 units; additionally, they dropped the application for the Comp Plan amendment. She stated that to meet all of the requirements for low density residential and to do things that were needed, they reduced the unit count again to 102 units on 117 acres, with 50 percent open space. She mentioned that unlike other zoning or land use classifications in the county, in low density residential one had to put all of that area in a recorded conservation easement. She commented that this was an R-6 zoning and that the surrounding area was also R-6. She elaborated that when the County changed its Comp Plan in 2010 or 2011 and reduced much of the density around the county in terms of the land use classification, the County never went back and did an administrative rezoning so that the zoning was consistent with the land use. She mentioned that they had rural density in land use, and R-6 zoning, noting that they could not do a straight zoning because this was not allowed under the Comp Plan; furthermore, this was when staff had said that the applicant needed to put this in the form of a PUD. She also stated that the applicant was originally requesting certain waivers and that they had been eliminated. She relayed that they had been working with the Public Works Department, noting that the ordinance had a number of transportation requirements and conditions.
Commr. Parks mentioned the DWTS.
Ms. Bonifay thought that their concern was what this entailed and what the cost was, and she noted that it required the local government to serve as the utility in dealing with them. She said that the only example she could find was a subdivision in the City of Apopka, but the City had taken an existing subdivision and the City itself went through the program through their public works department; additionally, the City was paying for the cost of the replacement to the Onsyte system and was monitoring it. She thought that her client’s concern was the cost per house that they would be passing onto a resident, with no County participation or assistance, and also if there was no County structure to be that utility and do oversight, then was this more of a cost to each individual resident. She added that they had also had some more road improvements that they wanted to put forth.
Commr. Campione pointed out that they could be paying to put in sewer lines when they built their roads, and she relayed her understanding that the City of Apopka situation was done as a pilot; however, she thought that others had been done in the state where there were new subdivisions.
Ms. Bonifay relayed that this was the only one that was demonstrated in Central Florida, and she said it seemed to her that this was something that the County would want to do in the Green Swamp since it was an area of critical state concern and septic tanks were still installed there. She commented that with a sewer line, the developer had to run a main line throughout the subdivision, and each resident would pay the connection fee.
Mr. Rosen said that it was mentioned with the City of Apopka retrofitting project that it would have cost $88,000 per home on average to get the sewer there, versus a cost of $12,000 to $16,000 per home to put these units in; therefore, it was a savings.
Ms. Bonifay stated that they received estimates from $10,000 to $25,000 for one of these systems.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peter Strauder, a resident on Grand Bay Road, expressed concerns for being able to see homes out of his back window. He relayed his understanding that the school capacity could be accommodated but that there would have to be mitigation, which he opined could include school rezonings or the use of portables. He commented that the review did not include already reserved capacities, and he questioned the impact of this. He thought that the school input was not correct or valid, and he expressed concerns for traffic and safety on Lakeshore Drive. He also opined that when the Board was dealing with new development, it would face some challenges if it was an HOA.
Mr. Joseph House, a resident of Lake County, opined that the county was in need of infrastructure upgrades. He recalled that in October 2019, Lake County borrowed $10 million to fund road repairs, and he opined that Lakeshore Drive west of the bridge over Lake Susan had cracked streets, potholes, fading lines, and aggressive drivers. He expressed concerns for deaths due to traffic issues, and he thought that the County needed to determine a true number of what the roadway was for the previous year. He stated that if the Board approved this request, then he supported putting it on the developer to find this number so that the taxpayers would not be paying for the saturation of the roads.
Mr. Keith Cartwright, a resident on Royal Vista Avenue, said that his lot line would face some of the houses from the proposed development. He expressed concerns for safety along Lakeshore Drive, and he opined that the traffic studies were inaccurate in depicting what was really occurring on the roadways. He commented that he had recently dealt with water pressure issues, and he expressed concern for the impact of 102 homes. He thought that they had to consider the impacts of growth, especially in that area, noting the lakes and the Green Swamp. He opined that they needed to continue creating buffers between land and green space to help with this. He asked the Board to think about safety, the environment, and the estuary of that area.
Mr. Ault opined that there was an assumption that people were entitled to the maximum allowed density, noting that the Comp Plan had a list of acceptable uses within a land use map. He relayed his understanding that there were multiple levels of PUDs that the applicant could request, but that they were requesting the most intense. He expressed a concern for the surrounding area being expected to absorb intense development, and he mentioned concerns for traffic accidents and the road. He opined that it was a constrained corridor, and he expressed opposition to maxing out the densities there. He also opined that the discussion about enhanced septic systems should have been had previously with another development.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the County did not know about the system at that time.
Ms. Sally Imhoff, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for being impacted by what the Board decided. She indicated concerns for traffic and noise, and she encouraged the Board to visit the area. She relayed that it was a two lane road and that it was a residential area.
Mr. Vincent Niemiec, a resident of Regency Hills, indicated concerns that Lakeshore Drive could become similar to Hartwood Marsh Road and that there would be an issue getting it expanded. He urged the Board to vote for smart planning.
Mr. John Cowart, a resident on Royal Vista Avenue, opined that the applicant’s motivation was to make money, and that the residents’ motivation was to preserve their homes. He commented that the zoning could not be changed back, and he questioned how the County could address Lakeshore Drive.
Commr. Parks remarked that the developers were local and supported the community.
Mr. Strauder stated that there was another project on Lakeshore Drive called Saddlebrook to put in 285 homes.
Commr. Parks clarified that they were only discussing the subject case today.
Mr. Ross stated that there was one hand raised on Zoom Webinar.
Mr. Jose Portella, a resident on Little Nellie Drive, indicated concerns for water traffic on Little Lake Nellie through irrigation pipes through the lake. He also relayed concerns for the quality of the lake and for the people who enjoyed the lake. He expressed interest in preserving the lake.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bonifay opined that it was inappropriate to use this zoning case as an example to say that the data that came from the Lake County Public Works Department was not accurate. She mentioned declining traffic on Lakeshore Drive and opined that 2020 was an aberration because of the pandemic; however, the data was taken in June 2020. She added that the applicant would have to conduct a traffic impact analysis, noting that the methodology went to the Lake-Sumter MPO and County staff. She also clarified that school mitigation meant that one would pay additional money beyond their impact fees when platting. She mentioned that there would be no lake access, and she pointed out the surrounding areas on a map, noting that there was high density on parts of the lake. She said that the applicant would offer some additional conditions for transportation; furthermore, the ordinance indicated that they would have to provide additional right of way for Lakeshore Drive, Suggs Road, True Life Way and Royal Vista Avenue. She added that traffic calming would be required with subdivision road design, speed tables and similar items. She commented that sidewalks were required within the development and along Lakeshore Drive and Royal Vista Avenue, and the applicant had agreed that there would be a left turn lane into this project on Lakeshore Drive, noting that they would need some widening. She said that the County Attorney had provided her with the language included in the approved Rubin Groves project about future road maintenance being done through an MSTU or an MSBU, and she displayed this language; furthermore, they were willing to add this as a condition to pay for the public roads. She said that another issue was about resurfacing the portion of road in front of the proposed development, and she introduced Mr. Mohammed Abdallah, with Traffic and Mobility Consultants and representing the applicant, to discuss how this would work with the left turn lane.
Mr. Abdallah relayed his understanding that there would be an improvement to Lakeshore Drive that they would be implementing. He explained that as part of the access connection to Lakeshore Drive, the project had proposed an expansion of the roadway to install a left turn lane to ensure enhanced safety on the road. He commented that there was a significant segment of road that would have to be impacted, and they would have to widen the road there; therefore, they would have about 700 or 800 feet of roadway to improve. He noted that they would expand this to include paved shoulders and that a bicyclist could use this section. He mentioned that FDOT’s counts showed a similar trend that from 2016 until the current date, traffic on Lakeshore Drive had been consistently declining because it was consistent with national trends of how individuals drove.
Ms. Bonifay reiterated that the concern with the septic tank system was not knowing what cost they would have to pass on to residents, and if they agreed to this, there was nothing currently in place with the County that would function like a utility. She mentioned that they had thought of if they could include in the covenants or restrictions that each owner would have to have some form of septic system inspected every three years. She also remarked that no one was guaranteed the maximum density in the Comp Plan, though these improved functions could not be done with only 20 units. She said that they would also add a condition, other than the entranceway, to use native Florida or drought resistant plants; additionally, she believed that there was already a condition for dark sky lighting. She was unsure what the compromise could be for the septic systems because she was unsure if they knew enough about these systems and how that would relate to the County being the utility. She relayed her understanding that Ms. Marsh had indicated that it was included in the Rubin Groves development; however, she was unsure of the timing of this or how it would operate.
Ms. Marsh clarified that the County did not add the enhanced septic systems to Rubin Groves, and this would be a new condition if the Board chose to add it at the current meeting. She elaborated that the County would have to consider how they would structure their code, and how they would set up a way to monitor this and bill for it. She commented that the Board could add a condition that some type of alternative enhanced septic system would be required, and giving examples of this particular system if the County was in a position to monitor it or bill for it at whatever time the developer was ready to develop.
Ms. Bonifay said that this could be an alternative to look at some other form of system because they still had to go through preliminary and final platting. She noted that they could see where the County was at that point in time.
Commr. Campione stated that it seemed that there would still be sufficient time to get things in place if this were approved on the current date. She relayed her understanding that Ms. Marsh could draft language that if the applicant was not satisfied with the outcome of the cost of these systems, then it could come back to the Board and they could defer to the enhanced systems as opposed to the Onsyte program. She opined that the utility part was not significantly difficult, and she said that she foresaw that in the future the County would probably go down this road and have a structure where bills would be sent out and paid. She questioned if the applicant would agree without all of the details, or if they should postpone the item 30 days to get the details together and decide whether they were acceptable to the applicant.
Commr. Blake said that he would like the County to not be in the utility business.
Commr. Parks relayed that he could not support the application at the current time and that they would have to get the DWTS in place first. He also thought that they were struggling to address the perception and quality of life on Lakeshore Drive, and he opined that it was a challenging area. He opined that they needed to address traffic calming, safety and reduced speed limits, but, per numbers and standards, they were not supposed to do this at the current time.
Ms. Bonifay asked if there could possibly be a 30 day continuance. She commented that concurrency was not a legal basis to deny a project per the Florida Statutes, and she opined that the only evidence presented, aside from Mr. Ault’s interpretation, was a traffic engineer who obtained data from FDOT and the Lake County Public Works Department. She requested 30 days to address the Onsyte system versus an improved septic system, and to see if there were other remedies for traffic. She also relayed her understanding that her partner represented the developers of another project in the area and that they had not filed anything due to the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and CR 561, but they were looking for alternatives.
Commr. Parks expressed support for a 30 day continuance.
Commr. Smith said that he was fine with a 30 day continuance and that he had been to Lakeshore Drive. He stated that he was interested in what they could do with the enhanced septic systems.
Commr. Shields opined that Lakeshore Drive was an issue and said that he did not want to add to the issue. He expressed concerns for safety and stated that he would rather not do a continuance, noting the number of homes and the traffic it could generate.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she had brought up the Onsyte system because of a concern for water quality, noting that they had opportunities to use new technology to protect their resources. She opined that the area was at a tipping point and that just because things had been done in the past did not mean that they should continue to do them this way. She opined that they needed to look at better ways to address water protection, in addition to how they decided densities and land uses. She commented that the second issue she had was safety, and she thought that there was a major safety issue on Lakeshore Drive. She questioned if any number could be a safe number, but noted that there were rights associated with this property; furthermore, she said that she was having a challenging time understanding how they could add additional units safely when considering that they already had issues.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board continued Tab 3, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing PUD to the June 22, 2021 BCC meeting.
Commr. Shields and Commr. Campione voted no.
holiday travel future land use map amendment (transmittal)
Mr. McClendon presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-01-1, Holiday Travel Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal). He explained that the case was north of CR 33 and west of U.S. 27, within Commission District 1, and the tract size was approximately 278 acres. He said that the request was to amend the FLU map from Urban Low and Urban Medium to PUD, in order to codify the trailer/recreational vehicle (RV) park. He said that the existing zoning was Mobile Home Rental Park (RMRP), and he displayed the split FLU between Urban Medium and Urban Low, along with the proposed PUD FLU. He explained that the property obtained their original conditional use permit (CUP) for the RV park in 1971, and he displayed a concept plan. He noted that the proposed amendment sought to expand the park and establish a development program consisting of 995 temporary RV spaces, 112 mobile homes, and associated facilities including recreational facilities. He relayed that the proposed amendment was consistent with all elements of the Comp Plan, and that the subject property was surrounded by other existing mobile home parks; therefore, this proposed amendment would result in orderly and logical development. He mentioned that the main function of utilizing the PUD land use was just to codify the development program to lock in their densities and intensities, and that after transmittal, there would also be a PUD rezoning associated with this to establish specific conditions. He commented that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to transmit this amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO), and if the BCC chose to transmit the FLU amendment, the State had 45 to 90 days to respond, at which point staff would bring forward the PUD rezoning to set specific conditions within the project; however, in this instance, it was just to lock in the development program.
Commr. Parks asked if there were any ex parte discussions for this case, but the Board indicated that there were none.
Commr. Campione asked if any specifics about the design would be addressed during the PUD rezoning, and if this was strictly to put the land use in place to allow that type of a PUD.
Mr. McClendon confirmed both of these items.
Commr. Campione then inquired if that was when the Board would be able to guarantee that these were RV spaces.
Mr. McClendon explained that they would lock in the conceptual plan at that point, along with where RV spots and certain facilities would be located.
Commr. Campione commented there was an RV park on Lake Yale and that the units became permanent over time, opining that it had created issues. She opined that the county was lacking in true RV parks, and she expressed a concern for this.
Mr. Jimmy Crawford, an attorney representing the applicant, stated that there were a couple hundred permanent residents currently. He said that he could meet with Commissioner Campione to discuss those issues.
Commr. Campione clarified that she was not suggesting that people would be displaced; rather, she was hoping that this could provide a place where people could bring an RV.
Mr. Crawford said that the new proposed spots were called transient sites, and that this was the impetus for this item.
Commr. Campione mentioned that there was a property near the Lake County Fairgrounds where a certain number of people left their units there, and then there were other sites that were for people who came with their RV seasonally. She said that she would like to know more about the details.
Mr. Crawford reiterated that he could meet with her before the PUD zoning came back. He then explained that this case was to address an imprecision in their Comp Plan designation, noting that his office identified between 15 and 20 existing mobile home/travel RV campground parks in the unincorporated county that were not recognized by the current Comp Plan. He said that the subject property was low and medium density, that they currently had about 925 units on 140 net acres, and that it did not meet any density requirements of the Comp Plan. He stated that when the current owner bought the property, they came in to try to revise the master park plan with the County, and the County had indicated that they were inconsistent with the Comp Plan. He noted that they had issues with people adding a porch because they would be expanding a nonconformity, and he relayed that they had met with staff and proposed a possible mobile home/RV park Comp Plan designation; however, it was instead proposed to address them through a PUD. He commented that they were asking for 63 additional transient units, and he recalled that several unit owners attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting with questions about the PUD zoning, amenities, recreation, and the water and sewer plant; therefore, they scheduled a resident meeting on April 20, 2021, noting that residents had concerns about recreation, the softball field, parking, an annual craft fair, a snack shack, and the definition of “temporary,” noting that currently the park only allowed temporary residents. He stated that they were working with staff and residents through this process, and that those items were PUD zoning issues that they would be back for. He clarified that the current item was only for transmittal of the land use plan amendment, and he added that the U.S. Navy had expressed a concern about the Bugg Springs issue; furthermore, they would be contacting the U.S. Navy before coming back to the BCC for PUD zoning. He added that when they received the draft PUD ordinance, they would post it on the owner’s website and the office.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Duval, a resident of the subject property, said that his interest was the softball field. He also asked about permanent residents, noting that he was only at the property six months per year. He questioned if only so many permanent residents would be allowed.
Commr. Campione thought the idea was that nothing currently there would change, and that this would memorialize the number. She also thought that in this case, they were basically trying to recognize what was already there but allow things to be upgraded.
Mr. McClendon confirmed this and said that they were not looking to displace.
Ms. Garnetta Mallory, a resident of the subject property, said that they were now year round, but the definition of an RV resident was six months and then one would move. She relayed that she could see that the current six month people would be grandfathered in. She described an RV and said that they considered themselves permanent even though they were not there for twelve months per year. She also indicated a concern for the addition of water and sewer at a later date, and the cost given to the owners which she opined would be passed onto the residents of the park.
Mr. Bill Mallory, a resident of the subject property, stated that he represented the softball program. He relayed his understanding that the proposed plan would take away the existing softball field, and said that the players asked that it be considered to keep the existing field. He mentioned the new ballpark being proposed, and he relayed concerns for parking, for residents possibly being hit by softballs, and the spray field which the new ballpark was considered to be built on, opining that this was a health concern because the spray field had been there for many years.
Ms. Ashley Monnier, Community Planning Liaison Officer for Naval Support Activity Orlando and representing mission interests for Naval Undersea Warfare Center Okahumpka mentioned that the U.S. Navy’s mission in Okahumpka relied on the attributes that were unique to Bugg Springs. She said that additional sound and water consumption in that area could have a negative impact on the military operations conducted there each day, and she asked to remain apprised and for there to be communication with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in the State of Rhode Island. She said that they looked forward to continue to ensure that the mission impacts were fully evaluated and that if there were any mitigating factors that could be included in the planning process, they would like to do this at the earliest opportunity.
Commr. Parks said that they could stay in contact and communicate as much as they could.
Mr. McClendon commented that staff would be reaching out as part of the rezoning application. He added that on page two of seven of the ordinance, staff had no objection to striking the word “temporary” so that it would only reference 995 RV spaces.
Mr. Crawford remarked that this was amicable and that they would work with staff for the PUD zoning ordinance language, though they did not want any conflict with the Comp Plan.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Crawford noted that it was a deed restricted 55+ community; therefore, there would be no student impact from any of the permanent residents there. He mentioned that they were discussing water and sewer with staff, noting that the connection fees for City of Leesburg water and sewer were about $2,000 per unit; however, the property’s plant was found to be fine for the next phase of expansion. He said that many residents wished not to connect at the current time due to the cost, and that they would see if they could keep this phase on the plant they had; furthermore, if it was an acceptable environmental solution, then they would likely ask for the mandatory water and sewer connection to be deferred. He said that they were fine with a condition in the PUD ordinance that the ballpark had to be finished and accepted prior to the new spots being constructed, and he mentioned that there was soil and water testing required for the spray field.
Commr. Shields mentioned that he had toured the U.S. Navy base and that it was impressive. He mentioned the need for water quality and quietness.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Tab 4, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-01-1, Holiday Travel Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal).
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 1:23 p.m. for 45 minutes.
office of Fire Rescue budget presentation
Chief Jim Dickerson, Director for the Office of Fire Rescue, mentioned that this presentation would include the following: an overview of the organization; the organizational chart; accomplishments; efficiencies; benchmarks with other Counties; the departmental budget; and unfunded needs. He explained that the Office of Fire Rescue provided protection of life, property and environment by responding to calls for fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), and other emergencies. He added that they also had the countywide Special Operations Team which responded to hazardous material incidents, technical rescue calls, wildland fire suppression, and rural search and rescue; additionally, they delivered antivenom to snake bite victims. He said that they had members as part of Florida Task Force 4, were involved with the Local Emergency Planning Council, and operated under the Florida State Emergency Response Commission for statewide deployments. He listed the following community outreach programs, noting that they were suspended during the pandemic: smoke detector blitzes; Fired-Up Reading in schools; an automated external defibrillator (AED) program; blood pressure/wellness checks; fire safety education in schools; fire extinguisher training; and a pre-incident planning program. He displayed the organizational chart and noted that it showed 270 full-time employees (FTEs) and included seven new positions that they were looking at for the following year. He commented that as of June 6, 2021, they would have nine battalion chiefs, noting that they currently had six, and that they currently had one battalion chief covering 578 square miles and 13.5 stations. He elaborated that when they added the three battalion chiefs, they would have one battalion chief per 386 miles and nine stations; furthermore, this would get a commander on scene more quickly. He said that they had 72 lieutenants and 177 firefighters, though six firefighters were new positions. He commented that they had one captain in the training division who was responsible for 255 personnel; therefore, they decided to put a division chief there to give some oversight and reduce the workload for that captain by about 50 percent. He also said that they were able to add a data technician back into their FTE program and save money. He listed the following accomplishments: responded to about 24,000 calls for service in 2020; expanded Rural Rescue program with the addition of the Rescue 15 ambulance; implemented a system-wide mobile data terminal (MDT) program; certified 20 EMTs as paramedics; upgraded basic life support (BLS) Fire Station 56 in the City of Fruitland Park to advanced life support (ALS); Hurricane Laura deployment; and broke ground on the new Fire Station 39 in Sorrento. He also listed the following efficiencies: implemented an in-house N-95 respirator sterilization process; executed agreements with the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park for fire service delivery within the city limits; secured a $1.7 million U.S. Department of Homeland Security Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant for nine new firefighter positions, noting that this was 100 percent grant funded; secured a $361,000 Assistance to Firefighters Supplemental grant for personal protective equipment (PPE) to assist with COVID-19 mitigation and response, noting that this was 90 percent grant funded; completed fire station improvements through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which was 75 percent grant funded, installed generators at the seven remaining stations; hardening 19 fire stations to category four; and reduced the average fleet age from 17.6 to 13.6 years old. He displayed several benchmarks with surrounding counties in the areas of number of fire stations, number of personnel, calls for service in 2020, and cost per capita in FY 2021. He noted that Lake County was in the middle with 27 fire stations, that Lake County was third from the last for number of personnel and amount of calls in 2020, and that Lake County was next to the lowest in cost per capita for FY 2021 at about $169. He showed a chart for fire revenue, commenting that they were just above $25 million in FY 2018; additionally, they were now just above $35 million. He mentioned that it was recommended that they have 17 percent of their operating budget as their beginning fund balance, and their goal was to meet this in the next couple of years. He said that their overall proposed budget for FY 2022 was $35,278,453, and that their proposed personal services budget was $25,009,257 for the following year for about an 8.5 percent change, noting that most of it was due to the SAFER positions and the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park positions. He commented that operating expenses were mostly flat, that capital outlay was only up about $35,000, that their transfers were just about flat, and that their reserves decreased by roughly 39 percent; however, about $600,000 of this was for an agreement that was just approved, and the other approximately $400,000 was for the six positions that they hired in March 2021 for the City of Fruitland Park. He clarified that those positions were already budgeted in this current budget, but they did not have them approved because they did not know if the merger was going to happen. He explained that the approximate 39 percent reduction was in operating reserves, and not in emergency reserves; rather, they increased their emergency reserves by about $100,000 or 25 percent. He concluded by listing the following unfunded needs: achieve staffing goal of three personnel per fire truck, or 60 additional firefighters, for $3.9 million; fire station additions and replacements for $12.6 million; apparatus exhaust removal system for cancer prevention at a cost of $715,000; and a training center replacement for $2.7 million.
Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for his hard work.
Chief Dickerson said that he could not do it without the support of BCC, Mr. Rosen, Ms. Barker, and everyone else. He opined the previous year had been challenging but that they were starting to make some headway.
Commr. Parks mentioned the partnerships with the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park, along with the Town of Montverde.
Chief Dickerson said that the City of Fruitland Park Fire Chief had been supportive and that it had been a great transition.
Commr. Campione brought up an event in the previous week at Altoona Charter School.
Chief Dickerson recalled an August 2020 call from the Altoona Charter School to assist a teacher who was having a stroke; furthermore, the patient was released on the next day with a stroke scale of zero and was back in the classroom on the following week. He commented that the Lake County Office of Fire Rescue got together with the Air Care team for the event, which brought their stroke team out, and Commissioner Campione also attended. He remarked that it was a great event and that the Altoona Charter School website had a video.
Commr. Campione recalled that they had the helicopter come in and that the students watched and had an opportunity to meet pilots and the medical staff. She added that the Lake County Offices of Fire Rescue and EMS were also in attendance, and that the teacher was grateful to be alive.
Chief Dickerson thought that the message was to make an early notification and one would have a good chance of walking away from a stroke without any deficits as long as they got to the comprehensive stroke center within four to five hours. He thanked Commissioner Campione for attending.
Commr. Parks proposed to hear Tab 34 at the current time.
public hearing: RESOLUTION TO VACATE PLATTED RIGHTS OF WAY
Mr. Schneider presented the public hearing for vacation petition #1260, noting that the applicants were Mr. Richard Aycock and Ms. Charlotte Aycock. He explained that the proposed vacation was located northeast of Lake Yale in the City of Umatilla area, in Commission District 5, and that it was south of CR 450 and north of Lake Yale Road. He displayed the property map and noted the old public right of ways that were platted many decades prior and no longer served a public purpose; furthermore, the property owner owned all of the properties that surrounded it, and there were no issues with anyone not having legal access in the future. He relayed that there had been no letters of support or objection, and that utilities were notified and there were no issues. He added that the County mailed certified notices to adjacent property owners, that it was advertised on April 27, 2021, and that signs were posted. He commented that staff recommended adoption of a resolution to vacate portions of platted rights of way on the plat of the Town of Hampton.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2021-87 to vacate portions of platted rights of way on the plat of the Town of Hampton located south of County Road 450, and north of Lake Yale Road in the Umatilla area.
PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2021 FIRE ASSESSMENT STUDY
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that this presentation would include the following items: an overview; the fire assessment study; calculated rates; next steps; and the requested action.
Ms. Nilgun Kamp, with Tindale Oliver, provided the following overview information: the fire assessment was used to fund fire protection services such as fire suppression, fire prevention, fire building inspections, and first response medical services, or BLS; it cannot fund ALS services; the fire assessment study had been performed annually for 19 years by a consultant; the study examined the utilization of fire services in seven land use categories; assessment rates were calculated annually based on the allocation of resources and the assessable portion of the proposed budget; and Tindale Oliver had been tasked with providing the 2021 update study. She commented that the previous update included incident data from 2010 to 2019 and the FY 2021 assessable budget. She mentioned that the current update included incidents for 2011 through 2020, updated property units, and the FY 2022 requested budget, noting that they excluded expenses related to ALS and dedicated revenues; furthermore, program related expenses were added into it. She recalled that the previous study had a budget of about $32.5 million and an assessable budget of roughly $23.3 million; additionally, the current study had a requested budget of approximately $35.3 million, and about $24.5 million was assessable for a roughly five percent increase in the assessable budget. She relayed the following findings: a reduction in the non-ALS portion, noting that there were more ALS incidents; a slight increase in the budget; changes in the incident and resource distribution; and an increase in property units. She noted that the study calculated the maximum rates for all land uses, and that steps of the calculation started looking at all incidents and the total resources used for each, noting that they split ALS versus non-ALS, and split resources by land use to determine the assessable budget: additionally, they looked at the property units by land use and calculated the rates. She listed the following changes: a 14.6 percent increase in the ALS portion; shift from residential, hotel/motel/RV, and vacant land to commercial and institutional; slight increase of about five percent in the budget; increase in residential and non-residential units, and a slight decrease in hotel/motel/RV and vacant land; residential rates saw a decrease of about five percent; hotel/motel/RV park increased by roughly two percent; vacant land increased by approximately 3.5 percent; and nonresidential ranged from about a 2.5 percent decrease to a roughly four percent increase. She showed a chart with ALS versus non-ALS, noting that in the last study, the total distribution of resources associated with non-ALS was about 76 percent, and in this study it decreased to roughly 73 percent. She displayed a slide with the distribution of resources among different land uses and commented that there was a slight decrease in residential, hotel/motel/RV park and vacant land, and there were some increases in commercial and institutional. She elaborated that those percentages were applied to the budget, and that any other changes for the portion of the budget allocated to each land use were due to the fluctuations of resource utilization. She remarked that residential units increased by about 10 percent, and that commercial, industrial/warehouse and institutional also increased; furthermore, there were decreases in vacant land and hotel/motel/RV park. She mentioned that the rates decreased about five percent for residential, with some decreases in commercial and industrial, along with slight increases in other categories.
Ms. Teslia explained that the Fire Rescue MSTU funded anything outside of the fire assessment, and they would likely need to increase the MSTU to offset the shift and provide the same level of service; additionally, they would not know what the impact of the MSTU would be until they received the final values from the Lake County Property Appraiser. She then listed the following next steps: on July 27, 2021, staff would come back with a resolution to set the truth in millage (TRIM) rates which would include the fire assessment and the MSTU; and in September 2021 they would hold public hearings to adopt the millage rates and the budget. She concluded by reading the requested action to accept the fire assessment study prepared by Tindale Oliver.
Commr. Parks said that it looked like there were some assessment reductions but they did not yet know what the MSTU would be.
Ms. Teslia stated that they were expecting the overall impact to not be very much.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept the Fiscal Year 2021 Fire Assessment Study presented by Tindale Oliver.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS PRESENTATION
Mr. Carpenter presented an annual hurricane update and said that it would include an overview of previous hurricane seasons, and an outlook for the 2021 season that would begin on June 1, 2021 and would end on November 30, 2021. He added that he would also review the authority delegated by Lake County and surrounding counties to use emergency powers during a local state of emergency. He relayed the following information with regards to past hurricane seasons: Lake County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) responded to Hurricanes Matthew, in 2016, and Irma, in 2017; in 2018, Lake County was not impacted by a tropical system, though Hurricane Michael made landfall near the City of Mexico Beach; in 2019, Hurricane Dorian had minimal impacts to Lake County; and Hurricane Donna in 1960 was the last hurricane to directly travel through Lake County. He defined the following weather terminology: a tropical depression is an organized weather system with winds of 38 miles per hour (MPH) or less; a tropical storm is an organized weather system with winds from 39 to 73 MPH; a hurricane is an intense weather system with winds of 74 MPH and higher; and a major hurricane is a hurricane that is category three or stronger. He elaborated that category one was the weakest and category five was the strongest. He displayed a list of the 2020 hurricane season storms, noting that the first week of August through the end of October was peak hurricane season. He said that the forecast for the previous year included 13 to 19 named storms, six to ten hurricanes, and three to six major hurricanes; however, the outcome was 30 named storms, 14 hurricanes, and six major hurricanes. He listed the following impacts to Lake County from Hurricane Irma: sustained tropical storm winds between 50 to 65 MPH with frequent gusts of 70 to 85 MPH across much of the county; an Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale 1 tornado in the City of Umatilla with a track of 3.84 miles long and a width of 500 yards; power outage at its highest was 77 percent of customers; and total damage was over $41 million. He commented that structures damaged by Hurricane Irma totaled 3,222, and listed the following: affected structures included 2,320 residential and 92 commercial; minor damage included 693 residential and 17 commercial; major damage included 88 residential and two commercial; and destroyed structures included 10 residential and no commercial. He said that the following services were provided: the Citizens Information Line (CIL) answered almost 14,000 calls; provided 45,000 sandbags to residents; opened 14 emergency shelters with over 5,500 people and pets sheltered, noting that this broke down into 4,149 residents seeking shelter, 264 special needs clients, 565 staff and volunteers assigned to emergency shelters, and 588 pets sheltered; host sheltering of 40 people; public transportation provided 452 rides before and after Hurricane Irma; and distributed 65,000 bottles of water to residents. He also stated that LASER provided long-term recovery services to Lake County residents after Hurricane Irma, including 401 total cases which were all completed, 100 homes with long-term recovery needs completed, 7,130 volunteer hours, and $745,000 in total grant funds received. He then provided a review of the 2021 hurricane season, and he listed the season hurricane names. He commented that this season was forecasted to be above-normal, and that Colorado State University forecasted 17 named storms, eight hurricanes and four major hurricanes. He added that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasted 13 to 20 named storms, six to ten hurricanes and three to five major hurricanes, noting that this forecast was similar to the previous year. He commented that COVID-19 had created challenges in planning for emergency sheltering, noting space requirements, PPE, enhanced cleaning, medical monitoring and staffing. He provided information about how to prepare for hurricane season, mentioning that this was something the County did year round; additionally, they worked with the community, public agencies, and non-governmental organizations to ensure that their contracts were in place. He relayed the following steps before a hurricane: make a plan; plan for pets; determine where one planned to shelter during a hurricane; create a disaster supply kit; stay informed; and get involved. He showed a list of the 28 primary and secondary emergency shelters, pointing out the special needs and pet friendly shelters. He then provided the following information for during a hurricane: know where the safe room is in one’s home; the home environment may be very loud and frightening; stay away from doors, windows and skylights; open the refrigerator only when necessary; and stay informed to local news and weather. He also listed the following information sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather radio with a battery backup; AlertLake.com; the CIL at 352-253-9999; and local media outlets. He listed the following information for after the hurricane: be careful, stay informed to the latest information; stay away from downed, loose or dangling power lines; ensure food safety; when cleaning up debris, use proper safety equipment and clothing; take photos of damage to one’s house, furnishings and surroundings for insurance; drive only when necessary, noting that if traffic lights are out, to treat it as a four-way stop; and contact family, friends and neighbors as soon as possible.
Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Carpenter, and he requested to post this segment of the BCC meeting online. He encouraged everyone not to hoard gas, noting that it hurt the local economy and caused issues; additionally, gas stations had power supplies after emergencies and could supply gas.
Commr. Shields supported getting the word out about four-way stops.
Commr. Blake asked if there were conversations after Hurricane Irma about generators to address some intersections.
Mr. Carpenter confirmed that the County received some generators from the State, and the Lake County Public Works Department had worked with municipalities to ensure that there were generators at larger intersections. He then presented information related to local state of emergency measures which included a review of Lake County Resolution 1992-178 that delegated powers in the event of an emergency, and a comparison with surrounding Counties’ structures during an emergency. He commented that Resolution 1992-178 was ratified by the BCC on September 18, 1992, and that it outlined the following line of succession of authority for the County: Chairman; Vice-Chairman; remaining Commissioners in descending order by district in the remaining three districts; and County Manager. He elaborated that authority to declare an emergency was the same as the order of succession, and that it authorized all emergency management functions and powers including the following: expending funds; making contracts; obtaining and distributing needed resources for management of the emergency; providing for the health and safety of persons and property and assistance to victims; implementing emergency plans and programs as provided by federal and state agencies; and appointing, employing, removing, or providing, with or without compensation, coordinators, rescue teams, and fire, police and emergency management personnel. He showed the organization of their emergency structure, noting that they used the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) incident command system as a best practice. He said that the executive policy group, which was outlined in the County’s comprehensive emergency management plan approved by the BCC, would include the following members: the BCC Chairman, who led the group; the Lake County Sheriff; the County Manager; the County Attorney; the Deputy County Manager; Assistant County Managers; the Lake County Public Safety Director; the Lake County School Superintendent; and the FDOH Administrator. He clarified that this was a minimum compliment and that others could be included in the group, and that his role was only to be a facilitator and advisor, in addition to taking information related to the final course of action to the EOC manager; furthermore, under the EOC was a public information officer, along with a liaison officer related to municipalities and supporting organizations. He stated that the EOC had a large organizational chart and that they had five section chiefs to manage over 100 people; additionally, it was his responsibility to report back to the executive policy group. He mentioned that if there was a local state of emergency that needed to be done, the County Attorney’s Office would have it prepared, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller would also be in the meeting so that it or any other emergency orders could be done at the same time.
Commr. Campione asked to confirm that the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller was not part of that group.
Mr. Carpenter confirmed this but said that the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller was invited to attend, noting that it was the pleasure of the BCC Chairman if they wanted to invite the other Constitutional Officers.
Commr. Campione remarked that the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller had been great in making himself available to certify emergency orders.
Commr. Shields inquired if the Cities generally followed the County’s lead or if they had their own emergency planning groups.
Mr. Carpenter relayed his understanding that none of the Cities in the county had their own comprehensive emergency management plans, and that they all fell under the County. He added that he typically spoke with city managers, police chiefs or fire chiefs with most Cities ahead of time, and they said that they would follow the County.
Commr. Parks commented that the Cities had been good at participating during the hurricanes. He added that the BCC could participate in the EOC and the executive policy group.
Commr. Campione recalled that Commissioners had manned the phone banks and assisted with the help line.
Mr. Rosen asked if the Florida Governor signed the new law regarding emergency management.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this and noted that it went into effect on July 1, 2021.
Mr. Rosen commented that Mr. Carpenter had mentioned something about emergency declaration and how the new law changed this.
Mr. Carpenter indicated his understanding that it was every seven days, but then it had to be rewritten and could not be a blanket renewal of the local state of emergency; rather, it had to be specific to the next seven days.
Mr. Rosen asked if there had to be a meeting or if it could just be extended.
Mr. Carpenter believed that there had to be a public meeting and that it had to be weekly. He thought that during Hurricane Irma, they had two or three weeks, or possibly a month where they renewed their local states of emergency, and it had just been with COVID-19 that they had kept a local state of emergency this long.
Ms. Marsh explained that the legislation stated that an emergency order automatically expires seven days after issuance, but may be extended by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision as necessary in seven day increments for a total duration of not more than 42 days. She was unsure how the Board would do this logistically, but noted that this was what was required to extend it longer than seven days. She added that the Board would have to have an advertised special meeting, and at least three Commissioners would have to attend unless the Governor passed an executive order allowing the Board to use Zoom Webinar during that time.
Commr. Parks thought that the Board needed some clarification or understanding on this. He relayed his understanding that the idea of this was to ensure that they would not have a Chairman or elected official running with it for week after week; however, he opined that it had to be easy for them to convene in an emergency to do it again for another week.
Ms. Marsh said that this also limited the duration of not more than 42 days, and gave the Governor the ability to invalidate any local emergency order if the Governor determined that such order unnecessarily restricted individual rights or liberties; additionally, upon expiration of the order, a political subdivision may not issue a substantially similar order. She recalled that when there were the previous significant hurricanes in South Florida, they had issues for much longer than 42 days.
Commr. Blake noted that power outages could make Zoom Webinar challenging.
Commr. Campione asked if a meeting could be advertised and if it could be cancelled if it was not needed.
Ms. Marsh replied that this could potentially be done.
Mr. Carpenter said that he would suggest this so that the County could stick to a timeline.
Commr. Shields added that the timing of the meeting would be important because the roads would have to be cleared.
Commr. Smith asked if there would have to be a letter to allow them on the road during a state of emergency.
Mr. Carpenter clarified that if they dealt with a curfew during daylight hours, they had never required a letter; rather, residents needed to provide identification of their address if they were going home, or say they were going to work. He mentioned that this was something that the Lake County Sheriff had typically allowed during daylight hours. He then resumed his presentation and displayed the following comparisons with other Counties: who managed the executive policy group; who issued the local state of emergency; who issued emergency orders; and who authorized spending control. He said that in Lake, Orange and Sumter Counties, the BCC Chairman led the executive policy group; additionally, it was led by the sheriff’s office in Marion County, the county manager in Polk and Volusia Counties, and the emergency management director in Osceola and Seminole Counties. He said that for the local state of emergency, it was issued by the BCC Chairman in Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola and Sumter Counties, the county manager in Polk and Volusia Counties, and the emergency management director in Seminole County. He commented that emergency orders were issued by the BCC Chairman in Lake, Marion and Orange Counties, the county manager in Polk, Sumter and Volusia Counties, and the emergency management director in Osceola and Seminole Counties.
Mr. Rosen asked that with the new law, would Polk, Sumter and Volusia Counties have to change how they did business to move that to the BCC Chairman.
Ms. Marsh said that these were questions that the County would be getting answers to as they moved closer to July 1, 2021.
Commr. Blake inquired if emergency orders in those places were a consensus of the executive policy group.
Mr. Carpenter stated that it was different in different places, that sometimes it was consensus, and that sometimes it just moved forward with that person. He added that after July 1, 2021, the emergency orders would have to come back after seven days. He then concluded that the county manager authorized spending control in Lake, Marion, Orange, Polk, Sumter and Volusia Counties, and the emergency management director authorized spending control in Osceola and Seminole Counties.
Mr. Rosen said that this presentation was put together because there some questions regarding how the County managed some previous emergencies, what the emergency powers were, and if they wanted to consider how they did business. He relayed that the County Attorney had also mentioned that it would likely be better to have a change to the code, rather than a resolution.
Commr. Parks asked to confirm that the County Attorney’s recommendation would be a code change.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that it would be a public hearing, that it would be in the code, and that it also provided residents with a place to look when they questioned what was being done. She said that she received questions from residents over the past year over where the BCC’s authority was to issue the orders.
Commr. Blake recalled that the issues he had brought up regarded the spending cap, opining that an emergency expenditure could be made but that if it was above a certain amount, then it should have additional input from elected officials. He noted that only two individuals in the executive policy group were elected officials.
Ms. Marsh stated that there was a new section in the bill regarding transparency audits such as within 72 hours of executing a contract, the County needed to do certain things. She added that it was also clear that if the County were to do a curfew order, they would have to allow people to travel to and from work, etc. She commented that once she read through it thoroughly, she would draft the ordinance based on it and the other items the Board had been discussing, and bring it back to them for consideration.
Commr. Blake also expressed interest in having some diluted power regarding curfews.
Mr. Rosen said that staff would work with Ms. Marsh to come up with an amendment to the code with regards to the new law and what the State allowed them to do. He commented that for spending, the executive policy group may need to make a decision such as authorizing a contract for debris removal, and they could possibly come back at the next available meeting to ratify that decision. He stated that it seemed like the most they would be waiting is seven days. He expressed concerns about being limited to a certain amount, noting that significant storm debris removal and monitoring could be over $25,000.
Commr. Blake thought that they could program something for this if it was a genuine emergency and they were not able to get a vote.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE ARTS AND CULTURAL ALLIANCE
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to the Arts and Cultural Alliance: Ms. Nan Cobb as an alternate member for the City of Eustis, and a waiver; and Ms. Ileanne Buigas as an alternate member for the City of Tavares, and a waiver.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL
The Board relayed consensus for appointing Ms. Christie Mysinger for District 3.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following individuals to the Children’s Services Council: Ms. Lora Pace as a District 1 member; Ms. Lilawatie "Lily" Ramcharran as a District 2 member; Ms. Christie Mysinger as a District 3 member, and a waiver; Ms. Amy Stone as a District 5 member; and reappointed Colonel Herbert Scott Smith as an At-Large Member.
APPOINTMENT TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2021-88 appointing Mr. Michael Pederson to the Tourist Development Council to fill an unexpired term for an Elected Municipal Officer, in addition to the conflict waiver and ratifying previous appointments via resolution.
Ms. Marsh noted that earlier in the consent agenda, the Board approved a closed session on June 8, 2021 for fire union negotiations. She remarked that Commissioner Campione would not be available; therefore, she would move this to June 22, 2021.
isba review update
Ms. Marsh recalled that Commissioner Campione had wanted her to discuss the ISBA five year review update.
Commr. Campione requested some language that referred to planning, joint planning, and inconsistencies between their regulations as a possibility for a way to reopen those ISBAs.
Ms. Marsh stated that this could be done and that the County had a five year review timeframe. She said that the County had talked with the Cities of Tavares and Clermont about their ISBAs, though she did not believe that they had talked to the City of Leesburg yet; however, they could start those negotiations. She noted that these agreements were written with a 20 year term with no direct or without cause termination provisions. She said that if one of the Cities did not want to negotiate, the County could go through the intergovernmental dispute resolution act, and the Board would then determine if they wanted to seek relief in court or take another action.
Commr. Campione thought that there was a termination for cause in the City of Leesburg ISBA.
Ms. Marsh commented that she could verify this and that all of them were slightly different.
Commr. Parks mentioned that within the ISBA, both partners were supposed to work in good faith; therefore, he questioned if there would be some assumption that communication between proposed development applications should be happening.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this and stated that they all had a process where the County was to be notified, though she did not recall at which point they were supposed to notify the County. She said that under State law for an annexation, they had to give the County notice before their hearings.
Commr. Campione stated that the ISBA discussed how Lake County and the City of Leesburg should work together to compare their respective LDR and where there were inconsistent regulations, and work toward eliminating such inconsistency to the extent possible where regulations are inconsistent. She elaborated that the City and the County shall strive to jointly amend the regulations with a goal to eliminate unnecessary conflict. She thought that this language could possibly be used, noting that if the City honored the County’s regulations, then they would not be able to approve the projects the way they were being proposed within the city limits. She opined that it was showing the inconsistency between the City and County regulations.
Ms. Marsh clarified that paragraph 15 indicated that the agreement may not be terminated by any party without cause prior to its expiration unless an amendment has been approved; therefore, there was a cause provision.
Commr. Campione opined that cause could possibly be failure to coordinate, to communicate, or to least attempt to reach a resolution.
Commr. Smith stated that he was still trying to get meetings with the City of Leesburg, noting that he had talked to a few individuals.
Commr. Campione noted that there were several large items in the pipeline, and she expressed a concern that it could cascade. She thought that time was of the essence.
liaison to workshops
Mr. Rosen discussed a request from the Board regarding a liaison to the planning and zoning and building workshops. He explained that the Home Builders Association of Lake-Sumter and the CCA of Lake-Sumter wanted to have meetings with their members to discuss which issues they were seeing from a customer perspective that they wanted the County to consider for the Offices of Planning and Zoning and Building Services. He added that they had recommended that possibly he and one of the Commissioners attend a meeting to listen; additionally, the County would soon be starting a customer satisfaction survey online for those two offices. He expressed that Commissioner Smith was interested in joining him for those meetings.
Commr. Parks expressed support for this, and he thought that they could advertise the meetings if another Commissioner wanted to listen in and participate. He also mentioned that Commissioner Smith would be the liaison.
Mr. Rosen thought that anyone could listen without having to advertise, as long as they did not speak.
meeting with representative scott franklin
Mr. Rosen said that there was an invitation from the City of Groveland to invite some Commissioners to a June 1, 2021 meeting with Representative Scott Franklin. He relayed his understanding that the items discussed would likely come before the BCC, mentioning that it would have to be a noticed meeting if more than one Commissioner wanted to attend.
Commr. Smith asked if this was for public safety.
Mr. Rosen thought that it would be at the public safety building, but he was unsure of the issues that would be discussed.
Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that the email indicated that it was just a roundtable discussion of issues.
Commr. Parks opined that they needed to ensure that whoever went was fluent in the ARPA and the possibilities there. He also thought someone from staff should attend.
Mr. Rosen opined that it would be easier to only have one Commissioner because items would probably come back before the BCC.
Commr. Shields thought that it was just a tour.
Mr. Rosen thought that it was a roundtable.
Commr. Parks noted that it was in Commissioner Shields’ district, Commission District 1; therefore, he would probably be the first choice. He hoped that Representative Franklin could provide more detail about the ARPA.
Ms. Marsh said that if Mr. Rosen found out that it was a walking tour with discussion, then she recommended that only one Commissioner attend because the Clerk’s Office had to take minutes if it was an advertised meeting; furthermore, it would not be possible to do this if it was a moving meeting. She stated that if they had a location afterward where they were going to sit and talk and members of the public could come and listen, and if the Clerk’s Office could take minutes, then they could advertise it if more than one Commissioner wanted to attend.
carving tree near county administrative building
Mr. Rosen stated that a tree was dying on the side of the County Administrative Building, and that an arborist had recommended to cut it down. He said that he had found a woodcarver who was willing to carve it for about $1,000, and that the idea was to carve a heron there, noting that a heron was on the County logo. He asked to confirm with the Board that they could move forward with this.
The Board relayed consensus to do this.
Commr. Parks indicated his understanding that it would be sealed and would last a long time. He also relayed his understanding that this was the first time that the County had spent money for public art, noting that it was only $1,000.
Mr. Rosen said that they could make sure it was sealed for weather.
commissioner shields – district 1
city of groveland cra meeting
Commr. Shields relayed that he had attended a City of Groveland Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting on the previous night and that he would be keeping the Board apprised of what was going on there.
kroger in city of groveland
Commr. Shields said that he had shopped using the new Kroger fulfillment center in the City of Groveland, and that it was seamless and well done.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
library advisory board meeting
Commr. Smith mentioned that he had attended a Library Advisory Board meeting and that it was very exciting. He added that he would have an update at the next BCC meeting.
awards ceremony for community service
Commr. Smith stated that he had attended an awards ceremony for community service and that it was fantastic. He mentioned that there were many companies doing good things for the county.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5
STORY TIME AT LIBRARIES
Commr. Blake said his children were excited about story time coming back at the libraries, and that he was pleased the County was resuming that service.
awards ceremony for community service
Commr. Blake noted that he also attended the community service awards with Commissioner Smith.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
REEAPPPOINTMENT TO REPRESENT COUNTY ON CAREERSOURCE BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint Ms. Sheri Olson to represent Lake County on the CareerSource Central Florida Board of Directors as a private sector representative to a three-year term starting on July 1, 2021, and ending on June 30, 2024.
THANKING MS. melanie MARSH
Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, for speaking at an East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting as an expert on COVID-19 liability and liability protection.
THANKING MR. fred SCHNEIDER
Commr. Parks also thanked Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, for doing a wonderful job at the first public CCA of Lake-Sumter meeting since the pandemic. He added that Mr. Schneider provided a good presentation on roads.
THROWING FIRST PITCH AT LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL TOURNAMENT
Commr. Parks said that he had the honor of throwing the first pitch at a little league baseball district regional tournament. He noted that they asked him to relay to the other Commissioners that the league also wanted them to come out and throw the first pitch.
EUSTIS HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS’ SOFTBALL STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
Commr. Parks remarked that the Eustis High School girls’ softball team won the state championship, noting that they would have a parade or ceremony on the following day and that the BCC was invited to speak.
LIBERTY TREE CEREMONY
Commr. Parks mentioned the Liberty Tree ceremony and thanked Ms. Marsh and Ms. Nicole Blumenauer, Assistant County Attorney, for writing the proclamation.
Commr. Smith asked where the site was going to be.
Commr. Parks replied that they were given three options, that one was around the back of the County Administration Building, that one was in the front-left of that building, and that one was at the EOC.
Commr. Smith stated that the City of Tavares had a strip of land next to a trail where they wanted to do a first responder rescue park or memorial gardens to honor the first responders. He thought that this may be a good place to locate the Liberty Tree because it was the gateway of the county seat. He encouraged the BCC to see if it was a good location.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that the date for this was June 24, 2021.
Mr. Rosen said that the only logistical issue he saw was that it could be too soon to have a park planned out and know where the tree would go.
Commr. Parks asked to have these questions answered, adding that irrigation would be a factor for at least the first year. He mentioned that they were looking to do this around July 4, 2021 to celebrate Independence Day, and he opined that the message behind the proclamation was important.
Mr. Rosen inquired if the BCC received the possible locations, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this.
Ms. Barker clarified that the third possible location was in front of the Lake County Historic Courthouse; however, they were thinking that the site to the left of the County Administration Building was probably the best option.
Commr. Parks said that they could continue to find out if the City of Tavares location was suitable and continue to talk about that.
BCC MEETING ON FOLLOWING DAY
Commr. Parks said that the Board would be back at 9:00 a.m. on the following day, and that it would be strictly presentations with no public comment.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
SEAN PARKS, chairman
GARY J COONEY, CLERK