A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

June 22, 2021

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 22, 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 that the meeting was also being streamed online. He mentioned a tradition they had of having a staff member who was a veteran lead the Pledge of Allegiance, and he introduced Mr. Justin Null. He said that Mr. Null was a probation officer in the Office of County Probation and had been with the County since November 2011. He elaborated that Mr. Null served as a Marine Science Technician with the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard Reserve between May 2008 and May 2016, and that as a Marine Science Technician, he was responsible for responding to and overseeing the resolution of pollution incidents, and for ensuring that port-side facilities complied with the Code of Federal Regulations through routine inspections. He commented that in 2010, Mr. Null mobilized to Forward Operating Base in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill incident where he assisted with the supervision of oil and hazardous material cleanup. He stated that Mr. Null received an honorable discharge in 2016, and his awards included, but were not limited to, a Commandant’s Letter of Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Team Award, and the Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon. He thanked Mr. Null for his service.

Pastor John Blake with Good News Church in the City of Leesburg then gave the invocation, and Mr. Null 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’s website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He 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 anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 on their phones to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments; additionally, everyone would have three minutes to speak. 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.

Agenda update

Mr. Alan Rosen, County Manager, requested to move Tab 24 up before the Citizen Question and Comment Period, noting that individuals who were present to discuss the opioid litigation settlement needed to leave by 10:15 a.m.

Commr. Parks said that this could be done after minutes approval.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of March 9, 2021 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

Tab 24: resolution regarding opioid litigation

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, said that this item regarded a resolution and a proposed memorandum of understanding that the State Attorney General’s (AG) Office was asking that all Counties in the State of Florida sign related to opioid litigation.

Mr. Eric Romano, with Romano Law Group and attending via Zoom Webinar, said that he and Mr. Brent Ceryes, co-lead council with the Schochor, Federico and Staton law firm in Baltimore, Maryland, were representing Lake County in the national opioid litigation. He recalled that in 2019, they filed a lawsuit on behalf of the County which was consolidated as part of the national multidistrict litigation in the northern district of the State of Ohio. He elaborated that this litigation had proceeded through discovery and that there was a bellwether trial currently taking place, noting that there had also been significant settlement discussions with the defendant; furthermore, some of the defendants had filed for bankruptcy, and they expected that through those proceedings there would be significant funds disbursed through the states and local governments around the country. He also said that there were currently negotiations leading toward what they believed to likely be an imminent settlement with the three major distributers, along with Johnson & Johnson. He mentioned that for the anticipation of settlement funds being disbursed, they, along with representatives of other Cities and Counties, had been negotiating with the AG’s Office to reach an allocation agreement prior to any settlement which could resulting a larger amount of funds coming to the State of Florida. He remarked that this memorandum of understanding was a rough outline of the terms of an allocation agreement between the State of Florida AG’s Office and the local governments, and they were recommending to pass the resolution approving this memorandum of understanding, noting that this would allow them to move forward in discussions with the State and negotiations at the national level.

Ms. Marsh commented that Mr. Mark Johnson, Minneola City Manager, was on Zoom Webinar, noting that he had been working on this issue with the Cities for some time.

Mr. Johnson discussed the opioid task force which was formed after noticing a trend of overdoses in Lake County. He said that their team was made up of volunteers from the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), AdventHealth Waterman, LifeStream Behavioral Center, and other organizations. He stated that they had identified several areas that they believed would help reduce opioid addiction in Lake County; however, they would focus on the primary goal at the current time which included improving the healthcare process from the point of first contact with the patient, to the point of discharge from a hospital. He mentioned that AdventHealth Waterman and LSF Health Systems had reduced emergency room (ER) recidivism by 55 percent, and they hoped to bring this same program to other hospitals in the county. He added that they wanted to improve the criminal justice process through the creation of a drug court, noting that it could reduce recidivism by at least 60 percent. He relayed their next goal was to improve the information network of everyone involved in assisting opioid-dependent persons by the creation of a service provider platform. He remarked that they were also going to work on improving the public’s knowledge of the available resources for their loved ones through a public information and outreach campaign; furthermore, they would continue to work on gathering and tracking accurate data throughout the county. He stated that they believed that by reducing recidivism by at least 55 percent through medical providers, reducing recidivism by at least 60 percent in the court system, and improving the public knowledge about the treatment options available, they could reduce broken homes, broken families, crimes and homelessness, and they hoped to improve the overall health and well-being of those who lived in Lake County.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for what Mr. Johnson was doing.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that the Honorable Heidi Davis, who was the administrative judge for Lake County, Mr. Mike Graves, Public Defender for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and Mr. Jonathan Olson, Division Supervisor with the State Attorney’s Office, were in attendance via Zoom Webinar.

Judge Davis mentioned that Lake County was unusual in that they did not have a drug court; however, she thought that it was time to bring this to the courts and to have support from Mr. Johnson, the opioid task force, and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). She also thought that this would be a great benefit to the County, and relayed that the judiciary was supportive of this. She explained that a drug court was a specialty court and took a degree of compassion, noting that it was what could be considered restorative justice, rather than crime and punishment justice. She hoped that they could bring this to fruition in Lake County.

Mr. Graves said that he was also an appointee to the statewide opioid task force in 2019 and 2020, and he opined that drug courts worked and that it was the last and best chance to get an individual with drug and mental health issues out of the revolving door of the criminal justice system. He mentioned that this would require an investment and that it was an issue that affected families throughout the county of every economic and social level. He commented that he was volunteering to bring together the stakeholders within the criminal justice system to develop a roadmap for a state of the art drug court program that worked. He believed that with the commitment of the County and the BCC, they could have a drug court up and running within 18 months.

Mr. Olson echoed the sentiment of Mr. Graves, and he explained that this would take some time because there were a number of stakeholders that they had to work with to create a program and ensure that they had facilities to send people to for help. He said that they hoped to present a state of the art program to the Board.

Mr. Rosen added that part of the thought was to use part of the opioid settlement to create this drug court and be able to pay for it for a number of years. He indicated that the County had to appoint a committee to oversee that process, but mentioned that they already had a committee.

Ms. Marsh explained that the memorandum of understanding designated a qualified county as one that had 300,000 or greater in population and had an opioid task force in place, in addition to other requirements. She relayed that there was not any direction or qualifications for an opioid task force, and that they could recognize Mr. Johnson’s group as the task force.

Commr. Campione asked if the task force would come under the Sunshine Law provisions and if this would create an issue with the people who regularly talked to one another.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the BCC was not technically establishing them or appointing people, and she thought that it was just a matter of recognizing them.

Mr. Ceryes stated that they could reach out to the AG’s Office to get further clarity. He thought that the criteria for a task force had been kept intentionally vague, and that the intention was to have a team engaged and working on these issues on an active basis.

Ms. Marsh said that they could follow up with the AG’s Office on this. She added that with the qualified county designation, they had to enter into an agreement with the majority of the municipalities that made up 50 percent of the total population; therefore, the Board would see some items come back in the future regarding this. She mentioned that the current action was just to approve the resolution and the memorandum of understanding so they could move on to what came next.

Commr. Parks asked if this would include the presentation of the drug court system.

Ms. Marsh said that this was correct, noting that this still had to be approved by the bankruptcy court.

Mr. Ceryes confirmed that the underlying Purdue Pharma settlement still had to be approved by the bankruptcy court, and the other settlements had to be finalized as well; however, this particular agreement just had to be endorsed or agreed upon by the municipalities and counties throughout the State of Florida.

Commr. Campione inquired that for the drug court, if they were moving forward from a budgetary standpoint for costs and investments.

Mr. Rosen relayed his understanding that Mr. Johnson and other individuals could come back to the County and indicate what they were considering, and staff could work with the Office of Management and Budget to understand the true costs, consider what their settlement was going to be, and determine how long that funding might last.

Commr. Shields added that it would be nice to see what the economic impact of stopping the revolving door of the criminal justice system was.

Mr. Johnson stated that they were working on creating a budget with the expected revenues for the County, noting that based on nationwide data, generally $1 spent on drug court generated a return on investment (ROI) of $27.

Commr. Parks thought that it was important to move forward with the drug court.

Commr. Campione opined that it was also important for the public to understand how the process worked and that there was still accountability. She expressed interest in knowing about the treatment side and who was going to be providing the services so that the Board understood this as well, noting that they provided funding for LifeStream Behavioral Center; furthermore, she questioned if this could require LifeStream to ramp up as well.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the adoption of Resolution 2021-100 in support of the Proposal Memorandum of Understanding regarding the ongoing Opioid litigation.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. David Serdar, a resident of the City of Fruitland Park, made comments related to local government. He also made comments regarding litter, Keep Lake Beautiful (KLB), and drug abuse.

Mr. John Labriola, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for the use of taxpayer funding with regards to an LGBT related book display at a Lake County library.

Ms. Terri Blessing, a resident on Blue Sink Road, indicated concerns for residential developments affecting the school district. She displayed the school capacity of an approval that was turned down by the City of Leesburg, and she relayed concerns for the proposed Whispering Hills development, which would have 3,000 multifamily homes. She said that she wanted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to get involved with these municipalities, and she opined that they needed to manage development for future generations.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident on Dewey Robbins Road, said that the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) with the City of Leesburg stated that a principal goal of the agreement was to provide services while balancing the needs and desires of the community. She opined that this balance was not being achieved with some of the annexations and site plans they were seeing with urban densities. She mentioned that petitions objecting to the Dewey Robbins Road annexations and rezonings had been submitted to the County and the City of Leesburg, along with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO). She relayed her understanding that the Dewey Robbins Road annexation was within the Yalaha/Lake Apopka Rural Protection Area, and she opined that the City of Leesburg had many other parcels outside the rural protection area and the rural transition zone boundaries where they could have potential annexations. She displayed a document from the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), noting that there were several policies regarding rural areas, and she questioned if this was the plan that they were working under. She also said that the ISBA indicated that it shall be reviewed every five years, commenting that the BCC had a resolution on the current agenda to meet with the City of Leesburg. She opined that the BCC could renegotiate the ISBA and remove all rural protection area boundaries from the agreement.

Ms. Lynette Gee, a concerned citizen, indicated concerns for the use of taxpayer funding with regards to LGBT related books and displays at Lake County libraries in June 2021.

Commr. Blake asked to be emailed the locations where this was happening.

Commr. Parks supported this information being shared with all of the Commissioners.

Ms. Peggy Joseph, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for LGBT related displays at Lake County libraries and for the content of those displays.

Mr. Rick Ault, a concerned citizen, opined that the County needed to define conservation, commenting that it was typically the protection, preservation, management and restoration of natural environments and ecological communities. He questioned if clearing the land for a subdivision and planting vegetation was conservation, even if they were placing native plants. He opined that the land had been altered in drastic ways, and that the County needed to do a better job defining conservation in the Comp Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR).

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 8, as follows:

List of Warrants

Notice is hereby provided 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.

Lake Emma CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Lake Emma Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Bella Collina CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Bella Collina Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Arlington Ridge CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Arlington Ridge Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Deer Island CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Deer Island Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

Founders Ridge CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Founders Ridge Community Development District proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 in accordance with Section 190.008 (2)(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

City of Tavares Annexation Ordinance 2021-02

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2021-02 from the City of Tavares.

Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay CDD Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/2022

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Greater Lakes/Sawgrass Bay 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 only.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Smith asked to pull Tab 7 to the regular agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 19, pulling Tab 7 to the regular agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend adoption of Proclamation 2021-93 honoring Joyce Brautcheck for reaching a 50 year milestone with Lake Sumter State College, per Commissioner Blake.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval to:

1. Accept Alternate Key 1501971, acquired through an Escheatment Tax Deed, and declare surplus for the purpose of disposal;

2. Donate property to the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc.;

3. Adopt the associated donation Resolution 2021-94; and

4. For Chairman to execute required County Deed.

There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 5.

Request for adoption and execution of Resolution 2021-95 authorizing a Joint Public Meeting with the City of Leesburg. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Management and Budget

Recommend approval of a payment to Dell Marketing L.P. for laptops, Dell Pro briefcases and docking stations purchased for the State Attorney's Office. The fiscal impact is $78,481.28 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

agency for economic prosperity

Recommend approval to advertise an ordinance to amend Chapter 7, Lake County Code, entitled Economic Development and Business Incentives, to allow grants of up to 20 years for phased development projects if higher job creation and capital investments thresholds are met. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Recommend Approval:

1. Of the Lake County Office of Emergency Medical Services to participate in intergovernmental transfers with the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and the supplemental payment program for Medicaid Managed Care patients;

2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all required agreements or documents to participate in intergovernmental transfers and the supplemental payment program for Medicaid Managed Care patients;

3. To authorize the transfer and payment of funds as described in this item; and

Recommend Adoption:

1. Of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-96.

The fiscal impact is $1,083,011 (revenue) and $452,240 (expense).

Recommend approval to utilize Florida Sheriff Association Contract FSA20-VEL28.0 to purchase three quick response vehicles from Duval Ford (Jacksonville, FL) for the Office of Emergency Medical Services. The fiscal impact is $163,272 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Recommend approval of purchase with CDWG for the addition of Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) sites to the County's computer network system.

The fiscal impact is $64,869.28 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Recommend approval of revision to Lake County Policy LCC-99 entitled "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Hybrid Entity Designation" to include the Office of Emergency Management as a dedicated health care component; and remove the Board of County Commissioners, County Manager's Office and Office of Communications from Section III. B since they do not qualify as a dedicated health care component. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety

Recommend approval:

1. Of the awarded 2021 Spring State 9-1-1 Grant award for Telecommunicator Workstation Console/Furniture Refresh; and

2. Of the Lake_S18-21-05-04_2021 Spring State Grant Agreement dated 5.24.2021; and

3. Adoption of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2021-97 recognizing the grant; and

4. To authorize the County Manager or designee to execute all supporting project documentation.

The fiscal impact is $287,914.72 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Emergency Management

Recommend approval:

1. Of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Lake County's continued participation in the Orlando Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI); and

2. For the Chairman to execute the MOA; and

3. To designate the Office of Emergency Management Director as the primary representative for Lake County to the UASI Working Group; and

4. For the County Manager to execute any future no-cost amendments or modifications to the MOA.

There is no fiscal impact.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contracts 21-0417A, 21-0417B, and 21-0417C with: Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. (Orlando, FL), Green Isle Gardens, Inc. (Groveland, FL) and SiteOne Landscape Supply, LLC (Roswell, GA) to furnish and deliver various grasses, plants, and trees on an as-needed basis.

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

The fiscal impact is estimated at $100,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Public Works

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2021-98 to reduce the speed limit from 35 MPH to 30 MPH on Silver Lake Drive and reduce the speed limit from 30 MPH to 25 MPH on Morningside Drive, in the Leesburg area.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $600 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Commission District 3.

Recommend approval of the Fiscal Year 2022 Detailed Work Plan Budget for Arthropod Control for the Lake County Mosquito Control Program pursuant to Section 388.201, Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-13.022, Florida Administrative Code. The fiscal impact is $32,467.65 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded).

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 21-0719 with Field's Equipment Co, Inc. (Clermont, FL) for the purchase of an agricultural 4x4 tractor for the Public Works Department.

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

The fiscal impact is $53,400 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.

Transit Services

Recommend approval of the contract with Remix Technologies, LLC for transit planning software. The first year fiscal impact of $33,000 (expenditure - 100 percent FTA grant funded) is within, and will not exceed, the 2021 Fiscal Year Budget.

tab 7: addendum to agreement with akers media group

Commr. Smith read the requested action for an addendum to extend the original agreement from March 20, 2021 to June 30, 2021.

Mr. Rosen explained that the contract had expired, and he believed that there were some items done under the contract that they wanted to make sure were included until the new contract went into effect. He did not believe there was any more work being done currently, but they wanted to have it in place just in case.

Mr. Steven Clenney, Interim Director for the Office of Visit Lake, stated that since there was a gap from the May 25, 2021 approval of the new Madden Preprint Media agreement, this was to allow for this gap so that they could continue to advertise during this period. He elaborated that the addendum was created to end on June 30, 2021 to allow for any leeway as they were continuing to onboard Madden Preprint Media, noting that Madden Preprint Media would be in town in the following week and would be ramping up their marketing.

Commr. Smith asked if the County knew that their original contract would end in March 2021.

Mr. Rosen said that staff missed this and that this was why this agreement was extended to cover that period until the new contract came aboard, noting that this was the first time this had happened in a while. He believed that there was some work done under the contract when it was expired; additionally, if it was approved, then the contract would retroactively cover the completed work.

Ms. Marsh remarked that if the County authorized them to perform the work and they did perform the work, then the County would have to pay them.

Commr. Campione noted that the County received the benefit of the services and that they also had a contract with them in the past. She also stated that the cost of the services was similar to what the County had previously paid.

Commr. Shields mentioned that there was also turnover in this office.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the Addendum to Agreement with Akers Media Group, Inc. for Tourism Marketing Advertising Services (RFP #17-0422).

Commr. Smith voted no.

utilizing sourcewell for parts management services

Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, presented the Office of Fleet Management parts study. He noted that the purpose was to analyze the Office of Fleet Management, looking for cost reductions and improving efficiencies. He explained that an in-depth analysis of the Office of Fleet Management was conducted with a focus on parts management, and the objective was to discover if it was possible for the County to reduce costs and improve efficiencies through outsourcing the management of parts for equipment while continuing to use a network of local suppliers; furthermore, the review included costs of the current inventory of parts, surplus and obsolete inventory, productivity due to loss of equipment use and mechanics downtime while waiting for parts, and staff time to locate, purchase, process payment, store, and maintain inventory records. He said that the following inventory management areas were the main considerations: shortages, audits, physical counts, long-term impact on budget, payroll and staffing, direct and indirect parts costs, and shop productivity. He stated that these considerations led research toward Genuine Parts Company, doing business as National Joint Powers Alliance (NAPA), and he listed the following strengths of NAPA: store locations in Lake County; local support; utilized other local vendors; qualified staff; nearly 30 years of experience; led the government fleet parts sector in the U.S.; and their system directly populated the required time of arrival (RTA) generated work order with clear and auditable parts information. He displayed some entities that NAPA currently provided services to, along with an expenditure comparison showing anticipated annual savings; furthermore, total direct costs consisted of parts expenditure, parts staffing, and parts vehicle for a total of $871,683. He mentioned that utilizing NAPA would reflect a savings of $184,767, and that when adding the indirect costs, the savings increased to $259,560. He explained that NAPA’s integrated business solutions fleet parts business model brought improvements to oversight and accountability with procurement, and mitigated gaps in loss prevention best practices. He stated that NAPA invested its inventory dollars and managed the inventory, and that this would mitigate County owned inventory and subsequent potential inventory shrinkage, overstock situations, or obsolete parts, since NAPA assumed the responsibility and carrying cost of inventory assets. He commented that County owned inventory would be first out, with remaining inventory liquidated at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022 with no additional fees; additionally, obsolete and surplus parts would be liquidated during FY 2022 with no additional fees. He mentioned that full segregation of duties, inclusive of checks and balances between the person procuring a part to its ultimate installer, would be handled by NAPA. He also said that NAPA would code 100 percent of the parts issued to a County work order and would provide itemized by stock keeping unit (SKU)/part reporting, including County work order numbers, asset numbers, and the part requestor for reconciliation, thus enabling the Office of Fleet Management Director to have efficient oversight for all purchases. He explained that NAPA’s computer system integrated with the County’s RTA work order system, and NAPA part numbers, part description, quantity purchased, and price of part purchased information would be pulled from the NAPA system directly into the County system with clear and auditable part information. He then commented that the County would only pay for a part after it was handed to a County technician by NAPA. He read the recommended action to recommend approval to utilize Sourcewell (formerly known as National Joint Powers Alliance) Contract 110520-GPC with Genuine Parts Company, doing business as NAPA Auto Parts, out of Norcross, Georgia, for parts management services, and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

Commr. Parks noted that this was an efficiency and that the County looked to try and be efficient.

Commr. Smith stated that it was nice to see that the County was moving into this public/private partnership situation to save them productivity and efficiency.

Mr. Falanga said that the lease program worked out well for the County, and that this was another step in that direction.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the following items: to utilize Sourcewell (f/k/a National Joint Powers Alliance) Contract 110520-GPC with Genuine Parts Company d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts (Norcross, GA), for parts management services; and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

Commr. Parks asked if Tab 23 could be heard at the current time.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there were people in attendance for zoning and then there was a case that would need to be postponed indefinitely until Mr. Tim McClendon, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, could meet again with the community.

Commr. Parks remarked that they could address Tab 23, and then the rezoning agenda, followed by the budget summary.

PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION IN PLAT OF GROVELAND FARMS

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented Tab 23 regarding vacation petition #1259. He explained that the applicant was Mr. Mark Oswalt, with Hilochee Partners, LLC, who was represented by Ms. Anita Geraci-Carver, an attorney. He showed the vicinity map and said that this was an area located southwest of Lake Minnehaha in the City of Clermont area, within Commission District 1; furthermore, the proposed vacation was located west of County Road (CR) 561 and east of Montevista Road. He displayed an aerial picture of the property, noting that it was under wetlands, and he said that it was part of the original Groveland Farms plat. He commented that the request was for vacation of the tract and the 50 foot rights of way that surrounded that tract; additionally, these rights of way did not connect to any other platted or public rights of way, and the purpose was to vacate this so that the applicant could plat it under a conservation easement and not have public rights of way on it. He mentioned that staff had some calls with regards to concerns, but they did not have any comments from public utilities. He said that staff recommended approval of the request to vacate this tract and public right of way.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ault, a resident who had spoken earlier in the meeting, asked if there was a hardship to the County to maintain this in perpetuity. He opined that at some point, the access might be necessary and that the County would have to reacquire the rights. He also opined that no one had established any benefit to the County, and he questioned what the citizens were gaining by giving the applicant a clean parcel to sell.

Ms. Geraci-Carver clarified that these rights of way were solely within the wetlands and were impassable. She indicated that the property owners to the north and south had no objection, though the property owner to the east was concerned for property values. She stated that all of the properties abutting this right of way had direct access to CR 561, and she gave a background of the property. She said that the planned unit development (PUD) approved by the Board required that all wetlands and wetland buffers be included in a conservation easement, noting that these rights of way were within the wetlands and would be within a conservation easement. She showed an aerial image of the property and pointed out nearby properties, wetlands and the right of way. She relayed that staff had indicated that they would not have a public need for the rights of way, and the applicant believed that they met the statutory criteria.

Commr. Parks noted that the easement language prevented development; therefore, that protection would be in place regardless.

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

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the criteria for vacating old platted right of way had generally been that if it was not needed for public access and all the property owners had direct access, then there would be no public purpose to retain the right of way; therefore, she thought that it would be the Board’s responsibility to remove these from the map. She added that if residents and property owners made these types of requests, the BCC had not withheld granting them.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the adoption of Resolution 2021-99 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.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:18 a.m. for 13 minutes.

public hearings: REZONING

rezoning consent agenda

Mr. McClendon displayed the advertisements for that day’s rezoning cases on the overhead monitor in accordance with the LDR and Florida Statutes. He explained that Tabs 1, 2 and 3 were heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on June 2, 2021, and that Tabs 1 and 2 were part of the consent agenda and had been unanimously approved. He requested that the BCC accept that recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and approve those requested items; furthermore, after this, he would have an update for Tab 3, and then they could move on to Tab 4.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding any cases on the Rezoning Consent Agenda, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 2, as follows:

Tab 1. Ordinance No. 2021-18

Rezoning Case # RZ-21-09-3

Griffin Howard Property

Rezone approximately 1.51 +/- acres from Planned Commercial (CP) (via Ordinance 1999-51) and Mobile Home Rental Park (RMRP) to Rural Residential (R-1) to reconcile the non-conformity between the existing residential use and the zoning district.

Tab 2.

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-03-5

Wildwoods Campground Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal)

Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the Future Land Use Category on approximately 9.33 acres from Rural to Planned Unit Development Future Land Use Category (FLUC) and amend associated Comprehensive Plan Policies to incorporate the proposed development program for the Wildwoods Campground which will include 84 RV spaces and associated facilities.

rezoning regular agenda

Tab 3.

Rezoning Case # FLU-21-04-2

Flat Lake Special Community Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal)

Create “Objective I-2.4 Flat Lake Special Community” and supporting Policies to identify the Flat Lake Community as a designated Special Community.

Tab 4.

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.

flat lake special community flu map amendment (transmittal)

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-04-2, Flat Lake Special Community Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal). He commented that since the June 2, 2021 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, staff had received a number of requests from residents within the Flat Lake community to be removed from this special community. He commented that in lieu of moving this item forward at this time, staff was requesting to postpone this indefinitely until they had another community meeting with the Flat Lake residents to discuss issues they might have with this proposed special community.

Commr. Parks asked Ms. Marsh if the Board could discuss this.

Ms. Marsh said that they could table it, but she would recommend opening up the public hearing for individuals to comment on the table issue only.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ault encouraged the Board to table this item, opining that the community needed more input before the County did any more land use map changes near Hartwood Marsh Road. He opined that it was one of the most congested roads in the county and that there was still an unresolved sand truck issue.

Commr. Parks clarified that the map amendment was to potentially make a rural protection area, and he thought that the intent was to maintain the rural integrity of that area as growth occurred around it.

Ms. Katie Herrera, a resident of the Flat Lake community, said that they wanted to protect their area from the growth happening around them without letting any crossroads come through form Hartwood Marsh Road to Avalon Road, noting that they had agricultural homes. She mentioned that there were two large projects close to them, and she said that they were trying to ease anxiety and help their rural community stay the same. She thought that it was in the best interest of everyone to possibly have a community meeting.

Commr. Parks noted that one part of this amendment was to prohibit a west connection to Phil C Peters Road, commenting that there could be a significant amount of traffic if that connection was made.

Mr. Billy Fowler, an owner of property that was involved in this item, opined that Ms. Herrera’s property was not involved in this; however, it was part of the homeowners association (HOA). He said that he had a petition signed by 16 others, as well as verbal confirmation from other property owners; furthermore, he relayed his understanding that 15 percent of the 158 properties involved stood against this. He opined that this was a removal of property rights and that it did nothing to protect the community; rather, it allowed for developers to develop PUDs within the community. He commented that there were four HOAs in that area, and he indicated an understanding that the Savannah Ridge HOA was also opposed to this.

Mr. McClendon clarified that the affected parcels were all of the Agriculture zoned lots within the Rural future land use (FLU) category; furthermore, Ms. Herrera’s property was within the Wellness Way FLU category, and staff did not include that parcel because it could be considered a taking if they limited her ability underneath her underlying FLU category.

Commr. Parks thought that there could possibly be a way to work this out with her if she was willing, and he did not think that the BCC wanted someone to do something that made a change they were opposed to. He opined that the BCC had some more work to do on this, and said that the intent was to protect that rural area.

Mr. McClendon added that the intent was also to have complete community buy-in, noting that it did not work without everyone involved.

Mr. Daniel White, a resident on Fox Hole Road, said that residents of the subject community knowingly moved to a non-HOA neighborhood because they did not want this. He indicated that he was not opposed to stopping east-west or north-south roadways, but that he was opposed to small developments within the community; however, he expressed concerns for not being able to place a fence or plant a certain tree. He also indicated concerns that they would be an HOA governed by the County, and that there could be changes to it.

Commr. Parks remarked that once a FLU map amendment was made, the County could not change it without a public hearing. He added that during the CR 455 project development and environment (PD&E) study, the BCC had promised to look at adding additional protections or addressing concerns from residents; furthermore, this is what they were trying to do through this process.

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

Commr. Parks asked staff to provide an update within about a month regarding public meetings that they were able to schedule.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board tabled Tab 3, Rezoning Case # FLU-21-04-2, Flat Lake Special Community Future Land Use Map Amendment (Transmittal) indefinitely until it is brought back by staff.

lake nellie crossing pud

Mr. McClendon presented Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing PUD. He recalled that this case had been continued from the previous month, and he explained that the tract size was about 117 acres, 102 of which were high and dry. He relayed that the requested action was to rezone the property from Urban Residential (R-6) to PUD to accommodate a residential subdivision. He showed maps of the property and pointed out that the FLU was identified as Rural Transition which allowed up to one dwelling unit per one net acre, and he displayed the concept plan, noting that it exhibited that the required 50 percent of the 117 acres would be kept in open space, with the development centered. He said that the lot sizes were compatible with the existing surrounding development from one-third to one-half acres in size. He relayed that the applicant was allowed to have up to one unit per acre with the provision of 50 percent open space, and the request was consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDR; furthermore, central water was available but sewer services were not, noting that the applicant had an update pertaining to the sewer element. He commented that the Lake County Public Works Department had indicated that this segment of Lakeshore Drive was not currently overcapacity, and the Lake County School Board had indicated that all three schools could accommodate this subdivision. He displayed information pertaining to surrounding development, noting that it was from two dwelling units per acre to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. He said that the requested action from the Planning and Zoning Board was to recommend approval of the zoning to PUD, and the applicant had provided updates pertaining to the transportation conditions, as well as the sewer component. He elaborated that they were willing to commit to a distributed sewer system, provided that it was available.

Ms. Marsh said that the language in the Board’s handout regarding the sewer system was not the language suggested by the applicant. She provided Mr. McClendon with the applicant’s language, noting that this was the language they wanted to use, and Mr. McClendon displayed the language.

Commr. Parks asked if the Suggs family owned the property, and Mr. McClendon confirmed this.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, an attorney representing the applicant, recalled that at the previous hearing, there was discussion on issues that the BCC thought they needed further information on. She said that they had been working with Onsyte Performance regarding how they could design a system for this community’s 102 units, noting that the BCC did not want standard septic tanks on the property since there was no municipal water available, nor could Utilities Inc. currently provide it. She added that because these systems needed ongoing maintenance and operation, the applicant had letters from U.S. Water Services Corporation and Onsyte indicating that they could perform the ongoing operation and maintenance. She also recalled that issues about transportation data and safety were brought up, and said that Mr. Mohammed Abdallah, with Traffic and Mobility Consultants and representing the applicant, would address those issues.

Mr. Christopher Germana, a civil engineer representing the applicant, mentioned that when they originally submitted this project, they had the traditional septic tank systems which met the FDOH requirements. He recalled that there were some concerns with this system, and they had looked at a distributed wastewater system, which was an underground system of approximately one acre in size; additionally, it had service manholes. He commented that one would just see manholes and gravel, though there would also be a landscape buffer and a fence for security purposes. He added that it would have a two acre drain field where the water would leave the system. He commented that the system was permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), that it had been monitored by FDEP, and that it was maintained by a licensed operator with monthly reports sent to FDEP. He said that they were going to take the available open space of about 58 percent, take the three acre component out, and still meet the open space requirement.

Mr. Abdallah recalled that there were some traffic concerns from the neighbors and the BCC. He said that they had done some additional analysis and field work, and that one point of discussion was traffic volumes on Lakeshore Drive. He commented that they continued to believe that Lakeshore Drive had reached a steady state of volume and had been on a decline based on historical traffic profiles. He displayed a graph with volume trends and stated that they had taken some counts in 2021; furthermore, the trend on Lakeshore Drive was essentially that traffic had flattened and decayed. He said that this was consistent with corridors that had not necessarily experienced a significant amount of growth, and the trip making characteristics were changing for most people. He recognized that Lakeshore Drive was a traveled roadway, and he relayed his understanding that the County’s policy was that when they built a road, that they would allow it to function at a level of service “D.” He explained that level of service “D” meant that there would be traffic on the roadway when one drove during rush hour. He opined that what the applicant had done supported what staff was saying and the approved traffic study. He added that they had also heard concerns about speeding on Lakeshore Drive, noting that they had measured the prevailing travel speeds on the road in a typical day. He showed the results, noting that the roadway was posted at 40 miles per hour (MPH) adjacent to the proposed development, and the 85^th percentile speed was 45 MPH, which was consistent for a road posted at 40 MPH. He elaborated that 50 percent of drivers were driving below the speed limit, and the ten mile pace was between 35 and 44 MPH. He opined that the data had indicated to him that there was not a speeding issue on this road, though some cars were driving above the speed limit; however, the public was generally abiding by the speed limit. He mentioned concerns about the crash history on the roadway, noting that what they found from June 1, 2017 to June 1, 2021 was that there were 10 crashes reported that were responded to by law enforcement. He elaborated that there were five minor property damage crashes, three that involved injuries, and two with fatalities. He explained that one of the crashes which resulted in a fatality had involved drug and alcohol use, and the other crash was a vehicle turning left on the wrong path, noting that it was a head on collision. He opined that what the applicant was doing at the entrance of the proposed development by expanding the roadway and adding the left turn lane would help address issues such as that crash; additionally, there were four off-road crashes out of the 10. He relayed his understanding that people were veering off the road; therefore, the applicant had agreed to add shoulders to the road, noting that this was a countermeasure to off-road crashes. He opined that what they were proposing to do would improve the existing situation, rather than making it worse.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Joseph House, a concerned citizen, relayed his understanding that there had been recent accidents on Lakeshore Drive. He indicated that there were no shoulders, and that the expansion of the roadway would be an island, opining that between Lake Susan Bridge and the proposed community, there were few places where this would be an option to another driver. He asked about the wildlife study regarding gopher tortoises and other wildlife, and he questioned how to measure quality of life for the individuals living in the surrounding communities.

Mr. Keith Cartwright, a resident of Vista Grande, expressed concerns for his yard bordering the proposed development, and for what the site would look like. He did not think that there were any answers regarding walls or buffers between the new development and Vista Grande, and he indicated concerns for impacts to the area and for safety in the neighborhood. He opined that they needed to not develop more in the south City of Clermont area, and he asked for the Board to oppose this request.

Mr. Ault noted that there were three segments in the Lakeshore Drive corridor from the subject parcel to where it became four lanes, indicating an understanding that the applicant only looked at the end of the corridor, which he opined was arguably the least traveled. He questioned if the BCC believed that speed and safety were not concerns and that traffic had been trending down for five years. He opined that it was an area-wide issue and that safety was a significant concern. He also expressed concerns for the proposed septic system and for it being placed in the open space. He opined that the Board needed to deny the request, and that it did not meet the standards for what the Board asked the applicant to do 30 days prior. He also indicated a concern that the Board may not have had a chance to read emails that they received on the current morning.

Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen, asked about the name for the septic treatment system, and what they were doing for the additional treatment on the property. She also expressed concerns for safety, and she questioned the validity of the traffic report.

Commr. Parks clarified that the name of the system was Onsyte Performance, and he could give the applicant time to speak on how it was higher treatment.

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

Ms. Bonifay submitted a brochure regarding Onsyte Performance systems.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that FDEP considered this to be a central wastewater treatment system, noting that she had heard the number of 90 percent nitrogen removal. She noted that she had visited a pilot system in the Wekiva River Basin, and that she was excited that they were discussing it; additionally, it could possibly be viable in the county to help their water quality.

Mr. Craig Forester, with Onsyte Performance and representing the applicant, explained that an FDEP permitted distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS) was a scaled down version of what was occurring at any municipal plant across the state currently. He noted that it used the same treatment process to remove harmful constituents and nutrients, and that it discharged underground in a subsurface absorption field that eliminated any human contact; furthermore, he opined that it was the most economical solution for disposing of the waste.

Commr. Campione asked about the system in relation to a traditional septic tank system.

Mr. Forester said that traditional septic tank systems would be regulated by FDEP as of July 1, 2021; however, they were currently permitted and regulated by FDOH. He mentioned that a typical septic tank was just a concrete box that accepted influent from the house and separated the solids; furthermore, the water passed into the drain field, which was what provided the treatment. He said that with a DWTS or a municipal plant, the removal of the nutrients and harmful constituents were occurring in the plant itself, and the environment was the receptacle for the treated effluent. He said that a typical septic tank may achieve 30 percent nitrogen reduction, with 70 percent of the nitrogen going into the environment and straight to groundwater. He opined that this was a good option on isolated plats, but where there was a concentration of homes and wastewater generation was higher, one would need to be able to treat the waste to a high standard before discharging it into the environment. He added that with every DWTS, there was monthly oversight from FDEP, along with licensed operators providing assurance on a monthly basis.

Commr. Parks reiterated that this system was like a miniature wastewater treatment plant.

Commr. Campione asked if it was it was a package plant, and Mr. Forester denied this.

Commr. Parks asked what it might look like if one was standing next to it.

Mr. Forester explained that there would be a gravel lot over about an acre of land, which would be a series of 30-inch diameter manhole access covers to allow the operator access; additionally, there would be a 14 by 20 foot equipment shed which would house the automated industrial control and some air compressors.

Commr. Smith inquired if there was a noise factor to this component.

Mr. Forester responded that there should be no noticeable noise outside of the fence, noting that the pumps were below grade and that the air compressors sat in the insulated equipment shed.

Ms. Bonifay thought that with the additional language they added, they specified that the one acre site would have a six foot high privacy fence, and there would be a landscape buffer around it. She displayed an image from the Onsyte brochure showing what the system would look like, and she showed their revised plan. She noted that they were over the 50 percent open space required in the Comp Plan, and she pointed out that in this land use category, all of the 50 percent open space had to be placed in a conservation easement that must be recorded, noting that it had to be in perpetuity. She also indicated that the property had been in pasture and agriculture, and it that it was not pristine space. She mentioned that the buffers were per code and that there were no requested variances, and that an environmental survey had to be conducted within six months before they could go on to the next phase of development. She clarified that for traffic, they had looked at several miles out in terms of where those impacts were to be assessed. She said that staff and the Planning and Zoning Board found this project to be consistent with the Comp Plan and LDR, and that it was compatible with the surrounding area. She added that they had produced experts or qualified consultants in the area of traffic who had stated that according to the methodology they were instructed to follow, which was part of the County’s approval process, that there was capacity in the system: furthermore, they had presented the facts of how this had declined over time. She hoped that this could become a model for septic in the county and implement what many of the Commissioners had called for, noting that this was a more sophisticated system. She added that it would be a roughly $1.6 million investment that the owner would make upfront for this community wide system. She stated that they had two groups who could do the ongoing operation and maintenance, and she believed that the record had given the Board substantial competent evidence on which to base a decision. She relayed that the subject property owner wanted to see the property developed, and she thought that they had done everything in compliance with the Comp Plan and County code to bring a good development that was consistent and compatible. She urged the Board to vote for approval.

Commr. Campione recalled that it was indicated that there would be no lake connection, and she asked about the decision making process for not having any access. She also inquired if it was because of opposition.

Ms. Bonifay confirmed this and relayed that there would be no docks or connection to the lake. She also indicated an understanding that the ownership of the lake bottom was private.

Commr. Shields expressed appreciation for the work that was done; however, he expressed concerns for capacity on Lakeshore Drive and for safety there. He said that he could not vote to approve this.

Commr. Smith thanked the applicant for listening to some of the Board’s suggestions, mentioning the Onsyte system for sensitive areas. He opined that it fit the Comp Plan and mentioned that there were property rights issues. He also noted that they had data on the safety issues, and said that he had visited the area several times.

Commr. Blake disclosed that he received emails from the neighbors and had a phone conversation with the applicant. He opined that just because someone developed their property before did not preclude the subject property owner from having the right to do something similar on their property. He thought that the applicant had been forthcoming on the issues brought up, and opined that the wastewater issue had been addressed. He said that for traffic and other issues that were raised, he thought that the existing neighborhoods had more of an impact on those metrics than the subject property; furthermore, he opined that in the interest of being fair, the Board could not deny the request based on that and considering the presentations they received. He expressed support for the application.

Commr. Parks opined that the applicant had addressed many issues, and he hoped that the DWTS was something the County would continue to look for. He recalled that a few years prior, he had made a commitment to not approve any large developments along the Lakeshore Drive corridor until the County had plans in place for that corridor. He indicated that he was not ready to say no, nor yes. He questioned if there was something they could do to possibly find something more palatable to him in terms of density.

Commr. Campione asked him if there was a number of units that he thought would have less of an impact on his concerns for Lakeshore Drive and safety.

Commr. Parks replied that he did not know the exact number, but it could possibly be half of the proposed units. He did not think that the BCC had approved anything in the area of this size in the last couple of years. He opined that it was a poorly planned area of the county and that it was challenging to move forward with these kinds of development decisions until they had some traffic calming plans and a corridor plan.

Commr. Smith noted that it fit the Comp Plan and was one unit per acre.

Commr. Blake added that it was less dense than the surrounding developments. He said that he was willing to make a motion to approve the request.

Commr. Campione opined that the Board’s struggle was adding more traffic to a road that they received complaints about regularly, noting that the road was constrained and there were no plans to widen it or add different routes. She said that the adjacent neighborhoods were designed similarly, and she mentioned that it was infill development. She asked if Commissioner Parks’ commitment was to not approve anything new on Lakeshore Drive.

Commr. Parks clarified that it was not to approve anything of significant size.

Commr. Shields opined that this meant anything that would require a PUD, noting that there could be 20 homes if there was not a PUD.

Commr. Parks said that this could be possibly doubled for a total of 40 units.

Commr. Campione expressed appreciation for the consideration of using the Onsyte system, and she thought that this could be a good opportunity to create a pilot and an example for other parts of the county, such as the subject location, where there was a high water table and nearby water bodies; however, she was having a challenging time getting to the point where she could say yes to exacerbating an issue that already existed with regards to safety. She added that she had not seen any plans put forward to make any significant changes to Lakeshore Drive and address the issues there.

Commr. Blake asked to confirm that the Board could not deny an application based on traffic.

Ms. Marsh explained that the parameters in the code that they would be considering, pertaining to traffic, was whether the extent to which the proposed rezoning would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed rezoning would exceed the capacity of the public facilities, including but not limited to roads, sewage facilities, water supply drainage, etc. She elaborated that if they had a motion to deny, she would need them to put their reasons on the record because staff would have to draft an order for purposes of appeal.

Commr. Blake made a motion to approve Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing PUD, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Ms. Marsh added that when it came to roads, the statutes were fairly clear that the Board could not penalize an application based on deficiencies that already existed. She mentioned that typically, developers did a proportionate fair share where they paid for what their impacts on the road would be.

Commr. Blake said that he made a motion to approve because many of the arguments raised were describing issues that were there not because of the subject property, and he opined that the objections raised could theoretically have been used to deny the nearby Vista Grande development application.

Commr. Campione said that Ms. Marsh was saying that the Board could not take into account the existing deficiencies as the basis for denial, but one could argue that the additional traffic could be the tipping point. She opined that it seemed like this was taking away the ability of the BCC to make decisions based upon the existing facts and the wellbeing and welfare of the Lake County residents.

Commr. Smith asked about the number of trips per day that this development would generate. He also inquired about the current capacity of the road.

Mr. Abdallah replied that it would be around 1,000 trips per day. He explained that the capacity for concurrency was measured by peak hour, noting that it would be 100 peak hour trips, and the capacity was 840 trips for peak hour directional trips. He elaborated that there were about 65 peak hour directional trips on a roadway with a total capacity of 840; therefore, less than 10 percent of the roadway’s capacity would be consumed by this project.

Commr. Parks asked that if this was denied, could the Board waive their application fee.

Ms. Marsh replied that if they denied it under their res judicata provisions, the applicant would not be able to bring it back for a minimum of a year, and they would have to have a substantial change to the application or their circumstances. She said that the Board could deny it without prejudice to allow them to bring it back, and they could waive the application fee.

Commr. Campione felt that the area was oversaturated with development, and that the development patterns exceeded what the area could accommodate if one looked at it in terms of trips on the road, quality of life or what the area could handle. She opined that it seemed like it was overdeveloped and that adding 102 homes was not in the best interest of the area.

Commr. Parks relayed that there was not enough support to move forward, and he would ask for a motion to deny without prejudice and waive the application fee for the applicant to potentially come back with something different within a shorter period of time. He said that he would make a personal commitment to work with the applicant to do something that they could possibly bring forward.

Commr. Shields made a motion to deny the case, using the statements made by the Commissioners as the basis for denial.

Commr. Parks passed the gavel to Commissioner Smith and seconded the motion.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that one of the significant issues was public safety on Lakeshore Drive, noting that there had been several accidents on this roadway; additionally, there continued to be complaints by residents about issues on the road. She also reiterated that she thought that the development patterns were such that the area could not accommodate this number of units on the subject property.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a 3-2 vote, the Board denied Tab 4, Rezoning Case # RZ-20-39-2, Lake Nellie Crossing PUD, without prejudice, and waived the application fee for the applicant to potentially come back with something different within a shorter period of time.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

Commr. Smith then passed the gavel back to Commissioner Parks.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 12:04 p.m. until 12:45 p.m.

PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY

Mr. Rosen said that this would be more of a high level review, noting that they had the assessment of value and would be receiving the final value on July 1, 2021. He also mentioned possibly moving the BCC meeting regarding the truth in millage (TRIM) notice from July 27, 2021 to July 13, 2021 because some Commissioners would be out of town on July 27, 2021.

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented an update on the FY 2022 proposed budget development. She displayed the best estimate of property values that they received from the Lake County Property Appraiser’s Office on June 1, 2021, commenting that final values would be received on July 1, 2021. She explained that they reflected an overall increase of approximately $1.76 billion, with $819 million in new construction, which was about 7.19 percent growth. She stated that in the past year, about 42.9 percent of the residential parcels had a homestead exemption; therefore, the maximum amount that a homesteaded property’s assessed value could increase was 1.4 percent in the previous year. She displayed a chart example of a homesteaded property with the maximum assessed value increase of 1.4 percent in an unincorporated area, showing the effect of County taxes only; additionally, the estimated increase in millage rate was related to the shift from the fire assessment fee to the Lake County Fire Rescue municipal service taxing unit (MSTU). She also indicated that the overall change for this example for a sample property was an annual increase of $8.96. She displayed a graph showing how county taxes would fall into a hypothetical household of four’s budget makeup, noting that county taxes and fees were less than two percent of their overall budget. She then showed a slide indicating where the County was in the budget process, noting that they were currently scheduled to hold the maximum millage meeting and adopt the assessment resolutions on July 27, 2021; however, they were requesting to move it up to the July 13, 2021 BCC meeting. She discussed the FY 2022 General Fund outlook, commenting that it was the best estimate of property values received on June 1, 2021 and with a status quo millage rate of 5.0327 mills. She elaborated that the outlook did not consider the following items: merit or cost of living adjustments; minimum wage adjustments; anticipated Florida Retirement System (FRS) contribution rate increases; allocations for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding usage; or the Lake County Tax Collector’s FY 2022 budget request. She stated that the ad valorem revenue increase was due to increased taxable values, that the other revenues, grants and aids for FY 2022 included $35 million in ARPA funding with specific use and allocations to be determined, and the decrease in fund balance was due to the use of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding from the prior year. She said that for the expenditures, they had the most influence over the blue line items on the chart. She relayed that County departments and offices decreased by approximately $426,000, and grants and aids showed an increase for the anticipated ARPA funding. She added that the medical examiner funding was based on a contracted increase, and the reserves would increase to about $22.7 million, which was about 11.5 percent of all of the expenditures; furthermore, if ARPA funding was excluded, then it would be about 14.5 percent. She showed some department position requests and the impact that they would have, and then relayed the following information about the department budgets: the Office of Communications had an increase for two new positions, and an operating expense increase to account for technology and equipment for those positions; the decreases in the Office of Housing and Community services were from use of CARES Act funding spent in the current year and grant funding availability for FY 2022; the Office of Veteran’s Services increase was due to staffing enhancements; the Office of Transit Services showed a decrease due to ridership decline from the COVID-19 pandemic; and the Office of Visit Lake’s budget decreased in order to accommodate reductions from resort tax revenues. She also indicated the following additional information: The Office of Building Services budget included a new fire inspector, the purchase of equipment and software to improve in-house customer service and mobile office capabilities for field staff, and the implementation of new software; the Office of Planning and Zoning included $75,000 in professional services for an organizational assessment; in addition to seven new positions, the Office of Fire Rescue’s budget included costs related to the acquisition of fire services for the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park, along with the Town of Montverde, and new vehicles and equipment based on their replacement schedule; the Office of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) included minimum wage impacts; the Office of Facilities Management included anticipated increases in contractual services, utility services and supply/material costs; the Road Operations Division budget decrease coincided with the gas tax reductions due to COVID-19; and the Environmental Services Division budget included additional capital costs for an airboat and trailer, discrete analyzer, and hydro lab field meter.

Mr. Rosen reminded everyone that these were not all funded by the General Fund, and were just the departments.

Commr. Campione asked if the gas tax was really a difference of about $1,287,000.

Ms. Teslia replied that they reduced it because of how much revenue they brought in.

Commr. Campione inquired if it correlated to a loss of revenue from gas tax because people stayed home, because they drove electric cars, or a combination of these.

Mr. Rosen said that it was probably a bit of both.

Ms. Teslia mentioned that it was starting to come back. She then displayed the Constitutional Officer budget requests for FY 2022 and relayed the following information: the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s budget request included increases for insurance and FRS rates; the Lake County Property Appraiser’s request included appraisal system upgrades and a three percent wage increase, pending Board approval; the Lake County Supervisor of Elections’ request included the addition of staff and anticipated costs related to redistricting; and the Lake County Sheriff’s request included a sworn step plan and cost of living adjustment increases, additional costs related to the minimum wage increase requirements, increases for insurance and FRS rates, anticipated increases for the inmate medical contract, and increases for fuel and other operating costs. She said that the Tax Collector’s budget was not due until August 1, 2021; therefore, they used the 2021 number. She noted that for the Office of Fire Rescue, there had been a shift from basic life support (BLS) calls to advanced life support (ALS) calls, and the fire assessment fee could only be used to cover BLS services by State law, which was why the fire assessment fee was being reduced for FY 2022. She commented that in order to maintain the same service levels, they were estimating an increase in the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU rate, and that based on the best estimate of taxable values, they were projecting the MSTU to increase by .0434 mills to .5138 mills; additionally, they estimated that the average single-family homeowner with a $120,000 taxable value would see a reduction in the fire assessment fee and an increase in the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU, with a net savings of $6.79 for fire services.

Commr. Campione proposed possibly running a similar analysis for how it could affect a business. She wondered about the bottom line for fire services.

Ms. Teslia mentioned that businesses had several different options for the fire assessment fee, though they could consider it.

Mr. Rosen said that staff could look at these numbers based on the most recent study.

Ms. Teslia added that part of the reason why they were seeing an increase was that it had expanded who was paying for the MSTU, noting that they added on the other areas in the past year; therefore, the tax base was greater.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that they had some other municipalities such as the Cities of Mascotte and Fruitland Park, and the Town of Montverde. He elaborated that they were adding more capacity to charge for and provide those services.

Ms. Teslia displayed the best estimate of property values and pointed out that the Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU increased by a higher percentage because of this.

Mr. Rosen stated that there was also an overall increase proposed to the Office of Fire Rescue Budget because they were bringing on more of the Cities, and because there was an additional battalion chief shift.

Commr. Smith requested to receive the same comparison of $120,000 taxable value of non-homesteaded homes.

Mr. Rosen thought that the only difference would be the MSTU would probably go up higher even if it was the same value as in the previous year.

Ms. Teslia continued her presentation and said that for the solid waste assessment fees, they were not proposing any increases for FY 2022. She provided the following information: the solid waste assessment was used to fund the collection, management and disposal of residential solid waste and recovered materials in unincorporated Lake County; the assessment rates must be set annually and were included on the TRIM notice; vacant lots were not assessed; the assessment could not be used to fund countywide services such as landfill operations, convenience centers and hazardous waste disposal; and the rates are based on the service area and service level.

Commr. Smith asked about the 1x1x1 as opposed to the 2x1x1.

Ms. Teslia clarified that the latter was two times per week as opposed to one time per week.

Commr. Campione said that when they put this system in place, everyone in the County had twice per week pickup; furthermore, they went to once per week pickup. She added that certain communities that had HOAs who wanted twice per week pickup had opted in, but they could only do it in neighborhoods where there was a large enough community.

Ms. Teslia continued her presentation and indicated that staff came up with a few options for how to increase funding for roads in regards to the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU. She explained that option one was to increase the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU rate and change the distribution to include roads. She relayed that the MSTU currently only applied to unincorporated property owners and was allocated 87 percent to parks, 13 percent to stormwater, and no funds were allocated to roads. She elaborated that some of the issues with funding countywide services with an MSTU included the following: as more area became incorporated, less properties ended up paying into the fund; and she questioned if it was equitable that only unincorporated residents and businesses paid for roads they drove on, parks they recreated in, and stormwater that filtered water and mitigated flooding throughout the county. She said that with option two, which was to merge the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU rate into the General Fund millage rate, taxpayers in the entire county would contribute to the services that were provided countywide, which would increase the tax base. She added that the current MSTU millage rate of .4957 mills could be merged with the General Fund millage rate, and they estimated based on values they currently had that there would be approximately $2.7 million in additional funding available which could be used towards roads. She stated that if this method were adopted, a homeowner with an average $120,000 taxable value in the unincorporated areas would see no effective change in their tax bill, and homeowners with the same value would see about a $59 increase in the incorporated areas.

Commr. Campione asked that under this scenario, would the current allocation of 87 percent for parks and trails go away, and they would take the whole amount and apply it countywide; furthermore, would it generate $2.7 million that could be used for roads.

Mr. Rosen confirmed this but said that the recommendation would be to hold parks, stormwater and trails harmless, noting that they would receive the same amount of revenue as in the previous year. He added that they would then take the approximate $2.7 million from moving the taxing authority over, and have that addition go to roads; furthermore, in future years, the funding split would remain the same.

Commr. Campione mentioned that they had an MSTU in the unincorporated area only, yet everyone used the roads. She opined that everyone should be paying for the roads, and she thought that this could possibly be something the County could discuss with the Cities regarding a different way of addressing roads; however, it may not be well received by city residents.

Commr. Parks agreed that it may not be well received within the cities, but he questioned what the Cities would do to implement their own assessment for roads as they continued to annex and grow.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there were different types of roads within cities, such as county roads and local roads. She noted that as the cities grew, they were putting more impact on county roads. She opined that they needed a funding source for their local roads and that everyone needed a funding source for county roads whether they were in the unincorporated area or the cities, unless the Cities would take over those roads.

Commr. Smith agreed that if a City would take over all roads within their annexed property, then the county would not have to do this; however, they left the county roads to the County, and unincorporated residents had to fund the majority of it. He thought that the County could communicate that everyone who lived in a city or the unincorporated area used county roads, and he opined that everyone needed to participate in the funding of those roads.

Commr. Parks recalled that Mr. Rosen had made a presentation at the South Lake Chamber of Commerce, and he asked how many county roads were in South Lake.

Mr. Rosen replied that within Commission District 2, there were about 367 county maintained roads. He said that to resurface one mile of road currently, it was between $110,000 and $150,000. He added that they were backlogged by about 300,000 miles of road, and he opined that one would want to resurface about five percent of roads per year. He proposed that if they had additional funding, then instead of putting it all toward road resurfacing, they could try to build up funding to do projects that could increase the longevity of these roads so that they would not have to spend as much each year. He stated that their current gap to keep up was about $5 million per year, noting that they received less gas tax revenue than previously, and that the gas tax only went toward other roads needs and not specifically resurfacing. He recalled that the County had borrowed about $5 million in the previous year and $5 million in the current year to catch up, but that was only a one time influx for an ongoing issue. He said that even if the County did this and used the additional $2.7 million just for road resurfacing, it would only get them three-quarters of the way there with the $1 million that they budgeted through sales tax; therefore, they would still be falling behind and would need to find additional ways to fund those roads.

Commr. Campione asked that if the County was keeping up, what would the cost be annually.

Mr. Rosen responded that it was about $6 million per year currently just to keep up, and they probably needed to budget about $9 million per year to catch up. He mentioned road construction and noted that it could cost $1 million for a simple mile of road, and $10 million to $17 million for one mile of a four lane road that required stormwater and other infrastructure, along with purchasing right of way; additionally, it could continue to become more expensive in the future.

Commr. Blake inquired about the period of time for $9 million per year to catch up.

Mr. Rosen said that they could slowly start to catch up if they did $9 million for the next 10 years.

Commr. Parks said that it could be separated and made clear to the public that if the Board moved the funding to the General Fund, it would only be for roads.

Ms. Teslia clarified that this would be the excess, because they would still be funding parks and stormwater.

Commr. Campione noted that it would be an old MSTU that would be essentially rolled into the General Fund, unless they did it as an MSTU. She asked if they were permitted to do this without having an interlocal agreement with the Cities.

Ms. Marsh explained that if they wanted to impose it in the Cities, they had to have an interlocal agreement with them, similar to the EMS MSTU.

Commr. Campione stated that they could possibly work toward the shortfall in the future as a countywide road MSTU.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that this could be a short term 10 year plan, and then it could be repealed it as long as they could fund $6 million per year for current roads.

Commr. Parks said that the Board could potentially do a resolution and that this could be something to think about, or the Cities could possibly support it with a resolution of their own.

Commr. Smith opined that this discussion would not go over well at the City of Tavares because they were already paying county taxes, and city taxes on top of that; therefore, he opined the Cities would like to keep their millage rates as low as possible. He thought that option two could be the best option because it did not raise taxes on unincorporated residents, and helped everyone else contribute to the roads.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that everyone currently paid $0 on their taxes to resurface roads, and with this change, people in the cities would see an increase of about $60, and people in the unincorporated area would not see any difference because they were paying for the MSTU.

Ms. Teslia then discussed the minimum wage impacts. She explained that as approved by voters in November 2020, the minimum wage was increasing to $10 an hour, effective September 30, 2021, and would increase by $1 each year until it reached $15 an hour. She showed a breakdown of how the possible options could affect the budget, commenting that the Office of EMS’s FY 2022 budget request included bringing the minimum wage to $12 an hour, which was about $1.1 million; furthermore, it would be about $2.1 million if they increased it to $15 an hour. She added that if they did this for all BCC employees, the $12 an hour minimum wage, plus compression, would be about $2.3 million, with a General Fund impact of $546,000. She said that if they brought it to $15 an hour, plus compression, it would be roughly $6.7 million, which would be an approximate $1.4 million impact to the General Fund.

Commr. Shields asked if this included addressing compression, and Ms. Teslia confirmed this.

Mr. Rosen noted that the Office of EMS $12 an hour minimum wage, plus compression, was in their current numbers, and he mentioned that it was funded by a different MSTU and not the General Fund. He inquired if this allowed keeping the millage rate the same, or did they have to increase the millage rate to get to the $1.1 million.

Ms. Teslia responded that it was keeping it the same.

Commr. Shields said that there were businesses that paid $15 an hour and that this was who the County was competing against for talent.

Commr. Smith indicated that the County’s Office of EMS was currently at 50 percent capacity.

Commr. Parks stated that the County would be addressing the Office of EMS because this was such a need currently.

Ms. Teslia commented that for the rest of the County, they would not see that much of an impact until FY 2023. She reiterated that for $15 an hour, plus compression, for all BCC employees, it would cost $6.7 million with $1.4 million coming from the General Fund.

Mr. Rosen asked if this included Constitutional Officers, and Ms. Teslia denied this. Mr. Rosen then noted that it would be a larger impact.

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Deputy County Manager, explained that some of the Constitutional Offices were dictated by what the State allowed for their salaries; therefore, they may possibly not be allowed to go to $15 an hour.

Ms. Teslia asked for Board discussion and direction about the following items: rescheduling the maximum millage and TRIM BCC meeting to July 13, 2021; the fire assessment fee/MSTU shift; the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU shift; and the minimum wage impacts.

Commr. Parks supported moving the maximum millage and TRIM BCC meeting to July 13, 2021.

Mr. Rosen noted that on that day, staff would need a decision so that they could give the Lake County Property Appraiser and Lake County Tax Collector that information so they could set up the TRIM notices. He added that staff would have better information as of July 1, 2021.

Commr. Parks said that the item that staff may need the most direction on at the current meeting could be the minimum wage. He asked if they wanted to do $15 an hour at once, or graduate it with $12 an hour first, noting that compression had to be dealt with.

Mr. Rosen thought that they needed direction on all of the items. He stated that the minimum wage for the General Fund was not included in the current budget, but staff had presented a budget with a status quo millage rate. He added that they would need to figure out that if the BCC wanted to at least keep the same millage rate, then how could they do this and afford the shift to $12 an hour, plus compression. He commented that he would need to discuss this with departments, find additional savings, or that if the Lake County Property Appraiser indicated that there was more value than they thought, this could possibly help fund some of it as well. He commented that it would help to have consensus for what the Board was looking for so that staff could prepare those numbers before July 13, 2021.

Commr. Shields expressed interest in getting as close to $15 an hour as quick and as soon as they could.

Commr. Campione asked if this meant that he would be in favor of a millage increase, opining that this could not be done without it. She expressed that she was in favor of the status quo millage.

Commr. Shields questioned that if they kept the same millage and then moved the funding around, how much could they increase the minimum wage.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it would be $12 an hour for the first year, and then they could possibly go to $15 an hour in the following year.

Commr. Smith did not think that they had a choice for the Office of EMS, and he thought that they would have to go to $12 an hour immediately due to employees leaving. He supported at least a $12 an hour minimum wage for the Office of EMS in the current year; however, the Board had not yet looked at any specific line items that they could possibly cut.

Ms. Barker relayed that staff typically did not provide a budget book at this point in the process, though they could run Munis reports that would include the detail.

Commr. Smith asked if they did a line item budget.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that the Board would have a recommended budget book on July 13, 2021.

Commr. Parks recalled that the departments had given budget presentations over the past several months. He also noted that Commissioner Smith could receive a specific department breakdown.

Mr. Rosen asked for the slide with the additional positions to be shown, commenting that these were the positions that had been recommended through the budget process. He also noted that funding more positions would mean that he would have less funding for raises. He said that one position was an additional fire inspector, which had come earlier in the year to reduce the fire inspection timeline and overtime; furthermore, this was not funded by the General Fund. He stated that the Office of Communications was requesting two positions to help create additional digital assets and to increase the footprint of public safety. He commented that a maintenance technician II was requested for the Office of Facilities Management, and that there was currently about an 80,000 square foot coverage per full-time employee (FTE); furthermore, he thought that the current best practice was around 50,000 square feet. He said that some of the requested firefighters for the Office of Fire Rescue were to fill the new contracts that the County had and to backfill the three battalion chiefs. He stated that the requested positions for the Office of County Probation were not an increase in funding, noting that they currently had limited term positions and that this was just continuing it. He remarked that for the Office of Veteran’s Services, there was about a six week wait time currently, and this could reduce the wait time to about two to three weeks. He relayed that the County did not have to fund all of these positions, and if there was a position that they did not want, then he would have more funding to use for something else.

Commr. Parks said that with the Office of Communications, they could possibly find a local contract to fulfill that and not bring an FTE in; rather, they could be on a year by year basis. He believed that the Office of Communications needed help with messaging and education.

Commr. Campione also opined that they needed help connecting what the County was doing to the public. She liked the idea of exploring the possibility of outsourcing it, and she also noted that the fire inspector position was funded by an enterprise fund and needed to be taken care of.

Commr. Smith inquired if there were companies who did fire inspections and if they could do a cost comparison on this.

Mr. Rosen said that people sometimes outsourced building inspections, but he was unsure about fire inspections.

Commr. Campione opined that they could get quicker turnaround by having it in-house and that it was important to have continuity between the building official and the fire inspector. She was unsure if outsourcing it made sense.

Commr. Smith relayed that many times when one outsourced something like this, they were actually in-house but were just paid through something like NOVA Engineering and Environmental, which was an outsource company that did building inspections. He then asked if there were other opportunities to help the County assist in the fire and EMS realm to increase productivity or efficiencies with the reduction of capital costs.

Mr. Rosen said that the County had started looking at nurse triage in 9-1-1, and they found things that other Counties in the country were doing to reduce the need for rides in ambulances, noting that this could increase productivity. He added that that staff could have an answer for this before the next budget season, and he mentioned a potential option of combining forces with the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue.

Commr. Blake asked about the total dollar amount for the additional FTEs.

Mr. Rosen stated that he had discussed outsourcing with Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications, relaying a concern that for the individual who would be doing photography, digital assets, and videography, many times when outsourcing it may take more time to produce those types of videos. He said that if they wanted to reduce costs, they could possibly only hire one of those positions in the current year and see if the County was getting better service, and then determine in the following year if they wanted to move to a second position. He mentioned that they could also allocate funding for potential outsourcing.

Commr. Parks proposed to possibly try someone local first, and if there were issues, then they could potentially hire a new FTE.

Commr. Campione opined that one of the most important things they did was protect their brand and image, and that they wanted control over that. She mentioned that someone else may do work, but then they could possibly have to make it the quality that they were trying to project, noting that this could take more time for County staff.

Mr. Rosen relayed that there were requests regarding workload and that some items had to be made lower priority due to Mr. Cooper only having one individual to shoot video and edit. He indicated that they could allocate enough funding in the budget for a position, try some outsourcing, and if the Board authorized the position, they could stop the outsourcing and hire someone.

Ms. Teslia stated in reference to Commissioner Blake’s question that she did not have the enterprise fund and fire fund numbers, but the General Fund cost was about $392,000 for the new positions.

Commr. Campione asked if this included the probation officers.

Ms. Teslia clarified that it included the positions for the Offices of Veteran’s Services, Communications, County Probation, and Facilities Maintenance.

Commr. Parks opined that they needed to fund the Office of Veteran’s Services positions.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that the Office of County Probation positions were not an additional cost.

Commr. Campione opined that the Office of Communications was currently maxed out and could not do everything that needed to be done. She also opined that they needed to be able to do more to connect with the public, noting that their counterparts and the Constitutional Officers were doing this.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that the proposal was to try one position and leave the other spot open.

Mr. Rosen explained that if the Board was not interested in funding the two positions currently, then he proposed going to one position. He mentioned that they would have this person in-house and could control the vision and what was in those videos, and the additional public information officer (PIO) would be for public safety.

Ms. Barker suggested that if they were only going to do one position, to go with the media position because they would be filming at the County’s events and editing. She added that for the PIO, staff could make some things work.

Commr. Parks relayed his interpretation that it would be one position and then leaving the other position as a flex, but still fund it, and Ms. Barker responded that they could do that.

Commr. Shields asked if the County could use Tourist Development Taxes (TDT) for any of this.

Ms. Barker was unsure because it was more operational in nature and not associated with heads in beds.

Ms. Marsh clarified that as long as it was promoting tourism in Lake County, then they could use the TDT funding.

Ms. Barker stated that some positions in the Office of Communications were already partially funded by TDT revenue; furthermore, if they had additional operational costs for creating a campaign for marketing associated with the Office of Visit Lake, then they could consider this. She thought that having an additional person who could attend remote events and do the filming, branding and editing the way the County wanted it done would be beneficial. She thought that they could hold off on the PIO currently, and they could also outsource some of those services if necessary; additionally, there was some staff willing to assist with the writing aspect if needed.

Commr. Smith inquired if they saw the digital photographer being full time.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that they currently only had one full time digital photographer. She expressed interest in having their media specialists attend different events that the Board attended, such as ribbon cuttings. She thought that they would have more video content that they could upload online and that they would have more quality content.

Commr. Smith relayed that he would still like to consider outsourcing the video portion.

Commr. Parks said that he liked holding a place for two positions, with one being the County’s videographer, and holding funding for a second spot whether it was outsourced or if they had to go to a regular FTE.

Commr. Smith supported holding one position open and look for outsourcing opportunities, and if they could not find any, then they could get that one position.

Ms. Barker added that they could approve the two positions and use the funding from one position for the outsourcing to see how it went; furthermore, they could come back at any time to get a position approved. She also said that if the funding was never used, then they could move it back into the fund balance.

Commr. Smith noted that the millage rate would then be for two positions instead of just one, and opined that he would like to have the millage rate for only one person in the following year.

Mr. Rosen said that they could possibly approve the photographer/asset coordinator position, that they could do what they could internally for the PIO, along with starting out by looking at outsourcing.

Commr. Parks opined that reserves were a significant issue for the Board, and said that if they never used the second position or used only part of it, the Board could decide to put that back into the fund balance.

Ms. Barker explained that they had two opportunities throughout the budget year in January and April for mid-year budget adjustments.

Commr. Campione relayed that it still had to be paid for whether it was outsourced or not, or they could ask for it later if it was not funded at that time.

Commr. Smith reiterated his support for budgeting for only one position.

Commr. Shields expressed support for budgeting for two positions and then reducing it later if they needed to.

Ms. Barker clarified that if they budgeted for one position, then they would also need to budget for some outsourcing if this was a consideration.

Commr. Smith thought that staff could bring back some numbers for outsourcing, and Ms. Barker said that they could have an answer before September 2021.

Mr. Rosen then explained that there were two positions for the Office of Veteran’s Services, noting that they felt that the office assistant III would be more impactful. He said that if the Board decided between one or two positions, the office would request the office assistant III first, and the second position would be the veteran’s services officer.

Commr. Parks expressed support for what the office was requesting.

Mr. Rosen also noted that once they had someone onboard, it could take a significant amount of time for them to be trained and certified to start making appointments; therefore, the impact would not be immediate. He summarized that staff would consider the different variations for the Office of Communications positions, and reminded the Board that for the TRIM notice hearing on July 13, 2021, the Board would not be able to go above what they would set the rate at. He elaborated that generally, they would want to set it at the maximum rate they thought that they could do, and then the County could hopefully figure out some things to potentially lower it. He also asked if there was any concern for moving the fire assessment and Lake County Fire Rescue MSTU.

Commr. Campione was interested to see how it could impact an individual, noting that she wanted to make sure that it would not look like a millage increase.

Mr. Rosen stated that for homesteaded property, if this was the only item on one’s tax bill, and all things being equal, the tax bill would actually decrease. He clarified that one would be paying around $5 more in the MSTU but approximately $12 less for the assessment; therefore, the actual amount would be almost $7 less than the prior year.

Ms. Barker said that for commercial and industrial properties, they would typically show a 15,000 square foot building as an example, and staff could provide the Board with this number.

Commr. Campione recalled a few years prior when the Lake County School Board had an approved referendum for safety enhancements after a school shooting in South Florida, noting that it had looked like they raised the millage; however, there was an insert included in the tax bill which indicated that it was a voter referendum increase. She proposed that if the Board had some changes in the current year, then they may want to have a short explanation.

Commr. Parks thought that this was a great idea.

Ms. Barker was unsure if this could be included with the TRIM notice, but said that she could check with the Lake County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector Offices. She added that staff could also get a cost estimate to do this.

Mr. Rosen noted that the Board had requested some additional information about the Stormwater, Parks and Roads MSTU shift, in addition to how far the Board could raise the minimum wage while keeping the same millage rate.

Commr. Smith opined that they had to do this for the Office of EMS, though they could possibly expand it out.

Mr. Rosen confirmed this for the following year, and said that for the current year, they would have to do something with that fund by September 30, 2021.

Commr. Parks asked if they should do $15 an hour for the Office of EMS immediately.

Ms. Teslia relayed that if this was done, then they would have to raise the millage rate for the MSTU. She thought that the maximum they could do without raising the MSTU millage rate was just over $12 an hour.

Commr. Campione said that it was possibly time to explore if they could find some efficiencies, if they were to consider some consolidations between the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue, to get in a position to meet the $15 an hour without a millage increase.

Mr. Rosen indicated that they could put something in the budget to ensure that they could come back before the following budget season to present options.

Commr. Shields mentioned that some constituents did not know what the impact of the minimum wage would be on their bottom line; therefore, some of this could possibly be an information campaign, noting that residents had voted for this and currently, the County had to determine how to provide it.

Commr. Parks inquired about the opposition to bringing the Offices of EMS and Fire Rescue together.

Ms. Barker recalled that during the initial transition from Lake EMS to the Office of EMS, some individuals had opined that it was a money grab by the County and that the County had tried to figure out how to influence the countywide millage through the MSTU for ambulance services; however, this was unconfirmed. She mentioned that it was good to reevaluate their operations, mentioning that things changed and priorities shifted over time.

Commr. Parks noted that the County was trying to be efficient and provide the best service countywide.

Mr. Rosen stated that the Office of EMS was currently running an operation at between 45 and 55 percent capacity, with an average response time of around 11 minutes. He opined that this was not a bad response time for the ambulance to arrive and that it was impressive, noting that they were doing it with the adversity they were facing.

Commr. Parks mentioned that people from both medical and fire were responding, and opined that there could be a significant savings with that.

Mr. Rosen thought that they could possibly have someone from outside the County take a holistic look at it and make suggestions. He then said that staff would continue to communicate with the Board as they found information before July 13, 2021.

Commr. Parks asked if there was anything new regarding a recent meeting with himself, Mr. Rosen, Ms. Barker, and the Constitutional Officers.

Ms. Barker relayed that she would be setting up a meeting with her counterparts and their offices, noting that she had sent them the interim final rule for ARPA funding.

Commr. Parks inquired if ARPA funding was being considered as part of this to help the County regarding their budget.

Mr. Rosen mentioned that the Board would see more on this on July 13, 2021, and that he had a recent conversation with other county managers from the region. He stated that one item they were looking at was lost revenue, noting that they may be able to get to where they needed to be without having to raise the millage rate.

other business

APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Tommie (Ray) Powers, Jr. to the District 5 seat on the Board of Adjustments, and approval of the applicable waiver.

ELDER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the Elder Affairs Committee’s recommendation to remove Mr. Thomas Lannert from his District 4 seat due to non-attendance, and their recommendation to move Mr. Adam Stack from the At-Large seat to the District 4 seat.

reports

county attorney

Closed Session

Ms. Marsh reminded the Board that they would have a closed session once they adjourned the current meeting.

county manager

Possible meeting with school board

Mr. Rosen recalled that the Board had discussed a possible meeting with the Lake County School Board, which would be related to impact fees; however, he thought that there might not have been a request to meet with them at this time. He asked the Board for their consensus.

Commr. Blake thought that this issue had been resolved, and he said that he did not see the need for a joint meeting. He recalled that his question had regarded the temporary suspension of school impact fees, though the school board did not want to do this.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that a joint meeting may have been scheduled because the BCC wanted to see the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the school district; however, he did not think that this data would be received until the new school year started.

Commr. Blake mentioned that they heard from the Office of Planning and Zoning that the financial impact of suspending school impacts until September 2021 would have been about $5 million, mentioning that there was not an appetite for this.

Commr. Campione said that they could possibly see if the Lake County Schools Superintendent could provide an overview of where everything ended up after COVID-19.

american rescue plan act funding for premium pay

Mr. Rosen said that as part of the ARPA, the County could spend funding for premium pay, which was capped at a certain amount. He relayed that when the County had discussed the vacancies in the Office of EMS, it was 30 to 40 percent, adding that some staff members were also going to be out of the office; therefore, they were currently at an effective vacancy rate of 55 to 60 percent. He commented that the Lake County Office of EMS was the lowest paid in the area, and while the Board was looking at doing something in the following year, this would not help until September 30, 2021. He questioned how to fill that gap, and relayed that ARPA funding could possibly be used as a sign-on bonus for anyone that came to work for the Office of EMS between the current date and October 1, 2021. He added that funding could also possibly be used to incentivize current employees to stay because the County could not currently do anything with the taxing rate in order to give them a raise. He also stated that it put more pressure on the people there as more people continued to leave.

Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of EMS, stated that he would be grateful to move forward as quickly as they could with this item. He thought that the staff seeing that the BCC was interested in addressing this would be significant for their morale, and he expressed interest in doing something to attract people, to put more ambulances on the road, and to decrease staff’s workload.

Mr. Rosen inquired if they could attract individuals from other counties.

Mr. Smith said that this would be his thought. He also mentioned that Lake Technical College had 20 people who had showed up for an EMT class orientation; however, they would not graduate until December 2021. He expressed support for attracting and maintaining staff.

Mr. Rosen asked if they could recruit from other EMT and paramedic schools.

Mr. Smith confirmed that the County did this and that they had agreements for nonaffiliated students to ride with them.

Mr. Rosen stated that staff would bring back more of the plan on July 13, 2021.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

meetings with individuals in four corners

Commr. Shields relayed that after a recent BCC meeting in Four Corners, he and staff had met with a representative for a development which would include workforce housing; additionally, they would also be meeting with Mr. Jeff Cagan in the following week. He added that he had met with the Commissioners from the other counties in the Four Corners area, and he suggested the possibility of a joint meeting with himself and the three other County Commissioners in the area.

city of groveland workforce housing

Commr. Shields said that the City of Groveland would be including workforce housing in their developments going forward. He also described the city center area.

Seaplane ride

Commr. Shields commented that he recently had a seaplane ride with the Jones Brothers Air & Seaplane Adventures, and said that it was great.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

keep lake beautiful and tavares nature park cleanups

Commr. Smith mentioned that on the previous Saturday, there was a KLB cleanup, along with a Tavares Nature Park cleanup. He relayed that he had participated in the Tavares Nature Park cleanup, and he recognized KLB for assisting with supplies.

every day is caturday program

Commr. Smith stated that he had met with Ms. Whitney Boylston, Director for the Office of Animal Services, to discuss their Every Day is Caturday program. He noted that it was a free program and that the Office of Animal Services could come out to educate individuals about the program.

meeting with leesburg city manager

Commr. Smith said that he had met with the Leesburg City Manager about growth in the Yalaha area, commenting that the Board had just passed a resolution for a joint meeting with the Leesburg City Council.

wishing commissioner parks happy birthday

Commr. Smith wished Commissioner Parks a Happy Birthday.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

proclamation honoring ms. joyce brautcheck

Commr. Blake remarked that for Tab 3 on the current meeting’s consent agenda, the Board had approved a proclamation honoring Ms. Joyce Brautcheck, who had been with Lake-Sumter State College since 1971, noting that she would be retiring. He added that Mr. Pete Wahl, a former County Manager and the Chair of the Lake-Sumter State College District Board of Trustees, had requested this proclamation; furthermore, the college would give the proclamation to her.

Commr. Parks added that the Board could set up a time during a meeting to present it to her.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

liberty tree event

Commr. Parks reminded everyone about the Liberty Tree event on the following Thursday at 8:30 a.m., adding that he wanted each Commissioner to read at least one part of the proclamation. He hoped that it would be a great event and that he would see everyone there, and he thanked staff. He thought that invitations had been sent out, and he also thanked Cherry Lake Tree Farm. He hoped that the BCC would start doing this proclamation each year to recognize the nation.

thanking ms. andrea kennard

Commr. Parks thanked Ms. Andrea Kennard, with the BCC office, for the birthday decorations in his office and for doing a great job to help him serve the residents.

CLOSED SESSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS

Ms. Marsh explained that this was a different type of closed session, that the Board would not come back after they were finished, and that they could adjourn their meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK