A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

February 7, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session with the Lake County municipalities on Monday, February 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., at the Venetian Center, Leesburg, 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: Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

welcome

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and led the Pledge of Allegiance. He told a story about American car executives in the 1980s who used a process to ensure that car doors fit, noting that a Japanese auto plant during that time engineered the outcome they wanted from the beginning. He commented that this was a metaphor for how people sometimes led, noting that when faced with a result that did not go according to plan, a series of perfectly effective short term tactics were used until the desired outcome was achieved; however, he questioned how structurally sound these solutions were. He also thought that this was a metaphor for growth management in Lake County, and he said that he was speaking first for the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), and that that he accepted responsibility; furthermore, he did not intend to cast any blame on the Cities in attendance. He said that he had spoken to all of the mayors and many city managers, relaying his understanding that they shared the same concern that the rapid growth of the county and the cities may produce a less than desirable outcome in the coming years and for the next generation. He commented that each of them had expressed a desire to serve and make their cities and county better, and that he and the mayors shared a concern that their infrastructure was currently less than adequate and would not be able to keep up, noting that they were one of the top five fastest growing counties in the State of Florida. He mentioned that he was aware that communication regarding growth management between the Cities and the County needed to improve dramatically, and that their communications could fail without a vision and a properly engineered process. He stated that he was aware from their conversations that Lake County could do better to help each City with their economic prosperity goals, if nothing more than through better communication and sitting down together. He expressed a concern that if they were not careful and if they did not act at the current time, Lake County could possibly become another outer ring suburb of the City of Orlando. He clarified that he was not saying that those were bad places currently; however, as a suburb of the City of Orlando, those Cities were spending millions of dollars to try and make themselves unique and pay for the traditional suburban style of growth. He opined that if development cost more than the wealth it created, then they were only getting poorer regardless of the job creation and economic development they thought they were receiving. He opined that they were all better to address this together rather than individually, and that the 14 cities and the natural environment made Lake County unique. He said that he would not expect that what was done in development somewhere else was going to work in Lake County, and he opined that the call was to protect their natural environment and improve the built environment. He added that the call should also be to work together to achieve the highest value of land from sound policies, and to seek partnerships with the business community. He opined that they should protect their green infrastructure, opining that in many ways it had equal monetary value to the built environment, along with equal or more intrinsic value to the character of their community. He opined that they had to do this in a way that respected property rights and recognized the power of the free market, also opining that they could not protect areas such as the Wekiva River Basin, the Green Swamp, their forests and longstanding rural hamlets without significant changes to the systems that they operated in currently. He believed that the question on the current day was if they were willing to engage in a process that identified a common vision and that would mutually benefit them all. He asked if they could address the challenges of the future and make it all fit based on the original intentions.

introductions

Commr. Parks introduced himself as the BCC Chairman. He added that Dr. Richard Levey, with Levey Consulting, was present, noting that he worked with the Cities and the County. He also mentioned that Mr. Ernie Cox, representing Family Lands Remembered, was present. He said that at the end of the meeting, Dr. Levey and Mr. Cox would be summarizing the items they heard.

The following individuals introduced themselves: Commissioner Blake, noting that he represented Commission District 5; Mr. Gary La Venia, Fruitland Park City Manager; Mayor Jim Rietz, with the Town of Lady Lake; Mr. Bill Lawrence, Lady Lake Town Manager; Commissioner Campione, noting that she represented Commission District 4; Mayor Crissy Stile, with the City of Mount Dora; Mr. Patrick Comiskey, Mount Dora City Manager; Mayor Kent Adcock, with the City of Umatilla; Mayor Mike Holland, with the City of Eustis; Mr. Tom Carrino, Eustis Interim City Manager; Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator; Mayor Martha MacFarlane, with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; Mayor Mitchell Mack, with the Town of Astatula; Mr. Graham Wells, Astatula Town Clerk and Finance Officer; Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager; Commissioner Smith, noting that he represented Commission District 3; Mayor Lori Pfister, with the City of Tavares; Mr. John Drury, Tavares City Administrator; Commissioner Parks, noting that he represented Commission District 2; Mr. Brian Bulthuis, Clermont City Manager; Mayor Tim Murry, with the City of Clermont; Mayor Joe Wynkoop, with the Town of Montverde; Mr. Paul Larino, Montverde Town Manager; Commissioner Shields, noting that he represented Commission District 1; Mr. Tim Maslow, Community and Economic Development Director for the City of Groveland; Mayor Evelyn Wilson, with the City of Groveland; Ms. Annamarie Reno, Mascotte City Manager; Ms. Dolly Miller, Deputy City Manager and Finance Director for the City of Mascotte; Mr. Al Minner, Leesburg City Manager; and Mayor Mike Pederson, with the City of Leesburg.

identification and discussion of shared issues

Commr. Parks commented that there was not a strict agenda for the current meeting, and he wanted to start by listening to the Cities about what the issues were. He also expressed interest to see if there was something that they could do together which was mutually beneficial, such as a long term plan, to address some issues.

Mayor MacFarlane said that there was a significant amount of residential growth and that their infrastructure was being challenged, noting that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills was a small community. She stated that they were considering having conversations with developers and trying to coordinate with them, along with the Lake County Office of Planning and Zoning. She indicated that she would like to have more communication and understand the goals of the County regarding supporting the development of infrastructure.

Mayor Wynkoop noted that the Town of Montverde was small and that they had a significant amount of unincorporated Lake County around them. He opined that the Town was not part of the process when it came to building in the Lake County area, and he said that he would like to see some kind of item in the process to include the Cities so that they could provide input.

Mr. Larino thought that some of the issues they were seeing included that the County’s development standards were different from the Town of Montverde’s standards. He related that density and the size of housing were important to the Town, and he mentioned the possibility of having something in place in the town’s 180 area for some cohesiveness between the cities and the county. He asked if the County’s goal was to preserve some of the rural area, opining that developers were more enticed to come to the towns because they could not get that amount of density in the county.

Mayor Wilson mentioned transportation and said that they had to find a way to address the roads with all of the vehicles, along with trails. She thought that the group could find ways of working together to get these items done.

Mayor Stile mentioned working with the County to expand the Wolf Branch Innovation District, and relayed that the City of Mount Dora was looking forward to this expansion. She added that they were focused on growing business in the City of Mount Dora as opposed to continuing with rooftops. She stated that they were currently a city of about 16,000 people and that they had approved projects to add about 4,000 more residents, and there was another potential project to add over 3,000 additional residents. She stated that they were looking at significant growth opportunities and that they could work with the County to do this in the right way.

Mayor Rietz expressed concerns about roads, opining that some two lane roads should be three or four lane roads, and that some roads in the county needed to be addressed.

Mr. Lawrence indicated that one of their largest concerns was Rolling Acres Road and that it had been an issue for several years. He opined that it was considered failed growth and that it had stopped economic development there, commenting that it would cost about $12 million to improve it. He proposed that the Town of Lady Lake and the County could possibly work together to put funding toward the road and approach the State for their legislative appropriation for the remaining funds.

Mayor Pfister thought that a significant item was quality of life, noting that items such as infrastructure fell under this. She said that the City of Tavares had created a growth committee and would be addressing their Land Development Regulations (LDR), along with discussing the direction that they wanted the city to go in. She mentioned that they wanted the preservation of rural areas, along with a transition from rural areas to residential and commercial areas.

Mr. Drury recalled that about a decade prior, there was a Central Florida movement called “How Shall We Grow,” and there were conversations about creating dense areas in the cities and transition areas between the cities. He opined that it was sometimes challenging to know when one left a city and arrived at another city, and he also opined that the pendulum had swung from pro-growth to smart growth. He thought that the question in Lake Could was how they shall grow, and once Lake County created that vision, the 14 Cities could develop their plans which could fit with the County’s. He thought that many individuals would like to see the rural areas remain rural, for transition areas to be created between cities, and for cities being dense. He said that an example of this could be building up instead of out to create density in the cities. He commented that the interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBA) areas, which were negotiated six years prior with the County, focused more on service areas, and did not focus as much on how they shall grow. He stated that there could be an opportunity to revisit the ISBAs and identify the dense areas and transition areas.

Commr. Parks said that one question to consider was how the Cities envisioned this process, noting that he envisioned a countywide process to include all 14 Cities.

Mayor Pederson stated that the City of Leesburg had experienced significant growth, and that he would like to see some of the remaining areas undeveloped or be developed at a low density.

Commr. Smith mentioned that the Cities could possibly come up with their transitional zones, as well as where they wanted their rural and urban areas to be, as each city was different. He elaborated that this could be sent to the County, and the County could encompass everyone’s vision into a single vision.

Mr. Bulthuis mentioned that when a developer went to the County first, even though property was adjacent to a city, the City of Clermont had to serve utilities; furthermore, the developer could receive entitlements from the County that were denser than what the City would allow. He stated that determining the transition zone and the County asking the developer to talk to the City could be a large benefit so that the City could influence those boundaries.

Commr. Parks mentioned communication and thought that they had to have a better process, where he would not do something unless he had been talking to the Mayor and City Manager and knew whether it was something they were supportive of. He opined that development should not be more costly in the long term for the City. He thought that they could do a process together to consider if the development would pay for itself currently and 25 years in the future if it was approved.

Mayor Murry added that they also faced an issue with public transportation as the City of Clermont continued to grow, opining that public transportation needed to be expanded. He said that they likely needed to consider expanding it along United States (U.S.) Highway 27 as well, and he also mentioned the issue of workforce housing, opining that it was beginning to affect their quality of life.

Commr. Parks said that attainable or workforce housing was something that the BCC was interested in, though they needed help from the Cities. He stated that there were identifiable sites for attainable housing likely within all of the cities, and that this could be part of the communication process.

Mr. Minner stated that each of the Cities and the County had professionals that worked for them and that when these issues came before the governments, they were being managed professionally. He opined that the issue was growth, and that they had rules to follow. He mentioned that the sale and development of land was favored toward landowners, and that the Cities and County had to follow this. He said that the County was a political subdivision and that they were an arm of the State Legislature to deal with broader issues such as roads and health, which Cities did not address; however, Counties also had some of the same issues as Cities with land. He opined that Counties had urban protectionism, but that this was superseded by the law and annexation. He opined that water controlled growth, and that it could be speculated that the Cities were getting close to their consumptive use permits; however, he did not think that they were going to stop growth because it was an integral part of their economy, and he thought that items were managed professionally by the City of Leesburg with the direction of the Leesburg City Commission. He opined that their growth areas were south U.S. Highway 27 and County Road (CR) 44, which was adjacent to existing municipal urban development and unincorporated urban development. He indicated that in the City of Leesburg, they adopted growth areas where they had seen unincorporated land come into the city, noting that had not annexed it in some cases because it was next to unincorporated industrial property. He commented that one of the rural protection areas (RPAs) that they would protect was the Sunnyside area, and indicated if the City of Leesburg had not incorporated the Whispering Hills development, that land could possibly become prime land for the City of Groveland. He opined that an overall policy needed to come from the ground up, and the Cities would have to provide the County with their growth areas; additionally, everyone present at the current meeting would have to agree.

Commr. Parks said that the key would be agreeing about the best use of the transition areas.

Mr. Minner opined that the County would need to review the Cities’ Comprehensive Plans (Comp Plans), noting that the City of Leesburg had discussed including items in their Comp Plan such as forestation, fencing, lighting. He questioned what the density number would be, opining that it could be from 3.5 to four units per acre, noting that this could be workforce housing.

Commr. Campione recalled Mr. Minner’s comments about water being the deciding factor to a large degree for where growth could occur. She added that another constraint was rural roads, noting that most of them were likely a result of agricultural uses and had developed over time. She also indicated that several of them were pieced together over time through maintenance maps, and that portions were dedicated. She commented that very few of them had the necessary right of way to be improved or widened, and she thought that those two lane roads were likely as large of a factor as anything else when it came to appropriateness. She opined that in most instances, those roads were not capable of accomodating growth of four units per acre. She also opined that they had to consider the rural roads, which roads had right of way, and how they could acquire the right of way if they were appropriate places for growth to occur. She said that they would either have to acquire right of way through the dedication; however, she recalled that for the Hodges Reserve case in the City of Leesburg, the only part that could be dedicated was where the development was occurring, and not the other miles of Dewey Robbins Road which she opined could not handle the additional traffic if it was developed. She stated that they had to address the roads, opining that if it was impossible to acquire the right of way, then it was possible that those were places where there should not be that level of growth.

Commr. Shields thought that they needed to define workforce housing and what was the entry level price or rent of the home, relaying that they were told that they were about 9,000 units short in the county. He noted that the county had to rely on the Cities for this.

Commr. Parks agreed, and he asked everyone to consider the process to address those issues.

Mr. Minner said that under the law for roads, developers had the right to develop if they could mitigate the issue. He noted that they needed right of way and that they only did this in areas where the development was immediately occurring. He added that the County was reviewing this, and that the City of Leesburg submitted this to the County. He opined that the County needed to inform Cities of the standards they were looking for.

Commr. Campione thought that this went with the appropriateness of the density in the project because when the County reviewed them, they were looking at it strictly for concurrency, noting that there were limitations and that they could not make a developer address all the issues on the road. She opined that if it was said that a road had constraints and could not be widened, then it seemed to her be something that a local government or municipality would consider and decide not to place four units per acre there; furthermore, they could consider something less dense. She added that it seemed that workforce housing would likely be better in a more urbanized setting.

Commr. Parks commented that if this density was approved and if a road was entirely paid for by a developer to raise it to a standard which was capable of addressing that density, this did not necessarily satisfy his concern for the long term. He questioned that if a collector road had to be resurfaced or repaved in 25 years because of the development coming in, how would it be able to pay for itself so it would not be spread across the rest of the county. He mentioned that the County had made a recent commitment out of their General Fund for transportation, but there would have to be a way for them to catch up.

Mr. Bulthuis said that the City of Clermont was about to start their Comp Plan review and rewrite, and that he would like for the County to participate. He recalled the question about the process and how to move forward, and he stated that the answer was possibly for every City to consider and update their Comp Plans.

Mayor Wilson commented that in the past six months, the City of Groveland had adopted a new land use policy and had been working on their strategic plan for the city. She indicated that Mr. Maslow had been working on these plans and projects.

Mr. Maslow indicated that conservation, housing and transportation were all elements of their Comp Plans, and he opined that they needed all of the Cities to update their Comp Plans in coordination with the County, relaying his understanding that the County would also be updating its Comp Plan. He explained that the City of Groveland had about 30,000 acres in their utility service area, and about 18,000 acres were annexed. He stated that one of their goals was to preserve at least 60 percent of their nature and agriculture, but they could not do this without the County’s participation. He said that they had a conceptual map of their future land use (FLU) which included both the county and city, and he mentioned the sense of departure and arrival for cities in different areas. He commented that the City of Groveland had about 9,000 homes in a roughly 34,000 acre area, and when they looked at their entitlement map, they had about 24,000 units entitled and unbuilt. He wondered how many jurisdictions had an entitlement map for their cities, and he believed that they would have to deal with the entitlements. He indicated a belief that many of these entitlements were in areas which were underserved in terms of infrastructure, and he wondered about a transfer of development rights (TDR) system which could include the County and the jurisdictions. He elaborated that they could determine where the entitlements were and if it made sense in terms of infrastructure, proposing to potentially use these areas as sending areas and use the downtowns as receiving areas.

Mayor Wilson added that the City of Groveland had mentioned dark-sky lighting, and doing things for the ecology and keeping things natural.

Mr. Maslow confirmed that the City of Groveland was going for a dark-sky lighting certification, relaying his understanding that they would be the first city in the state to achieve this. He explained that their lights would all be downward and that they would preserve their night skies, and he added that they were also doing light imprint development standards, landscaping and design of an open space, and how they could filter stormwater in a way that fit with the aesthetics for a community.

Mr. Drury mentioned the time they spent on identifying the issue versus the solution, and he thought that extrapolating clarity on the issue from citizens and elected officials was important. He questioned if too much growth was the issue, and asked if the common thread could be traffic on the roads, aesthetics, small lots or the price of homes. He thought that it was important to have clarity on what the collective issue was and to spend a significant amount of time on this. He added that transfer of density could be a good tool, and he said that after they clarified the issue, the City of Tavares had the “Smart Growth Horizon Team,” noting that they had already done their Comp Plan and were looking at updating their LDRs to mirror their Comp Plan; however, before this was done, they wanted to determine the location of their transition, rural and urban areas. He stated that they would likely have two or three workshops with the public to determine the issue, and they would then update their LDR, noting that it looked like they would be sending this to Lake County for their comments to grow in concert with the County’s vision.

Commr. Parks said that the issue of growth could be different from one person to another, and he asked how many Cities were doing or had recently done a visioning process.

Mr. Minner mentioned that the rule of thumb on a municipal Comp Plan was to update it every 10 years using staff, workshops, the City Commission and a consultant, noting that it could cost $100,000.

Commr. Parks remarked that a 2050 vision could be different than goals, objectives and policies in a Comp Plan, asking how they could fit all of the Comp Plans into a possible 2050 or 2060 vision for the county.

Mr. Minner asked who was updating their Comp Plan, and Commissioner Parks thought that it was almost everyone.

Mr. Drury stated that the City of Tavares had finished their Comp Plan and that it was broad enough where they could do these other things to be in line with them, such as updating their LDR, noting that they ask the community about the issues. He mentioned that concerns about small lots were more of an LDR item than a Comp Plan item, and he questioned if they could modify it to allow planned developments where they would have hamlets. He added that possibly instead of having many lots and roads, they could allow planned development density in large rural areas. He questioned if the issue was not all about the small lots, and if it was potentially more about the vision of seeing an open area, noting that the density would still be there but would be done differently. He added that this could possibly be done in transition areas between cities.

Mayor Pfister stated that the City of Tavares was taking pictures of things in their city and possibly other cities and rural areas, noting that their community was affected by visual items. She expressed interest in building upward, noting that she liked vegetation, but it was about convincing the community that they had to build upward. She recalled that some individuals had been concerned about the height, opining that they possibly had not seen enough images regarding this. She opined that strip plazas, parking lots and pavement did not create a feeling of community. She hoped that the City of Tavares could lead the way in figuring this out.

Mr. Carrino said that the City of Eustis had lived through a moratorium on growth and that in response to this, they had revised their LDR and their Comp Plan. He thought that the Eustis City Commission had done a great job balancing smart growth and listening to residents with protecting property rights. He thought that there had been frustration in feeling that the City of Eustis had been treated differently related to growth, development and annexation, but they were currently engaged in a planning process with the County. He said that the City of Eustis was happy to be part of a process with other Cities, and that they would continue to amend their LDR and Comp Plan as necessary. He thought that it was important to determine the issues and address them preemptively, noting that it was not about stopping growth, but managing growth.

Commr. Parks stated that he looked forward to continuing the process with the City of Eustis in the Thrill Hill area. He mentioned that it could be challenging to get through things that had been done previously, and that a challenge could be to put past mistakes behind them and move forward with good faith; additionally, he believed that this would be done.

Mr. Bulthuis asked if they all had the same standards for how they calculated items such as density, and if a floodplain was part of the calculation. He also mentioned that retention ponds would possibly only receive credit for half of the density there, and he expressed a concern for garages not being large enough. He opined that garages were really just storage locations, and he mentioned the possibility of having the same standard that garages had to be a certain size to fit two cars in it, noting complaints about cars parked on the road.

Commr. Parks questioned if the Cities and the County were using the same standards, and if there was a common Lake County standard. He mentioned that there could possibly be standards with open space, walkability and TDR that the County and the Cities could share.

Mr. Bulthius opined that a retention pond should not be calculated as open space.

Commr. Parks said that there could be a case where a retention pond or a stormwater system was designed as a park feature which could pass as open space, noting that there could be discussion about these details.

Mr. Maslow thought that it made sense to have some unified standards such as open space. He mentioned that net density versus gross density could be different based on the definition, and he also though that if they left the conversation just with basic numbers, then they would be missing items with residents and outreach. He opined that the City of Tavares’ visual preference survey needed to be part of the communications outreach, and he asked about the timeline for this. He also inquired about how they felt about the entitlement process going forward through this process. He asked that in terms of amending Cities’ FLU maps and zoning maps to increase densities in certain areas, if they were comfortable taking a break from this.

Commr. Parks opined that this should be done within one year, relaying his understanding that people across the county wanted them to go in this direction. He said that the issue identification was key, and that the identification of shared standards should be laid out within one year.

Mayor Wynkoop relayed his understanding that there were some basic issues that everyone was experiencing with the County and the Cities, and if they were to focus on issues such as density, they could possibly make a master agreement as a starting point and build on it. He mentioned that some of these issues could possibly be addressed among smaller Cities that were close to each other.

Mayor Adcock thought that it was imperative to include the constituents they served, opining that there was a predominant belief from residents that they did not want growth, and that the size of the home, the cost of the home, the amenities and what it looked like did not matter. He thought that they needed to be able to address it from a macro sense, and he asked what the downside would be to restricting things to the point that many constituents wanted. He mentioned that they had a predominant revenue stream from property owners and that if they restricted growth considerably, it meant that those infrastructure issues would have to be funded from the same number of people, and taxes could possibly increase. He opined that considering increasing density in the urban zones was good, but the inventory of available properties was low, noting that it could be this way for a considerable period of time. He stated that if they limited supply in an area, then demand would increase and prices would continue to rise; furthermore, they were already seeing a strain on workforce housing because of costs. He thought that they needed to educate the community and help them understand the macro effects of growth and no growth, noting that it would cost them one way or the other.

Commr. Parks thought that the macro effect would be important for the question of growth or no growth, and that denying growth everywhere in the county could feel good in the short term, but the County would be out of funding in 25 years because there was not a way to keep up with roads and services they had to provide.

Mr. Drury opined that the solution to the issue of no growth was marketing and promoting, reiterating that the Cities and the County needed to hone in on the issue. He mentioned that different issues had different solutions.

Mr. O’Keefe said that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills was happy to work with the County and municipalities. He relayed that the Town was dedicated to the same land development principles of traditional neighborhood design, FLU elements and the avoidance of urban sprawl. He mentioned five miles of Number 2 Road between the City of Leesburg and the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, and as development was approved there, there was a potential to shut that development down because the road could not handle the traffic; otherwise, the development might be consistent with every other land development principle. He said that he saw roads as an unavoidable issue to be resolved, possibly at the County level. He commented that saying that an RPA could not be developed would eliminate almost 50 percent of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills’ ISBA, and he mentioned the possibility of working with County staff to discuss a responsible way to manage this growth. He said that the Town saw this as an issue of roads, affordable housing costs and expanding utilities.

Commr. Parks thought that part of this could be communication between the County and the Cities regarding the LDR, noting that the County was considering changing their subdivision codes to a conservation model. He said that aspects of this could possibly be incorporated into LDR changes in the Cities.

Mayor Wilson inquired how they could encourage their constituents to attend workshops.

Commr. Parks proposed to possibly reach out to the faith based community across the county and ask for participation and surveys. He said that they could craft a countywide survey to identify some of these issues.

Mayor Adcock opined that if the Cities and the County started discussing this in this type of setting, people would attend to hear it and the media would potentially begin to cover it, noting that it could increase interest. He thought that they could achieve cohesiveness as a community by working through this, noting that whatever the outcome was, it would not necessarily apply to every particular person; however, it could be a large difference in their mind it if they heard it and were a part of it.

Mr. Drury mentioned bringing the workshop and surveys to the residents. He added that with current technology, they possibly needed to rethink how they could bring the workshop to their homes so that they were participating, noting that the City was using Zoom Webinar and Survey Monkey.

Mr. Maslow thought that a citizen committee could possibly make sense, noting that the City of Groveland had a 10 member committee that met every two weeks. He opined that they were representative of the community, and added that they may also want to consider a technical advisory committee of staff members from the 14 jurisdictions.

Commr. Parks relayed that it could possibly be similar to the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) model, noting that the MPO was a great resource for transportation.

Mayor Rietz said that he would like to see the current meeting continue in person or through Zoom Webinar on at least a quarterly basis so they could exchange information. He stated that because the Town of Lady Lake was bordered by Sumter and Marion Counties, they would like some communication with the other Counties. He also mentioned issues with Rolling Acres Road and U.S. Highway 441.

Mayor Holland thanked the BCC and staff for the current meeting. He commented that the City of Eustis was looking forward to a balanced playing field for all of the Cities, and he expressed concerns for if they all stopped talking. He commented that he liked the rural areas, but mentioned that the cities had to grow for the taxation to come; otherwise, the taxation within their boundaries could be high. He thought that if they could continue to talk and come up with the right ways to grow, then they would end up benefitting.

Commr. Parks proposed to consider using the League of Cities as a possibility.

Commr. Smith stated that he would be willing to visit the cities in his district and see what they wanted to do with growth.

Commr. Parks stated that he could support other County Commissioners or other Cities around the County, and that he could visit churches to hand out surveys.

Mayor Wynkoop asked why they needed growth to cover their expenses.

Commr. Parks said that it depended on each City and their budget, noting that the Town of Montverde may be in a good position with their reserves to have enough funding to pave all of their roads in 25 years. He opined that the Town of Montverde may want to encourage something more commerce-related that had a higher value per acre where they were receiving the funds long term to be able to address maintenance and reduce this burden on existing residents.

Mayor Adcock agreed, and said that the City of Umatilla had partnered with another City for a solution to help fund wastewater treatment.

Commr. Campione opined that it was about how they grew and redeveloped over time, and that all land could possibly be gone at some point. She expressed that she did not buy into the statement that cities had to grow in order to pay their bills; however, she believed that if they rejected things too much, then they could possibly increase the cost of living so high that no one could afford to live there.

Mayor Adcock clarified that the City of Umatilla was only discussing growth within their boundaries and how they could do this without putting an increasing burden on the existing taxpayer.

Commr. Parks thought that it regarded value per acre and the quality of development where it was.

Mayor Mack opined that they needed to define growth, and noted that some items were becoming more expensive to fund. He questioned how to address and communicate that negative growth came with the positive growth, and he thought that it could be easier with communication between the current group of individuals from the Cities and the County.

Mr. Maslow asked if they had a representative from the Lake County School Board included in this.

Commr. Parks thought that this would be important, and he mentioned legislative constraints for schools and planning, noting that they could work together on this.

Mayor Stile said that the City of Mount Dora had some issues with their waterways being cleaned, commenting that they were State-owned and should be State-maintained; however, they had a challenging time with this. She thought that assistance from the BCC with getting their lakes cleaned up was important to many people in the City of Mount Dora.

next steps

Dr. Levey summarized that he had heard a willingness to engage in a process that would benefit them all in the future. He noted that early on, there had been discussion about a lack of a shared vision between the Cities and the County in terms of growth management, and he questioned what the issue was for a lack of a shared vision. He added that there was discussion about identifying rural, transition and urban areas, along with the relationship between growth and cost of service. He commented that the lack of a shared vision often manifested in issues with development review and the coordination of development, such as land use, transportation, utilities, character of development, design and environmental impacts. He said that during the development review process, he had heard from Cities and the County that there was a disconnect in the issue of planning for utilities, commenting that this was part of addressing this lack of shared vision. He questioned if it would be a County top-down process, or a bottom-up Cities-first process, if it could be done all at once, or if individual Cities could be addressed. He relayed that the League of Cities could be used as an opportunity, and he asked how to engage the public in this process. He stated that these questions would need to be addressed, and that the BCC Chairman had mentioned wanting to do this within one year. He also asked about the outcome and if it could be a vision plan, Comp Plan updates for the Cities in the County, a master agreement or memorandum of agreement (MOU) between the parties, or if it could be amendments to ISBAs or joint planning agreements (JPAs).

Mr. Cox relayed his history related to the City of Jupiter area and jurisdictional boundaries, and said that he thought that the macro trends were that Lake County would continue to grow because it was a great place to live and have a business. He mentioned that there were hundreds of thousands of acres of natural resources in Lake County and that some of them were not protected, and he proposed to look out to the year 2070. He agreed with Dr. Levey’s comments regarding the process, and he thought that there could be collaboration with staff. He thought that setting up a process could involve community meetings, faith based meetings, and the Lake County School Board; additionally, he thought that they had an opportunity to plan their future with each other, and he encouraged them to do this.

Commr. Parks introduced Mr. Paul Owens, President for 1000 Friends of Florida, noting that this organization had been advocates for home rule with the Cities and the County.

Mr. Owens stated that he and individuals from his organization were present because they were interested in this process, and they wanted to do what they could to support it. He explained that they were a nonprofit, nonpartisan, citizen-supported organization based in the City of Tallahassee with a statewide focus, and that their priorities were managing growth so that they could protect their environment and quality of life. He opined that these items were the foundation of a healthy economy, and that his organization had looked out to the year 2070 in some reports on land use and water demands. He opined that with better planning, they could save millions of acres and millions of gallons of water, noting that it was about planning and meeting together.

Commr. Parks said that 1000 Friends of Florida could be valuable in promoting this and for best management practices. He relayed his understanding that the County would put everything together and propose a plan which would entail identifying the issue, outreach, and the mechanism and how they could all come together to do this within one year. He mentioned that it would be incumbent upon the County Manager, the city managers and staff, noting they would have to provide a large amount of work to complete this. He requested for the City representatives to let their councils know what had been discussed at the current meeting, noting that they would have to receive support from their councils. He said that the County wanted everyone to agree to move forward through this framework, and he concluded by thanking everyone for attending.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 a.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK