A special mEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

February 15, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., at Cooper Memorial Library, Clermont, 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 thanked everyone for joining them that day and then led the Pledge of Allegiance. He stated that he enjoyed having meetings outside of the Lake County Administration Building in the City of Tavares, and he was thankful for this meeting as they were able to address short-term and long-term budget issues, their goals, and summarize things that the commissioners and staff had been discussing over the past six or seven months. He also thanked staff for all of their hard work they had put into this.

budget history and overview

Ms. Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager, explained that this was the County’s annual strategies workshop which was a chance to talk to the commissioners in a more relaxed format to get their thoughts and priorities to help staff with the budget development; additionally, she said that they would discuss long-term strategies and initiatives for this year as well as the upcoming fiscal years. She then thanked staff for their efforts in handling an unforeseen maintenance issue at the Administration Building the previous week, noting that everyone had to evacuate the building in the morning on a Wednesday and staff had everyone up and running remotely by the early afternoon. She then gave a presentation, stating that they used specific goals to develop the budget every year such as avoiding increasing the tax rates and explained that they started with a status quo millage rate and then once they saw where the dollars fell after receiving the property values from the Lake County Property Appraiser, the Board could then decide to make adjustments to any of the tax rates at that point. She related that they also wanted to be prepared for emergency responses; to enhance core function service delivery, customer service, and quality of life; identify efficiencies; and foster economic development and tourism.

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, discussed the budget history and overview and pointed out that they implemented some efficiencies in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 and 2022, such as the Enterprise vehicle lease with an estimated savings of $82,000 and the Napa Parts contract with an estimated savings of $250,000. She said that they were able to allocate an additional $3.95 million towards road resurfacing and also increased the general fund reserves to 21.4 percent of operating expenditures. She then displayed several graphs depicting the general fund history, revenues, and expenses. She noted that the general fund history graph showed the last 14 years for County departments, debt service, and the constitutional offices, and stated that in 2008 there was a decrease in property values which had an impact on general fund revenues, and that the County budgets were decreased resulting in the use of general fund reserves to meet operating needs and to avoid adding an additional burden to taxpayers. She mentioned that in 2010 the general fund reserves began to decline and in 2015 the reserves stabilized until Hurricane Irma made landfall in 2017, noting that the recovery efforts significantly reduced the reserves until the County received reimbursement from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). She related that in the last couple of fiscal years, the reserves had steadily increased to the current level of 21.4 percent of the operating budget. She stated that the general fund major revenues and expenditures graphs represented the general fund over the last 14 years and pointed out that there was an influx in FY 2020/2021 which was due to COVID/Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act related funding and expenditures. She discussed their focus areas, noting that the general fund covered governmental services such as Animal Services, Code Enforcement, Community Services, Economic Development, Emergency Services, Mosquito Control, Planning and Zoning, Veterans Services, other support services, legal, as well as constitutional offices, judicial support, the Medical Examiner, and debt service. She related that the general fund also provided supplemental funding via transfers to various County departments. She showed a breakdown of general fund revenues and expenditures and said that 73 percent was from ad valorem revenue and that County offices and departments only made up 29 percent of all expenses. She then displayed a chart depicting the FY 2021/2022 adopted budget, the FY 2022/2023 proposed budget, as well as the variation between the two and indicated that these were only preliminary estimates as the departments were still in the process of working on their budget requests. She stated that the FY 2022/2023 assumptions included maintaining the current millage rate with an estimated increase of five percent in property values, a three percent increase for the departments and constitutional offices to account for wage adjustments and operating increases, and a five percent increase for the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) payments. She noted that they would be operating in a surplus according to the preliminary estimates; however, that was subject to change based on actual budget requests.

Ms. Barker continued the presentation with their short-term and long-term general fund strategies and stated that for FY 2023 they wanted to maintain a status quo millage of 5.0529 mills, and that they wanted to maintain their reserves at the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommendation of at least 16 percent, noting that it was currently at 21.4 percent. She pointed out that they currently used CARES Act funding for Transit Services and once those funds were all spent about $1.5 million would be added back into the general fund budget to fund their operations going forward. She said that several areas were currently being funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, such as the Lake County Health Department at $321,000 annually, LifeStream at $1.3 million annually, and the employee mental health program at $143,000 annually. She noted that in three years when the ARPA funds expired they would have to account for those costs within the general fund budget.

Commr. Campione arrived at 9:21 a.m.

Mr. Jim Kovacs, Director for the Office of Human Resources and Risk Management, continued the presentation discussing employee wages, stating that voters in the State of Florida approved Amendment 2 in 2020 resulting in a $15.00 minimum wage initiative which incrementally increased the minimum wage by $1.00 each year until reaching a peak of $15.00 per hour in September 2026. He indicated that in 2021 the County took a proactive approach by advancing the County’s minimum wage from the required $10.00 per hour to $12.00 per hour, and adjusted the wages of existing staff to prevent wage compression. He related that even with the County’s proactive approach, the County continued to be challenged to recruit new personnel and retain existing employees in a highly competitive labor market and that in this post-COVID dynamic environment, wages had clearly become the most attractive feature to lure prospective candidates. He mentioned that the candidate shortage in conjunction with the large number of vacancies in this region and around the country have placed additional pressure for employers to offer workers higher wages. He said that the County supported and subscribed to the concept of annual merit wage increases; however, the County may consider additional proactive measures to get further ahead of the minimum wage schedule and to make wage adjustments for existing staff in lieu of merit increases in the short term.

fiscal year 2023 focus areas

Ms. Barker discussed Solid Waste, noting that this was a core function of government. She related that Solid Waste activities included the Solid Waste Assessment and the landfill operations and convenience centers. She indicated that the general fund funded the landfill and convenience centers and the Solid Waste Assessment funded the solid waste collection and disposal for unincorporated residents. She mentioned that the assessment rates must be set annually and were included on the truth in millage (TRIM) notice, adding that they have not raised the Solid Waste Assessment rate since FY 2019. She said that the current assessment rate would not cover FY 2023 collection and disposal costs; therefore, they would need to look for an assessment increase to fund the services going forward. She indicated that they also needed additional funding for capital equipment; however, she planned to address that in the summer during the Infrastructure Sales Tax project plan discussions. She displayed a graph showing the Solid Waste Assessment rate comparison for Lake County and surrounding counties and pointed out that the rate for Lake County was $188 for one day per week service and $251 for two days per week service. She mentioned that Lake County’s rates were relatively low compared to the other counties and specified that Marion County was the outlier as they did not provide a collection service and only provided landfill and convenience centers. She then discussed the different options for the Solid Waste Assessment rates for FY 2023, noting that option 1 would be a $3 increase to cover the consumer price index (CPI) increase for FY 2023 only.

Commr. Shields asked how the County decided which residents had one day or two days per week service.

Ms. Barker explained that when they went to the new collection service in 2015 they went to one day per week service; however, some of the homeowners associations (HOA) for some neighborhoods requested to maintain the two day per week service and were willing to pay extra for that.

Commr. Campione clarified that only neighborhoods with HOAs could request that additional service.

Ms. Barker continued her presentation, stating that option 2 would be a $3 increase from FY 2023 through FY 2027 to cover the annual CPI increases, noting that both the hauler and disposal contracts had an automatic CPI increase annually. She said that option 3 would be a $12 increase now to cover from FY 2023 to FY 2027 and explained that if they took the $12 hit now, they would not have to do that for the next five years. She elaborated that the cost would be slightly lower instead of paying $3 per year, because they would be front loading and then banking that money along with the interest earned.

Commr. Smith asked if she had a service map of the north, central, and south areas.

Ms. Barker answered that it was not part of the presentation; however, Ms. Mary Hamilton, Public Works Operations Director, could send that to him.

Commr. Campione commented that there had been a large number of complaints against the hauler in the northeast district and that they had even accumulated a lot of fines; additionally, she said that the hauler had multiple excuses such as COVID-related issues, staffing issues, fuel costs, and the fact that the northeast area was harder to serve. She opined that it would be great if all of the issues were taken care of before the rates increased.

Ms. Hamilton explained that staff tracked the fines on a monthly basis and noted that December 2021 was about $10,000 and November 2021 was about $60,000, adding that the last three months have trended down. She indicated that the hauler was down some drivers and that they were offering a large sign-on bonus for drivers; furthermore, she said that they had not seen a significant decrease in services because there did not seem to be any COVID-related issues currently. She mentioned that the hauler was using trucks from other areas to supplement and that they were fine with that as long as they were meeting service. She opined that they were trending in the right direction; however, they were not fully where they wanted to be.

Commr. Campione expressed that she could not say enough good things about staff and the way they handled all of the complaints with making sure that the provider was on top of picking up trash that was missed. She remarked that seeing trash all over the roads on trash day made her extremely upset and she did not know how to get a handle on this issue. She noted that a lot of it had to do with the automatic pickup and the way the lid opened, then the wind would blow the trash all over, adding that maybe a lot of it was the recyclables because they were light.

Commr. Parks mentioned that sometimes people just threw the trash out and stacked it high and that did not help either.

Commr. Campione indicated that her district also had a lot of bear activity and that the bears would spread trash all over the place as well. She opined that it was imperative to provide residents with bear problems with bear proof trash cans, noting that the County forced them to go to a uniform trash can and do away with their homemade bear proof trash cans. She elaborated that she wanted to make sure those residents were taken care of and that in the past the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) provided grants; however, she said those grants were currently not available.

Ms. Hamilton pointed out that the odds were good for getting a grant after July 2022. She noted that they had a little bit of residual money left over from matches and that they were trying to procure a few of them; however, it was difficult at the price point of $240. She related that they currently had a waiting list of over 700 people who wanted bear proof trash cans.

Commr. Campione opined that was a lot of money; however, that was also a lot of people asking for those trash cans. She said that having trash spread all over all the time was not good for the bears or people and opined that this should be a high priority for solid waste management.

Commr. Shields asked what the County did with the fine money they received.

Ms. Hamilton answered that it stayed in the Solid Waste Assessment fund.

Commr. Smith mentioned that there would be a $3 per year increase if they just wanted to fund FY 2023 and a $12 per year increase if they wanted to fund through FY 2027, and asked what would happen with the extra $9 that was collected in FY 2023 and the extra $6 that was collected in FY 2024.

Ms. Barker replied that the money would stay in reserves and they would use those reserves in future years. She indicated that they could look at using funding that was available in the Solid Waste fund or possibly the general fund to get a jump start on the waiting list and assist in buying bear proof trash cans until they found out what would happen with the FWC in July 2022.

Commr. Parks asked how much a bear proof trash can cost, compared to a regular trash can.

Ms. Hamilton answered that they were about $240 each, compared to about $120.

Ms. Barker elaborated that it would cost about $200,000 to supply those trash cans for everyone on the waiting list.

Commr. Campione asked if they could reimburse themselves once they received the grant money from the FWC, noting that she knew grants typically did not work that way.

Ms. Hamilton replied that she could ask that question.

Commr. Campione said that it sounded like they were probably going to get FWC money; however, she thought it would be nice to get a head start on this and get the cans ordered so they could let the waiting list know they were working on it and would receive the trash cans soon.

Commr. Smith agreed, noting that it would probably be more palatable to the residents when telling them they would have a $1 per month increase if they knew they would receive a bear proof trash can.

Commr. Blake asked if the automated trucks could pick up the bear proof trash cans, and Ms. Hamilton confirmed this.

Commr. Campione remarked that most people in the public understood that things were challenging now due to inflation and the lack of manpower.

Commr. Shields mentioned that it would be nice to get the money back if they were paying for that service.

Commr. Campione noted that the trash would get picked up later and that it was more of an aggravation of having to put it out, then having to make a call, and then knowing that it was just sitting out there waiting for the bears to go through it. She related that if that happened a few times to someone then they started to get irate.

Commr. Blake asked what the fines were from some of the other haulers during that $10,000 period for WCA.

Ms. Hamilton answered that area 1 and area 2 was $0 and area 3 was $1,600.

Commr. Parks said that although he was expecting the increase to be a lot more, he was sensitive to the state of the current economy with inflation and labor and also with knowing about the service issues particularly in the north part of Lake County. He wondered how this would fit into the other taxes that they levied. He mentioned that he thought there was a consensus to keep the tax rate the same and asked if this fund would be the most affected due to the increase.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, adding that this was not based on property values as it was strictly a user fee and was a set rate.

Commr. Smith asked when the contracts were up again.

Ms. Barker answered that the hauler and disposal contracts were up in FY 2027.

Commr. Parks asked if she would be preparing two years in advance of that, and Ms. Barker confirmed this.

Commr. Campione asked if they could do $10 the following year if they went with the $3 increase for FY 2023.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, adding that they could wait and see how things went as the CPI may not be as high. She noted that CPI was abnormally high for this year and that they were able to negotiate it down to three percent.

Ms. Hamilton commented that the contracts were capped at three percent.

Commr. Parks asked how they planned on taking care of the bear issue if they did the $3 for this year.

Ms. Barker answered that they could use the general fund and then use the FWC grant to reimburse the County, if allowed.

Commr. Campione mentioned that any additional amount would have to come out of the general fund.

Commr. Smith opined that it would be a lot easier if the services of one of the companies was better.

Ms. Hamilton mentioned that before COVID there were no issues for areas 2 and 3; however, area 1 had issues. She related that they had a good relationship with the haulers and that she believed they wanted to provide good service; however, there have just been some challenges.

Commr. Campione asked if they could cut the $12 assessment to $6 to give them a little bit of a cushion instead of doing the $3 or the $12.

Commr. Parks commented that they would be halfway there to meet the FY 2027 needs.

Commr. Campione agreed, adding that the increase to residents would be a $6 additional charge annually and that would address inflation and the costs of the bear proof trash cans if they did not receive a grant to cover all of it, as well as a bit of a cushion. She indicated that next year they could look at whether they wanted to go ahead and increase all the way up to $12.

Commr. Shields opined that most people would be happy with that if the bear problem was fixed.

Commr. Parks reiterated that he thought the increase was going to be more drastic and that although they had some problems particularly in the north, there were going to continue to be problems. He said that he tracked the cities and thought the county was very comparable to them, noting that sometimes the county was lower even with complaints. He remarked that even though it was still an increase, it was probably not that bad.

Ms. Barker commented that they did an increase of $20 in 2019.

Commr. Campione mentioned that Lake County was significantly lower when compared to Seminole and Orange Counties.

Commr. Parks pointed out that those counties also did not have the geographic challenges that Lake County had, specifying that they did not have all the lakes and were very condensed and urbanized.

Ms. Barker noted that Osceola County was very urbanized and very high at $327.

Commr. Shields commented that he thought Lake County was doing pretty well as compared to others.

Ms. Barker said that they would go ahead and plan the budget with a $6 increase if that was amenable to everyone.

There was consensus from the Board to move forward with that.

Commr. Campione asked about the landfill.

Ms. Barker noted that the landfill operations, the convenience centers which included the remote transfer stations, and the landfill maintenance of monitoring when a cell was closed were all funded through the general fund.

Commr. Smith mentioned that on the way to his house he passed by some houses that had city trash pickup and some that had county trash pickup and wondered if they had ever looked at the possibility of partnering with the cities to pick up the trash since the city trucks were already picking up trash in that area.

Commr. Parks indicated that the City of Clermont had a truck that could haul large piles of debris and noted that there could be a partnership with the cities on that.

Ms. Hamilton said that they brought that up before to the three haulers and they were not interested in giving up any of their service areas.

Commr. Campione elaborated that the County had a contract with each of them to do a certain amount.

Ms. Barker pointed out that they could discuss that to see if there was any interest when they went back out and looked at the contract renewal.

Commr. Campione asked if the City of Tavares put the trash pickup as an assessment on the bill or if it came out of their general fund for the city residents.

Commr. Smith answered that it was an enterprise fund and was put on the water bill.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the convenience centers were a huge benefit to keeping people from dumping their trash in places they should not and that it was very beneficial to have that service available countywide. She said that it was also interesting to see which areas used the service more.

Commr. Parks opined that although their system had some issues, it was still really good compared to other counties since they had the drop off plus the pickup. He also said that they were going to try to address the litter concerns; however, there were many people that just littered.

Ms. Barker continued the presentation with road resurfacing, noting that the previous year they started talking about what they needed to do to get the road resurfacing up to par as they had many low rated roads within the county. She specified that a couple of years ago they took out a $10 million loan to address those roads and that they had almost $9.4 million budgeted from various sources in the FY 2022 budget, such as a transfer from the general fund in the amount of about $2.8 million which was from savings identified through shifting some of ARPA funds. She related that every year they would have to evaluate the amount that could be committed to roads as it depended on property values and ARPA funds. She indicated that they also budgeted about $1.1 million in the infrastructure sales tax and had about $5.4 million remaining of the resurfacing loan. She mentioned that in April 2022 they would do an analysis of road resurfacing to see what was still needed, what had been spent to date, and whether they had the capacity to resurface $10 million worth of roads.

Commr. Smith asked if they could look at paving some of the clay roads, and Ms. Barker confirmed they could look into that.

Commr. Campione asked if there were certain clay roads he was interested in getting paved.

Commr. Smith clarified that he did not have specific ones; however, he knew it was more expensive to take care of a clay road than a paved road.

Commr. Campione opined that they would have to look at where that road was in relation to a city limit.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding; however, he said that they had professionals who would know which roads were best to pave.

Ms. Barker said that staff could look at those roads and make recommendations.

Commr. Parks mentioned that they needed to keep in mind whether they would still be able to commit to road resurfacing if property values came in higher than the projected five percent increase. He elaborated that some projects that were rated at a four or five could be pushed up to get done sooner instead of waiting two or three years.

Commr. Smith said that he would not want to decide that yet until they did an analysis.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, displayed a graph showing the road pavement ratings from 2018 to 2022 and explained that they used the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) System which rated roads from 1 to 10 and that a rating of 4 meant it was in very poor condition, a 5 was near poor condition, and a 6 or 7 was in better condition. He indicated that after taking out the $10 million loan, using carryover sales tax funding, and also Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds they were able to resurface a number of roads in lower income areas which would be completed by this summer. He mentioned that they were projecting for 2022 that they would still have 64 miles of 4 rated roads, 261 miles of 5 rated roads, and 240 miles of 6 rated roads; furthermore, he said that they had such a huge number of fair roads and as the years went on those roads continued to decrease in ratings which meant they still had a large number of miles of poor roads.

Commr. Shields asked what number it needed to hit for it to be most cost effective to repave.

Mr. Schneider answered that the road needed to rate at a 6 or 7 and that once a road was rated at a 4 more work would need to be done and it would be more costly to take care of those roads.

Commr. Parks mentioned that Mr. Schneider showed the BCC a slide in a presentation months ago where it depicted what a 4 rated road looked like compared to a 5 or 6 and the percentage increase it was to resurface at that point, noting that it was pretty significant.

Mr. Schneider pointed out that it could cost two to three times as much. He related that truck traffic and age were what caused the most damage to roads, specifying that in District 4 there was a sudden decrease in ratings on a couple roads due to heavy truck traffic going to the Wekiva Parkway.

Commr. Shields asked if a truck would still cause damage to a road if it was rated at a 10.

Mr. Schneider answered that they would not notice the damage as quickly.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she was told that 10,000 trips of a regular car equaled to one semi-truck.

Mr. Schneider confirmed this, adding that a road was designed for expected truck traffic.

Commr. Campione questioned how many roads could actually be resurfaced based on the ability to get contractors and materials if they had an unlimited amount of money.

Mr. Schneider replied that they could resurface about 40 miles of roads per year depending on whether they were two lane or four lane roads, and would cost about $5 million per year.

Commr. Parks asked if they were going to look at the ability of doing more roads with contractors.

Mr. Schneider confirmed this, adding that they were contracted with D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. (DAB) when they started this program and when they went out of business they contracted with CW Roberts Contracting, Inc. who took care of the roads this year and the previous year, and would complete their contract by the summer. He said that they would then rebid and start fresh again.

Commr. Parks asked if they should look at their design standard for pavement of roads and consider using new materials.

Mr. Schneider replied that a lot of the roads in the area were old Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) roads and could not handle the current traffic. He indicated that they followed FDOT procedures for the structure of the road, noting that about 10 years ago they changed from a lime rock mix to a gravel mix called superpave and that the University of Florida (UF) studies showed that kind of surface lasted longer. He related that they relied on UF and other agencies to determine what was best to use.

Ms. Barker stated that every year they planned on looking at their road resurfacing strategies to determine capacity and evaluate available funding. She then said that the BCC had requested information on what the County’s economic development department did so they could compare to the Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) presentation from a few months ago.

Ms. Tracy Garcia, Executive Director for the Office of Economic Growth, continued the presentation and explained that Elevate Lake’s overall mission was to attract, retain, and grow higher wage jobs in Lake County in target industries such as agribusiness, agrotechnology, aviation/aerospace, life sciences/medical services, logistics/distribution and manufacturing, noting that staff provided support for businesses of any size and across all industries. She mentioned that they currently had 5.5 full-time employees (FTE) and of those 1.5 were shared with Visit Lake. She indicated that their business attraction included bringing new businesses into Lake County through collaborative partnerships, strategic marketing, and business attraction efforts, specifying that they were the designated county Economic Development Office (EDO) with Enterprise Florida, Inc. (EFI) which ensured direct state leads, participation in EFI’s board meetings, presence in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) trade expos, and access to the State’s Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) grant programs. She said that being designated as the EDO provided Lake County a seat at the state economic development table and that currently the County had multiple grant programs through the state due to this designation and was responsible for compliance of these grants. She related that Elevate Lake’s business attraction marketing efforts included video content; advertisement and directory listings with EFI; the Orlando Economic Partnership (OEP); and multiple trade magazines such as Florida Trend, Invest: Orlando, Business Facilities magazine, Business Expansion Journal, and Expansion Solutions which were all in print and digital. She discussed the two incentive programs and noted that the Economic Development Incentive Program was for new and existing Lake County businesses and was based on the type of industry, the number of employees, the average annual wage, and the amount of capital investment; additionally, she said that the Developers Grant required 100 new employees at 115 percent of the average annual wage and a $100 million capital investment minimum. She pointed out that the Developers Agreement was signed with The Villages in 2021 and under the agreement, The Villages was responsible for bringing in projects within the specified boundary; furthermore, she noted that Elevate Lake performed the verification process of determining that the company met the requirements for grant payments. She related that they also used a platform called IMPLAN to conduct economic impact analysis to vet the return on investment (ROI) of projects considered for incentives which was also available to municipal partners when requested. She displayed a slide showing their local and regional collaborations and pointed out that they collaborated with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) with the University of Central Florida (UCF) for $150,000 per year, provided a Business Opportunity Center for $28,500 per year, and partnered with the Orlando Economic Partnership for $50,000 per year with membership benefits including a seat on the Board of Directors; representation on various councils and committees; annual intern and workshop registrations; invitations to leadership missions, receptions, and private events; access to data and retail GAP analysis; and online directory and annual partnership regional overview for company staff. She discussed their business support for retention, expansion, and creation and stated that they assisted existing businesses to gain access to resources on a local, state, or federal level as needed through the relationships that the County has built with support partners, and that the Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) assisted existing businesses during economic difficulties and for expansion needs, noting that most referrals occurred organically through past relationships, chambers, website traffic, and other community partners. She indicated that much of the entrepreneurship business support was accomplished through the Business Opportunity Center as they had direct access to resources provided by UCF and that SBDC staff provided training classes and one-on-one consulting resources as well as specialized services at this center and also remotely. She noted that they had a Business Opportunity Center in the City of Mount Dora; however, that one had been eliminated due to remote work resulting in a $16,000 savings for the FY 2023 budget. She discussed their product development, stating that it was key for business attraction success and that having an appropriate location was the second most important decision for a business to decide to locate within a community with the first being available workforce. She related that collaboration was crucial for product development and that they worked with other county departments, municipal staff, landowners, real estate professionals, and utilities. She indicated that they took inventory of existing sites and buildings to match to prospective businesses’ needs and helped develop “shovel-ready” sites or speculative buildings to offer prospective businesses by implementing appropriate zoning and installing needed infrastructure such as roadway access, water, sewer, gas, electrical, and broadband. She stated that they continued to support and promote Lake County’s strategic corridors of the following: the Wellness Way implementation plan with consulting services by Dr. Richard Levey with the City of Clermont; the Wolf Branch Innovation District by ensuring Lake County’s responsibility to create 3,700 jobs and $15 million capital investment in 10 years to comply with the $2.5 million Florida Jobs Growth Grant to negate repayment to the State, and by implementing a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Land Development Regulation revision; and the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park by working with the development of speculative building projects, specifying that 425,000 square feet was under construction and more than two million square feet was in the planning stages. She mentioned that their workforce development included collaborating with employment agencies and local educational institutions to ensure that students and workforce skills were being cultivated to align with the business needs in the community, and by bringing workforce partners and businesses together through quarterly workforce taskforce meetings to ensure that the workforce development ecosystem was meeting the needs of the business community, as having a strong labor force was the number one driver for companies to locate a business in a community. She then listed their educational and non-educational workforce partners. She displayed a chart showing the budget considerations, noting that the numbers were based on the FY 2022 budget and known expenditure updates moving forward for FY 2023, and that the expenditures were directly tied to the economic development tasks and initiatives discussed previously; however, the chart did not include federal or state grants and other miscellaneous operating expenditures for other aspects that were not relevant to the initiatives discussed. She indicated that almost half of the budget for promotional activities was already obligated for FY 2022 to outside business attraction expenses and that part of this commitment was to create a “Why Lake County” video to use for business attraction efforts in which they received a $10,000 grant from the Duke Energy Foundation; however, they were estimating the video would cost between $20,000 and $30,000. She mentioned that the Aids to Government Agencies line included the Wellness Way consulting services, the SBDC sponsorship and the Business Opportunity Center located at the Hunt Industrial Park in the City of Groveland.

She then discussed the potential partnership with LEAD, explaining that they were a non-profit public-private partnership focused on economic development within Lake County, that their financial support came from Lake County, the office was in Lake County, the board was composed of representatives from Lake County, and their goal was jobs and investment in Lake County. She also noted that LEAD would recruit new primary employers with a focus on the target sectors of distribution, manufacturing, prepared foods, and back office operations, as well as focus on assisting and growing the existing business base to help retain and create employment opportunities. She related that LEAD was requesting $150,000 for FY 2022 and $500,000 for FY 2023. She mentioned that Elevate Lake would continue to be the EFI designated EDO for Lake County and pursue EFI leads, EFI FDI initiatives, and ensure equitable representation for all of Lake County partners that were non-members of LEAD. She said that Elevate Lake would collaborate with LEAD in the early stages of LEAD projects to verify eligibility for incentives when requested by a prospective business, noting that the incentives must be applied for and approved by the Board prior to the start of construction activities. She indicated that LEAD would be focusing on assisting and growing the existing business base and retaining and creating employment opportunities, as well as providing visitation of at least two visits per year, industry-focused training opportunities, and a plant managers group; furthermore, she said that Elevate Lake would continue to partner with municipalities, chambers of commerce and other local, regional, and state groups to assist existing businesses with retention and expansion efforts to ensure equitable representation for non-members of LEAD. She noted that LEAD would provide direct, one-on-one counseling as well as training and networking opportunities incorporating the widely regarded 1 Million Cups and FastTrac programs from the Kauffman Foundation, and would also continue to partner with UCF to provide a Business Opportunity Center at the Hunt Industrial Park in the City of Groveland. She related that Elevate Lake would continue to take the lead on product and workforce development.

Commr. Campione expressed that the presentation had been extremely helpful to see the things they were already doing and how they drew a distinction between non-LEAD members versus LEAD members. She related that she appreciated the private sector looking at ways to get more involved as she thought that was a real benefit; however, she said that they also needed to make sure they were not turning everything over to LEAD and were also taking care of the businesses who were not members.

Commr. Smith thanked staff for putting together the presentation, adding that he thought it was great that they could work with a public-private partnership as they were partnering with the private sector to help speed up economic development opportunities. He opined that the business opportunity centers were fantastic and that it was extremely important for new businesses to have those. He then asked why Elevate Lake and LEAD were not both working on product and workforce development.

Ms. Garcia answered that LEAD did not touch on that much during their presentation and relayed her understanding of how crucial workforce development was.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she thought LEAD would want to work directly with Lake Technical Center and Lake-Sumter State College and that one thing they brought to the table was the ability to go out and find capital which meant that the County could help with the permitting and zoning side of things. She also questioned who would step up and actually fund the speculative buildings.

Commr. Parks commented that was probably one of the biggest parts of what they did.

Ms. Garcia agreed, noting that was where a partnership could greatly enhance the opportunities in Lake County as a whole.

Commr. Parks remarked that there could be a big opportunity in some of the smaller cities to connect growth management and economic development and help them with a small corridor where they were trying to attract a nature based business or something that was more suitable to their small town, which he opined could be a big opportunity for all of Lake County.

Ms. Garcia commented that assistance would be great with product development because at the end of the day a product would be offered to the businesses whether it was a business from outside the area or a business currently in Lake County looking to expand; furthermore, she said that product availability and workforce was crucial right now.

Commr. Campione noted that one of the biggest complaints for OEP was when they had a prospect and Lake County did not have a building ready for that business. She added that they typically looked for a building already in existence or one that could be quickly put into place.

Ms. Garcia indicated that about 98 percent of their EFI leads were looking to move and be operational in between six and 12 months.

Commr. Campione pointed out that there were buildings around the City of Orlando that looked like distribution sites and were strategically located along the corridors specifically as speculative buildings, noting that Lake County was not positioned to have many places that were good for distribution. She related that Marion County was so close to Interstate 75 which had been a huge part of what they had been able to do through their economic development. She opined that niche manufacturing would continue to be Lake County’s strong suit and that there was huge opportunity for growth and job creation if they had some facilities available to attract that to Lake County.

Ms. Garcia remarked that site selectors were smart as they already targeted where they wanted to be, noting that those companies had research platforms at their fingertips. She indicated that for the Kroger deal they were contacted by Ryan Companies’ engineer requesting information on the specific site before they even knew who the company was.

Commr. Shields asked what would happen to the budget if they went to this model.

Ms. Garcia answered that she did not think anything would happen as their current budget was around $1.3 million. She elaborated that they had a small group of people; however, they did not have a structured business retention and expansion (BRE) visitation program as they did things more organically with their chambers partners.

Commr. Shields asked if they would continue to fund their partners.

Ms. Garcia replied that the only partners they funded was the $150,000 with the SBDC for the entrepreneurship program and the $50,000 for OEP and that would be up to the pleasure of the Board whether they continued with those partnerships.

Commr. Campione asked what she would recommend.

Ms. Garcia recommending keeping the SBDC, adding that they could supply the Board with a report showing how many people they did one-on-one training with. She indicated that they also partnered with SCORE which was funded through the SBA and mentored residents for free or at a very low cost.

Commr. Campione mentioned that she thought the SBDC was better than an incubator for ROI since they worked with people who already had ideas and just needed the structures and guidance.

Ms. Garcia opined that being able to refer individuals to the SBDC had been a great help to their team especially since they did not have a lot of staff and had to cover a variety things for economic development.

Commr. Blake questioned what they were getting out of OEP now since it had gotten smaller, commenting that they were not getting any leads from OEP.

Commr. Campione said that she questioned that as well, noting that they really only had made relationships through the OEP such as with the regional planning council, Career Source, and CFX and that they were not getting job creation from them.

Commr. Parks opined that they could still be on boards and act regionally without being a part of OEP.

Ms. Garcia mentioned that they had just renewed the OEP contract and were paid up through December 2022.

Commr. Campione said that it seemed as though Lake County was an afterthought as she had heard that the times that OEP sent people to Lake County was because they had not found what they were looking for in other counties or what they wanted was too expensive and they wanted to see if there was something in Lake County that was comparable. She related that they were the best ones to tell their story and why the company should be looking at Lake County first, and opined that a partnership with LEAD would be beneficial since recruiting the private sector was not something they could do.

Commr. Blake stated that he was in favor of public-private partnerships; however, he wondered if LEAD was an unnecessary middleman to where they could use that money to pay OEP directly for certain services as needed or for leads.

Commr. Campione replied that it was her understanding that LEAD would work directly with staff to find a recruiter and then they would focus just on Lake County; additionally, she opined that if they used OEP for leads then they would have to use their model and their leftovers.

Commr. Blake commented that he wondered why they would need to use all of that extra money to create a separate organization when they could just use OEP.

Commr. Campione explained that LEAD’s model was to engage Lake County businesses to get them to contribute money to LEAD to create an entity made up of Lake County businesses that could then go out and tell the Lake County story to hopefully bring money in for capital. She related that she was unsure whether they would get that if they contracted with OEP.

Commr. Blake remarked that he just wanted to avoid redundancies and wanted to get the most out of their money as he thought they could just contract with OEP for certain services as needed. He noted that OEP may not even be interested in that.

Commr. Shields mentioned that they were putting a plan together with measurables and deliverables and that they would know right away if they could not deliver.

Commr. Smith asked if staff had discussed this partnership with anyone at LEAD.

Ms. Garcia answered that they had not gone that far yet as they wanted to discuss this with the Board first.

Commr. Smith opined that this was a great plan.

Commr. Campione agreed.

Ms. Garcia mentioned that they had a contract with site location partnerships for $12,500 before COVID hit to go to all of the trade shows and site selectors to set up one-on-one meetings with those who wanted to relocate to the southeast; furthermore, she said that she planned on attending those conferences but then COVID hit and they all shut down. She related that the majority of the conversations were with brokers, developers, and site selectors who reviewed the market in the City of Orlando; however, there was not a lot of movement due to COVID. She indicated that they did get leads from Global Site Location Industries (GSLI); however, they had to pay to play to get into that. She noted that there were other options they could do, but she did not pursue them the last couple of years as most of the brokers were looking for industrial sites and Lake County did not have any.

Commr. Shields commented that they could solve that problem with a public-private partnership.

Commr. Campione agreed if they delivered the way they said they could.

Commr. Parks said that he thought about the opportunities available with the Wolf Branch Innovation District, Wellness Way, and the Minneola Turnpike Interchange and how LEAD could help market those nationally.

Ms. Garcia commented that once the infrastructure was put in place they would grow exponentially.

Commr. Campione asked if staff still did the business retention visits.

Ms. Garcia replied that they did still visit existing businesses; however, they stopped cold calling businesses as about 90 percent of those calls were not worth it due to them being slightly resistant. She related that they had better success with going to chamber events, getting to know the businesses in a one-on-one environment, and then talking to them about their business.

Commr. Campione wondered how businesses would react to LEAD when they did not have a relationship with them yet and whether they would be resistant when asked to pay to be a member of their group. She indicated that it could be in LEAD’s best interest to do the cold calls and visit every single manufacturing business in Lake County to show them what LEAD could offer them, and if they were not interested then they could direct them to the Lake County Economic Growth Department.

Ms. Garcia commented that at the end of the day LEAD would probably have the same challenges as staff.

Ms. Barker mentioned that they could start setting up meetings with Ms. Garcia and the LEAD group to work on a plan and could continue discussing this as the budget process went through to figure out whether the Board wanted to partially or fully fund LEAD’s request.

Commr. Campione asked if they knew where LEAD would be located.

Ms. Garcia answered that she was unsure; however, she had heard about a possible location at the Leesburg International Airport.

Commr. Campione expressed that they could explore the possibility of offering LEAD a location to work from to save money since the money the County would be giving to them would be spent on a location; additionally, she said that this partnership would be more successful if staff could work hand in hand with LEAD.

Commr. Shields commented that there was no room for them here.

Ms. Garcia agreed, adding that they already shared their office with Visit Lake. She noted that those were details they could work out.

Commr. Parks pointed out that they needed to talk with the cities, as well as the chambers, because some were more aware than others.

Commr. Smith opined that the cities would probably feel more comfortable if they knew about this collaboration.

Commr. Campione expressed that it was also important for the cities to see what services LEAD could offer and that she thought most cities did not understand that Lake County Economic Development was countywide; therefore, they did not need their own departments.

Ms. Garcia stressed that they needed to come up with a new strategic plan to determine how they wanted Lake County to look moving forward; additionally, she said that it did not matter how many entities were on board if they were not working toward the same goals. She related that there should be a collaborative effort between the stakeholders, the Board, the cities, LEAD, and Elevate Lake.

Commr. Campione questioned if they would ask LEAD to help with that plan.

Ms. Garcia answered that was suggested; however, it would be up to the Board.

Commr. Campione said that if LEAD were initiating that, then no one had to pay to be at the table because they were doing this due to the relationship the County had with them.

Commr. Blake commented that he would like to see the SBDC report, and Ms. Garcia said that she would email it out.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:51 a.m.

commissioner projects and priorities

Ms. Barker gave a presentation discussing the commissioners’ projects and priorities and listed the following: Fairgrounds relocation, Golden Triangle Regional Park, planning for rural growth areas such as the countywide joint protection area (JPA), law enforcement Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), cryptocurrency, Four Corners community center, pocket neighborhoods, pole barn deregulation, traffic enforcement initiatives with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, and the appointment of the County Manager. She then provided an update for the different projects, noting that staff was currently working on a feasibility study for the Fairgrounds relocation and were reengaging with an appraiser to get an appraisal of the current Fairgrounds site should they want to sell. She related that they were planning to have the Fairgrounds relocated next the Animal Services and that the Renaissance Fair would continue to stay on that property even after the Fairgrounds was built.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there had been concerns in regards to the relocation of the Fairgrounds and with the Sheriff’s Office possibly being relocated there as well, and he stressed that should the Sheriff’s Office be located there in the future they would be located in the back with the Fairgrounds in the front near the road.

Ms. Barker remarked that the plan was to use the 13 acres for the Supervisor of Elections and possibly for the Sheriff’s Office as the Sheriff had identified the need for a 150,000 square foot facility. She related that it was still in the design process and that they were not sure if both offices could be located on those 13 acres. She noted that if that did not work, they had an additional 20 acres behind the Fairgrounds that would be more than enough to accommodate the Sheriff.

Commr. Parks said that he brought it up because he knew those questions would be ongoing until they knew whether or not it would work.

Ms. Barker continued her presentation, noting that there would be a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the agenda the following week for the Golden Triangle Regional Park that would be located near the existing YMCA in the City of Tavares. She said that they had not worked out the fiscal impact yet of this park; however, they were creating the MOU to show that they were in agreement of working with the YMCA and the City of Tavares to design, plan, and construct a regional park in central Lake County. She indicated that planning for rural growth areas was an ongoing process and that she thought the joint meeting with the municipalities on February 7, 2022 had been productive. She pointed out that staff would be meeting internally in a few days to plan the next steps and hoped to have something for the Board by the next BCC meeting. She mentioned that they had an initial meeting with the Sheriff regarding the law enforcement MSTU and that he was amenable to moving forward with that. She related that staff was working with the Office of Procurement Services and the Sheriff’s Office to identify a consulting service to help them work through that process, noting that they may be able to use Tindale Oliver who they currently had a contract with without having to go out to bid; additionally, she said that the Sheriff wanted to be part of the selection process for the consultant.

Commr. Campione questioned whether anyone had looked at the numbers yet.

Ms. Barker answered that the consultant would do that. She elaborated that the Sheriff provided a countywide function which were the bailiffs in the courthouse and were funded out of the general fund, and then the unincorporated service which was mostly road patrol could be funded through the unincorporated MSTU upon creation. She added that the consultant would come in and take a look at the Sheriff and the County’s funding structure and determine the best way to handle the MSTU.

Commr. Campione stated that the Sheriff had other functions too, such as Animal Services and that his budget relied upon the fact that services were provided within the cities that were not just patrolling unincorporated areas.

Ms. Barker explained how Tindale Oliver assessed the fire assessments, noting that they looked at all of the calls, determined their location, and then came up with the percentage of basic life support (BLS) versus advanced life support (ALS) calls to figure out the top assessment rate based on the allocation of cost.

Commr. Campione said that the Sheriff was the chief law enforcement officer for the entire county which applied to the cities as well, and that it would be interesting to see how the consultant could break that down since there were certain things paid by the taxpayers to have available. She related that if they did have an MSTU just in the unincorporated areas there would still be a significant portion of the Sheriff’s budget coming out of the general fund which would still be seen as part of the millage they imposed.

Commr. Shields commented that the whole reason they started this discussion was for transparency for the taxpayer so they could understand where their money was going, adding that the more they could clear it up the better.

Commr. Smith mentioned that they needed to have this consultant so they could understand the numbers and facts.

Ms. Barker opined that this was a good exercise to understand the funding structure that went into law enforcement for the county even if they did not move forward with an MSTU.

Commr. Campione indicated that they had asked about having an MSTU before and also about having a line item that was a component of the general fund millage but stated it went to the Sheriff’s Office; however, she said that they were told they could not do that.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, adding that the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector both said they could not do that because it was not a separate millage.

Commr. Campione remarked that if the Water Authority legislation passed to where the millage was moved under the County’s budget then she thought it should be a separate line item.

Ms. Barker said that as long as the millage was maintained then it would be a separate line item.

Commr. Campione asked if the cap to the millage was still included in the legislation.

Ms. Marsh believed that it was still a half mill.

Commr. Campione suggested taking an extra measure to notify the public by simplifying things further and showing them how much of the general fund millage was being used.

Ms. Barker said that they could ask the Property Appraiser if he would be amenable to adding an insert into the TRIM notice that went out in August 2022.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the Property Appraiser added an insert last tax season regarding the millage being reduced to zero for the North Lake County Hospital District.

Commr. Parks opined that sending everyone a breakdown of how the millage was being used was transparency.

Commr. Blake agreed.

Commr. Campione remarked that it was important when breaking out the Sheriff’s portion that they break out the jail since it was the Board’s decision for him to run the jail.

Ms. Barker said that they could look at that for this year’s TRIM notice.

Commr. Parks noted that the MSTU would not happen until the following year if approved so they could at least ask for a breakdown of how the millage was being used for this year.

Ms. Barker continued the presentation, noting that a few months ago Commissioners Parks and Blake brought up having staff look at offering crypto currency whether it was a Lake County coin or as a form of payment; additionally, she said that staff met with UCF the prior week and discussed their Flairr lab where their own coin was created. She indicated that staff was still researching and planned on bringing a presentation back to the Board with a general idea of what would happen if they went to crypto currency and then they would put it out to bid with Board approval.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there could be two options with crypto currency and one was to accept bitcoin as payment if it was instantly converted into United States (U.S.) dollars with no risk to the County, and that option two was to have a coin specific to Lake County with the potential to have an economic development side to it and possibly some revenue for the County. He pointed out that the City of Miami used their coin to accept about $6 to $7 million of revenue on a quarterly basis and was dedicating it towards attainable housing. He related that he was not an expert and had a lot more questions; however, he was cautiously optimistic.

Commr. Blake opined that option two would be very innovative and great to at least explore; additionally, he said that option one to accept crypto currency as payment was a great idea if it was just a matter of convenience and was no financial risk to the County.

Commr. Campione expressed that she was not into the idea of having a separate coin as she could not imagine how that would translate into making much money with the size of their population; however, she was fine with accepting payment as long as it translated immediately into dollars.

Commr. Parks commented that it probably would not make $7 million a quarter; however, he said it could be more than they thought.

Commr. Blake mentioned that they had discussed this heavily with the South Lake Chamber of Commerce and some of the other chambers. He noted that about 30 percent went directly to the municipality for mining it and that even if they only received $1 million, that was still money the County could spend towards trails and other special projects. He opined it could be a really interesting benefit to the people mining it and also to the County.

Commr. Parks mentioned that they could use the coin to promote the county, noting that if someone were to visit a trail they would receive a credit for it in the Lake County coin.

Ms. Barker continued her presentation, stating that they had a robust discussion about the Four Corners community center at the last BCC meeting where staff was instructed to get estimates of what the average taxpayer would pay if they created an MSTU to fund the construction. She related that Ms. Teslia was working on that and planned to bring a presentation back to the BCC in March 2022.

Commr. Shields asked if they would have enough time to work on the language for the ballot.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, adding that they would need to have the language in May/June 2022. She noted that the presentation would include some proposed language should the Board choose to move forward.

Ms. Michele Janiszewski, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, continued the presentation discussing pocket neighborhoods. She explained that pocket neighborhoods were referred to as bungalow courts or cottage clusters, were typically in urban areas, and were residential communities consisting of smaller residences often on a common yard to promote a sense of community and increase interaction with the neighbors. She mentioned that the homes were typically 1,000 square feet or less and were conventional builds, and not mobile or modular homes. She displayed pictures of the New Oaks neighborhood in Lake Wales, Florida and noted that construction would commence in 2022 in phases and would take between 10 to 20 years to complete. She indicated that they were anticipating 23 studio cottages, a two-story four unit apartment building, and a building with art studios. She said that the two acres were originally zoned commercial and that a special exemption was obtained to rezone it to a planned zoning district. She then showed pictures of the already constructed Veterans Village in Umatilla, Florida, noting that it was a Habitat for Humanity project and was a 13 home development designed for veterans and their spouses who needed affordable housing. She related that the development was situated off of State Road (SR) 19 for ease of being able to walk to the downtown area and the local bus line. She pointed out that it consisted of two or three bedroom residences and was developed at 4.1 dwelling units per net acre. She then showed pictures of the Cottages at Heritage Grove in Tavares, Florida, stating that it was also a Habitat for Humanity project and was a 23 unit development featuring cottage style homes at approximately 730 square feet. She indicated that it was developed at approximately 6.8 dwelling units per net acre on 3.42 acres; additionally, she said that it was located of off SR 19 and that the ground work had already started. She related that the City of Tavares indicated that the property was rezoned to a planned unit development (PUD) and that one of the constraints was issues with the right of way; however, since the roads were private they had some flexibility. She mentioned that staff looked into where these could occur in the county and identified some issues with development in the rural areas, noting that the rural Future Land Use Categories (FLUC) only allowed one dwelling unit per five acres, and rural transition allowed the maximum of one dwelling unit per acre. She said that if it was developed as a rural conservation subdivision with 50 percent open space a PUD would be required and the maintenance of the open space would be a cost to the homeowners. She stated that utilities needed for rural areas were privately owned septic, the lots would have to be about half an acre in size, and the private treatment plant costs would be put onto the cost of the dwelling units which would not make them affordable. She said that these were typically seen as infill development and showed an example of one, stating that this property redeveloped four platted lots into eight cottage units around a common yard. She explained that staff looked into ways of encouraging pocket neighborhoods within the Lake County code and noted that if the property had the allowed density and zoning district in the FLUC they could proceed with that. She said that they could eliminate or modify the minimum structure size and definition for single family dwelling units; however, that would affect all dwelling units within Lake County. She related that the minimum structure size was based on a zoning district between 850 square feet and 1,500 square feet with 300 of that being non-living area, and that the definition of a single family dwelling unit did not differentiate between a conventional built, modular, or mobile home; however, it was required to be at least 23 feet at its narrowest point. She indicated that they could adopt Land Development Regulations (LDR) to define pocket neighborhoods and include design standards to possibly allow an exception to the current LDR standards if the development was developed as a pocket neighborhood with less than 20 units. She said that they could establish a density bonus since these were usually associated with affordable housing projects; however, that would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and LDR. She said that the last option was a combination of the first two options which was to establish a density bonus for affordable housing projects if developed as a pocket neighborhood as established in the LDR, which would also require an amendment to the Comp Plan and LDR.

Commr. Campione mentioned that it did not seem like the density bonus would be beneficial unless someone was going to do multi-level, because they would then have to decide the definition of affordable and whether there needed to be restrictions about who people sold it to and how much they sold it for. She opined that it could get really complicated if it was tied to affordable housing, even though they wanted affordable housing.

Commr. Blake remarked that the goal was for a free market solution that was less subject to political encumbrances, which he opined was the whole idea of having it be an allowable use and having the exception to LDR standards. He related that another way to make it more affordable was to cap the square footage at 800 or a number the Board decided on as that could dramatically cut back on the School Board impact fee which could balance out some of the other costs. He pointed out that these projects were found to have a very low impact to the school system in the Pacific Northwest.

Commr. Campione asked if that was because there were no children living in those homes or because they could only fit one child in their home.

Commr. Blake answered that it was due to natural constraints and also because most of the people who bought in those cottage communities did not have kids yet as it was a starter house for the workforce, and also people bought them to downsize. He indicated that Mr. Ross Chapin, author of Pocket Neighborhoods, had drawings showing shared community centers and that it was possible for people to downsize because they could reserve a room at the community center should they need additional space for guest activities.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the designs did not show garages and questioned whether they could allow carports, large covered spaces for everyone to park, or even garages that were combined together.

Commr. Blake answered that there was a condo association with shared spaces in a lot of the communities that Mr. Chapin designed.

Commr. Shields asked if they could use the same regulations from the neighborhoods where they were successful.

Commr. Blake confirmed this, adding that the Pocket Neighborhoods book had code change examples they could use if they wanted to. He stated that he just wanted to have something that could happen regardless of what the political make up happened to be at the time as he wanted it to be ongoing. He expressed that the use was small enough to where it most likely would not bring up a lot of concerns that they saw with a traditional PUD as it would probably eliminate most of those problems, such as traffic concerns. He related that he had not sketched out anything yet since that was something they all needed to decide on and then mentioned that a lot of communities had garage access from the back through alleyways and that he thought they should have parcels of 10 acres or less.

Commr. Campione commented that they needed to think about trash collection as it always seemed to be an issue especially with alleyways; furthermore, she said that they needed to make sure that emergency vehicles could get through those smaller roads.

Commr. Smith opined that they should not be restricted to a conventional build as he thought there were a lot of non-conventional opportunities out there that looked great.

Commr. Campione agreed.

Commr. Blake said that it was a great opportunity for developers to be innovative and reiterated that making the impact fee almost negligible was a big incentive to doing something like this.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the attainable housing number was between $150,000 and $200,000 and that the impact fees would need to be waived or greatly reduced to bring the cost down.

Commr. Blake noted that one example of these developments had exceptions to some of the infrastructure requirements that were typical of a PUD, such as using crushed gravel for the roads to make it more of a camp feel. He remarked that he hoped they could move forward with this and could work with staff to have a specific exemption to the LDR to include a category about pocket neighborhoods.

Commr. Parks questioned if Commissioner Blake wanted to give staff direction on this since he had been tracking it for a while and brought it to the BCC.

Commr. Blake agreed, noting that he was recommending they create an exemption to the LDR so that pocket neighborhoods became an allowable use and would not have to come before the BCC. He said that they needed to decide what that looked like so that everyone was comfortable with it. He related that he did not want them to be in a similar situation as other counties with staffing issues and the service industry suffering, noting that a lot of people commuted to work in Lake County and with the rise in gas prices he believed a lot of those commuting jobs would be lost resulting in them having to approve massive amounts of multi-family apartment complexes.

Ms. Barker pointed out that staff could meet with Commissioner Blake initially to start getting some of his ideas and then they could put together a presentation to bring back to the BCC where they could discuss details and provide options.

Commr. Campione cautioned them on the open ended land use, stating that if they made it a right or an entitlement then they needed to establish some minimum standards which could then take away some of the flexibility.

Commr. Blake opined that they could stay generic enough on the standards that everyone was comfortable with.

Commr. Campione mentioned that they could require the pocket neighborhood PUD to come back to the BCC so they could look at it the same as they did for any PUD if the developer wanted to do something creative.

Commr. Shields commented that Commissioner Blake already stated the first requirement of it being 800 square feet.

Commr. Campione remarked that they would need some minimum basic requirements such as having setbacks from adjoining properties.

Commr. Blake agreed.

Commr. Parks opined that details were important as he thought that someone could run with this thinking that the BCC was promoting a huge, wild growth pattern and they could take it in the wrong direction.

Commr. Campione said that she liked this concept; however, she was thinking of ways this concept could be abused, such as if a developer had 200 acres and then cut the property up for multiple pocket neighborhoods when in reality it ended up being a total of 500 homes. She related that the City of Gainesville and possibly the City of Tallahassee had neighborhoods like this and that they could look at those.

Commr. Shields asked if there was a way for the County to encourage the cities to do this as well since they had water and sewer.

Commr. Campione indicated that once the County figured this out they could take that template to the cities. She also noted that they needed to think about the cost for onsite sewage.

Commr. Blake reiterated that it was possible the school impact fees could be dropped down to make it more financially feasible.

Ms. Barker continued the presentation with pole barn deregulation, stating that Commissioner Blake would address this since he brought it up.

Commr. Blake explained that it came to his attention that building a pole barn on one’s own property required a permit through the County, and he questioned whether they could exempt pole barns from the Florida Building Code in Lake County. He related that part of the code specified that it was required to be a certain percentage of the primary structure’s square footage. He opined that a pole barn was a pretty basic structure, that they brought back the agricultural heritage of Lake County, and that it was an unnecessary extra step people had to go through to build one. He indicated that it was fine if there was no interest; however, he wanted to bring this up because he had received multiple complaints about this.

Mr. Tom Allen, Director for the Office of Building Services, pointed out that the statutes for the Florida Building code were very restrictive about what changes could be made as the whole intent was to have a uniform Florida Building Code for the whole state. He indicated that they were allowed to do administrative changes; however, those changes could not be less stringent than what was already in there, and any other changes were considered a technical amendment which they were not set up to do. He mentioned that they could look at the parameters to see if they could fit it within an administrative task, adding that pole barns were not defined anywhere. He related that Commissioner Blake discussed this with him earlier that day so he was aware of exactly what he wanted; however, they would need to look at other jurisdictions to see if this was done anywhere else and also how to write it so that it could be enforced if there was an issue.

Commr. Campione asked what the rule was if someone was zoned agriculture but did not have an agricultural exemption.

Mr. Allen answered that the current policy stated that a permit was not needed if one had an agricultural exemption as a non-residential farm building and also if one had a land use for agricultural purposes. He related that staff had worked with the County Attorney’s Office on this over the past few months and thought they had a good system for figuring out whether any of the agricultural exemptions were exempt or not. He mentioned that they also exempt any sheds that were 120 square feet or less for residential properties.

Commr. Blake asked what the cap was for the square footage on a pole barn for a property that was zoned R1, and whether it was 80 percent of the size of the primary structure.

Ms. Janie Barrón, Chief Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning, indicated that Chapter 10 of the LDR stated that any accessory structures combined together could be up to 80 percent of the square footage of the ground floor if the property was less than one acre, and if more than an acre they would go by the impervious surface ratio which she said could be 10 or 30 percent depending on the zoning.

Commr. Campione commented that someone could not build a pole barn that extended out to all of their boundaries.

Commr. Blake confirmed this, adding that he did not think anyone would do that.

Commr. Parks mentioned that some people built some unusual buildings which was why they needed some guidance. He related that his concern was about the building code and making sure there would not be pieces from the building causing damage to other properties.

Commr. Campione mentioned the scenario of having the roof detach and land into the neighbor’s property.

Commr. Smith opined that there needed to be some design standards to help with that.

Mr. Allen commented that they had come across a variety of structures that started as a pole barn and had been converted into houses or other things and then staff had to figure out how the structure was built to assist the owners in getting a permit.

Commr. Parks said that he understood what Commissioner Blake was trying to do and that maybe they could find something that was open to help people especially in the rural areas.

Commr. Blake mentioned that he had a lot more rural areas in his district until the redistricting and that he thought since a pole barn was such a simple thing with telephone poles, trusses, and a tin roof they could make everyone’s life easier by exempting them from having to get a permit.

Commr. Campione stated that it was interesting that there was not a definition or specifications for pole barns.

Commr. Parks suggested giving some examples of the proper way to build a pole barn that would make them exempted.

Commr. Campione agreed, noting that if a pole barn followed a certain specification then it would not need a permit and be a potential hazard.

Commr. Parks related that it could be self-certification where the people would go online and verify that their pole barn met the standards, which would then give staff the right to audit it.

Commr. Smith commented that a picture could be taken and sent in to the County as well.

Commr. Campione asked if the complaints had been from agricultural properties.

Commr. Blake answered that they were not, adding that it was from residential properties on an acre or less.

Ms. Barker said that staff could look at some options and bring some ideas back within a few months. She then continued the presentation with the traffic enforcement initiative, which had been brought up by Commissioner Parks at the last meeting. She indicated that Commissioner Parks had been in contact with the City of Clermont and the Sheriff’s Office regarding an initiative to help mitigate the issues of speeding and a high volume of accidents in specific areas of the county. She pointed out that staff would reach out to the City of Clermont and the Sheriff’s Office as well to see what kind of partnership they could create and what the cost would be, noting that staff would come back after discussions and let the Board weigh in on their findings.

Commr. Parks explained that this initiative was received positively by the City and the Sheriff’s Office. He said that they would come back with details on how it would work, whether the officer was from the City, the Sheriff’s Office, or a combination, and which areas would be patrolled as this was specifically focused on speed enforcement and distracted driving within the very dangerous corridors of South Lake. He related that they could partner with other cities to do the same in other parts of the county as well.

Commr. Campione asked if they would focus on specific zones.

Commr. Parks answered that there would be increased enforcement on U.S. 27 and SR 50 starting in Four Corners along with a communications effort so that after about a year people would know that a lot of tickets were getting written in that area. He mentioned that the City and the Sheriff’s Office would report to the County on a monthly basis about how many additional tickets were being written for speeding and distracted driving.

Commr. Campione asked how the initiative would be paid for.

Commr. Parks replied that it would probably have to be additional funding; however, they were not making that decision that day. He said that they would have to see how the cost would be shared between the City and the Sheriff’s Office and that they could possibly get the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) involved as well.

Commr. Campione mentioned that there were several areas in her district where people complained about speeding and that there was only so much ground the Sheriff’s Office could cover since having someone sit in a particular location doing speed enforcement was not economical and did not fit the overall model of how they did patrolling.

Commr. Parks said that he typically told people to go on a ride along with a Sheriff’s Deputy or a city police officer and they would see how backed up they were with calls, noting that they not only pulled people over for speeding, they also were going to calls for theft and other issues people wanted them to address. He mentioned that 95 percent of all crashes were due to speeding, reckless driving, and distracted driving and that enforcement would continue to be a part of that solution.

Commr. Campione commented that Lake County had a lot of roads with truck weight limits and that those were really only enforced if someone made a complaint; furthermore, she said that as a general rule the Sheriff’s Department would not handle that.

Commr. Parks agreed, stating that a FDOT officer would most likely handle those issues, which he said was another potential partner for enforcement on U.S. 27 as they were the ones that pulled trucks over.

Commr. Shields asked if there was a business model to where additional enforcement would be paid by charging the speeder a large ticket, and gave the example of writing a $1,000 speeding ticket which would cause that person to slow down and then allow extra money to pay for the next officer.

Commr. Campione said that she believed that the money from a ticket written by a municipal police officer stayed within that department and that the money from a ticket written by a Sheriff’s Deputy went somewhere else and did not stay in their budget.

Commr. Parks remarked that he believed it used to be that way as that was how certain small towns got their revenue; however, he opined that the state stepped in and said they could not do that.

Commr. Blake indicated that in Finland they started giving tickets based on the percentage of the person’s latest pay stub in order to be fair to their residents.

Commr. Shields related that the Sheriff told him that speeding tickets were actually a loss for them rather than a revenue generator.

Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer, said that the money was split up in many ways which happened in the court system when someone paid a traffic ticket, and then the Clerk’s Office paid the money to the city or to the state.

Commr. Parks continued the presentation with the County Manager appointment. He related that he thought this was an appropriate forum to bring this up and pointed out that he thought it was important for an organization to send a clear signal that they now had someone who was leading the organization with the day to day operations and that the BCC was clear in making that position permanent. He opined that Ms. Barker had done an exceptional job for the County through the transition even though there had been some trepidation about whether this was something she wanted to do permanently. He noted that he understood that this was a difficult job; however, he believed she had the respect of the people who served in the organization underneath her which was important for morale. He also mentioned that tough decisions had to be made that not everyone liked; however, he thought she was handling things very well and had been extremely responsive to the commissioners. He indicated that he wanted to put up for discussion that they go ahead and make Ms. Barker the next County Manager permanently.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that this would need to be done by consensus and then they would bring a contract back to the Board.

Commr. Blake opined that this was a great idea and that Ms. Barker had done a wonderful job.

Commr. Shields commented that she had been responsive to him and that she was doing a wonderful job.

Commr. Smith said that Ms. Barker had done an outstanding job and he was in favor of bringing the contract back.

Commr. Campione agreed, and asked if they would bring the contract back at the next BCC meeting.

Commr. Parks said that it would be on the agenda for the February 22, 2022 BCC meeting and that the individual commissioners would receive it within the next day to look at.

Ms. Barker expressed that she appreciated the support of the commission and of staff, noting that staff had been of great assistance to her in the last six months and had been a great support group.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:14 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK