A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

March 22, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting and said that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by a County staff member who was also a veteran that served the country. He explained that Mr. Jason Leavitt joined the County in February 2022 as a Probation Officer in the Office of County Probation, and that as a Specialist 4, Mr. Leavitt served as a Cannon Crewmember with the United States (U.S.) Army between July 1983 and July 1986. He elaborated that as a Cannon Crewmember, Mr. Leavitt was responsible for loading and firing Howitzer cannons, operating heavy and light wheeled vehicles, and transportation of artillery ammunition. He commented that between 1985 and 1986, Mr. Leavitt was stationed in South Korea where he was assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division, and that he received his honorable discharge in 1986. He mentioned that for his service, Mr. Leavitt earned the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Korea Defense Service Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon and the Army Service Ribbon. He thanked Mr. Leavitt for his service.

Commr. Blake gave the Invocation and Mr. Leavitt led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

Mr. Erikk Ross, Director for the Information Technology (IT) Department, explained that the current meeting was being livestreamed on the County website and was also being made available through Zoom Webinar for members of the public who wished to provide comments during the Citizen Question and Comment Period later in the agenda. He elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, he relayed that during the Citizen Question and Comment Period, anyone who had joined the webinar via their phone could press *9 to virtually raise their hand, and anyone participating online could click the raise hand button to identify that they wished to speak. He said that when it was time for public comment, he would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments. He added that everyone would have three minutes to speak, and after three minutes an alarm would sound to let them know that their time was up. He added that they previously notified the public that comments could be emailed through 5:00 p.m. on the previous day, and those comments were shared with the Board prior to the meeting. He stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, said that for Tab 26, the location map and Commission District number were updated after the agenda was published. She added that for Tab 29, the settlement agreement between Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation and Lake County, as well as the memorandum of understanding with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), were both attached to the agenda after the first publishing.

arpa update

Mr. Sean Beaudet, Grants Coordinator for the Office of Management and Budget, presented an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update. He said that at the February 22, 2022 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting, staff was asked if upgrading restroom facilities at the Butler Street Boat Ramp in Astor was an eligible use of funds; additionally, staff continued to evaluate approved projects and previous funding requests. He commented that currently, the only facility at the Butler Street Boat Ramp was a portalet, and staff recommended installing a prefabricated structure used throughout their park system. He elaborated that it would include a connection to centralized water and sewer, that the project was eligible for ARPA funding under the infrastructure category, and that it would cost $175,000. He then indicated that the second request was from the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) to upgrade the PremierOne computer aided dispatch (CAD) software. He said that the current system was approaching the end of useful life, and that it was utilized by the LCSO and 12 municipalities within the County. He remarked that the Lake County Offices of Fire Rescue and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) utilized the same dispatch software being requested, and that it would allow for the integration of the systems for more efficient countywide emergency response. He then indicated that the project could be funded under the revenue replacement category and would cost about $2.8 million. He explained that to facilitate both projects, funds would need to be reallocated; therefore, staff’s recommendation was that the courtroom technology upgrade project would be moved to the public sector capacity category, the Butler Street project would be placed under the infrastructure category, and to accommodate these projects, funds could be moved from personal protective equipment (PPE) and the business assistance grant program. He said that these changes would allow the dispatch system to be completely funded from the revenue replacement portion. He concluded that staff’s recommendation was to approve the two requested projects and reallocate funds within the project list, as presented.

Commr. Campione said that she had met with the Astor community in the previous week, and that this boat ramp was the most used of all of the boat ramps in Lake County. She mentioned that there was a significant amount of activity there, but there were no restrooms other than portalets, noting that this would be a large upgrade for the community.

Commr. Parks commented that ARPA updates were presented almost every month, and that items on the list could potentially change; however, this item would remain on the list.

Commr. Campione asked if the LCSO would immediately be able to order their CAD upgrade.

Mr. Beaudet confirmed this and added that the price quote was recent.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items: the two requested projects of Butler Street boat ramp restroom facilities for $175,000 and the Sheriff’s computer assisted dispatch upgrade for $2,845,032; and to reallocate funds within the project list, as presented.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meeting of November 2, 2021 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Richard Paradis, representing the Southern Palms Recreational Vehicle (RV) Resort, expressed concerns for the adverse noise impact that the Lake County Fairgrounds events had on their residents. He indicated concerns for the events being about once per month and on Friday and Saturday nights, relaying that he had measured continuous sound from 99 to over 104 decibels. He relayed his understanding that a Lake County ordinance prohibited excessive noise and that the City of Eustis also had a noise ordinance. He indicated an understanding that neither the fairgrounds events regulations, nor the facility use agreement addressed any noise limits or nighttime restrictions. He said that the residents had petitioned the County to prohibit excessive noise from all fairground events between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., require music events to limit their noise levels to below 85 decibels at the fence line between the fairgrounds and Southern Palms, incorporate noise limits in the fairgrounds event regulations and facility use agreements, and post signs indicating that loud music emanating from vehicles entering and leaving the fairgrounds was prohibited with penalty of a fine and court appearance.

Commr. Parks said that the County would be trying to address this.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that since the property was located in the City of Eustis, the City’s noise ordinance would have to be complied with. She added that the County could make changes to the facility use agreement, but it would still be a law enforcement issue, other than the fairgrounds potentially banning those events from coming back if they violated this. She mentioned that noise from vehicles was covered under State of Florida uniform traffic laws and would also be a law enforcement issue.

Commr. Smith inquired if Mr. Paradis made any calls to the City of Eustis Police Department or the LCSO. He then asked if this car show was the only time that this happened.

Mr. Paradis relayed his understanding that there were over 20 calls to the police department and that he talked to officers; however, there was no real change in the sound level. He also clarified that they had a noisy event about once per month.

Commr. Parks said that the County could work on the events and conditions.

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, expressed concerns for a way to stop the Cities’ expansion in order to minimize density and traffic on the roads. He opined that the County needed to discontinue discounting road impact fees, and to possibly have a catch up amount on the impact fees. He also opined that there needed to be a way to reduce the constant high density development that was being approved, indicating concerns for the condition of the roads. He commented that the consent agenda items on the current agenda included millions of dollars being spent, and he opined that the County did not have public discussion by the auditor regarding the contracts. He relayed his understanding that the County did not have an audit committee, and he thought that they should consider having public quarterly reports on audits. He then mentioned parking signs which were reserved for the County, noting that they did not have hours listed. He opined that when trying to find a parking space on the weekend, many people would not park in those spots; therefore, he opined that they needed to revise the parking signs so that they included hours, noting that people could know that they could park there on weekends or in the evening.

Commr. Campione asked if the parking spots facing the hotel were public right of way.

Ms. Barker explained that the parking spots facing Key West Resort were the LCSO spots, and they had times on individual signs in front of each parking spot. She added that the County had large signs at the entrance of their parking area on either side that gave the hours of employee use, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that it was open for public use on Friday, Saturday and Sunday through midnight. She mentioned that they typically had cars in their parking lot before 5:00 p.m. for people going to restaurants.

Commr. Campione then inquired about the impact fee issue, indicating her understanding that State law prevented the County from making any large changes to their impact fee schedules. She recalled that when the County reviewed transportation impact fees several years prior, South Lake had the higher transportation impact fee, and they added Northeast Lake County and the Wekiva area because of the additional traffic and the future completion of the Wekiva Parkway. She also recalled that the County left the central and northwest areas alone.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that they were still at a large reduced rate; furthermore, the Wekiva area and South Lake were at about 75 percent.

Commr. Campione remarked that at that time, there was concern expressed by the municipalities and business leaders in the northwest and central districts that they were not having much activity and they were trying to spur their economy along; furthermore, there had then been a significant amount of activity in those areas. She said that it seemed like the County needed to consider this to the extent that they were allowed to make those changes; however, she disagreed that this would catch them up on maintenance issues because maintenance was not covered by impact fees.

Ms. Barker stated that the transportation impact fee study was complete, and staff was working on the presentation with Tindale-Oliver; furthermore, it should be coming to the Board in April 2022. She recalled that Tindale-Oliver provided another impact fee study presentation to the Board several months prior, and staff wanted to hold off on changing those rates until they completed the transportation impact fee study. She confirmed that the new legislation restricted the amount that the County could raise impact fees.

Ms. Marsh explained that under the legislation passed in the previous session, the County could increase impact fees up to 25 percent, but they had to break this down over two years. She added that the County could also increase impact fees by 50 percent over a four year phase in, and if they wanted to do more than 50 percent, then they needed a detailed study justifying this, along with a separate public hearing; furthermore, this would have to be phased in over a number of years.

Commr. Campione said that the County had always left a bit of a cushion on the top rate because this protected them from challenges regarding charging a 100 percent impact fee.

Commr. Parks agreed that they could not rely on impact fees to catch them up on roads. He also did not think that the parks and trails impact fee had ever been updated.

Ms. Barker responded that impact fee studies for parks and trails, fire, and libraries were done several months prior and that Tindale-Oliver made a presentation, but staff asked that the Board suspend making any changes since they only really had one chance to make changes and they wanted to include transportation impact fees. She reiterated that they would bring back all of those proposed fees and calculations in April 2022.

Commr. Campione inquired if school impact fees were in this same category since the Lake County School Board did this study.

Ms. Barker responded that their study was not updated at that point, and that it was used in conjunction with what the total impact fee would be to the developer or the homebuyer.

Commr. Campione asked that if the School Board were to update it, would it affect this 50 percent rule and the two and four year increments.

Ms. Marsh commented that it would still apply to school impact fees.

proclamations 2022-23 and 2022-21

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-23 declaring March 20-26, 2022 as Florida Surveyors and Mappers Week.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-21 designating April 10 - 16, 2022, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.

Commr. Blake read and presented Proclamation 2022-23 to surveyors and mappers in attendance.

Commr. Smith read and presented Proclamation 2022-21 to Office of Public Safety Support staff in attendance.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 3, as follows:

List of Warrants

Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

City of Minneola Ordinances

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2021-20 and corresponding Annexation and Rezoning Ordinance 2021-19, and various supporting documents, from the City of Minneola.

City of Umatilla Ordinance 2022-101

Notice is hereby provided of having received Ordinance 2022-101 from the City of Umatilla.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 28, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2022-18 designating April 3 - 9, 2022, as National Library Week in Lake County. There is no fiscal impact.

Request approval of Proclamation 2022-26 designating April 10, 2022, as Gopher Tortoise Day in Lake County. There is no fiscal impact.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend adoption and execution of Resolution 2022-28 Increasing Certain District Five Medical Examiner Fees. The fiscal impact is undetermined at this time.

COUNTY MANAGER

Request approval to appoint Allison Teslia to the Central Florida Expressway Authority Finance Committee.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Procurement Services

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

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Animal Services

Recommend approval to accept the Maddie's Fund Scholarship for Compassion in Balance Training, and to authorize Whitney Boylston, Director of Office of Animal Services, to execute the agreement. There is no fiscal impact.

Planning and Zoning

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, to revise the criteria pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units. There is no fiscal impact.

Public Safety Support

Recommend approval:

1. To adopt Sourcewell (a cooperative purchasing public agency f/k/a National Joint Powers Alliance) Contract #042021 with Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Chicago, IL) for the purchase and replacement of Public Safety Microwave equipment; and

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

The fiscal impact is $4,500,000 (expenditure) utilizing currently approved ARPA Fiscal Recovery Grant funds.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Facilities Management

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-408 for Countywide Janitorial Services to American Janitorial, Inc. (Umatilla, FL); and

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $838,437.84 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the fiscal year budget.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contracts 21-0933A, 21-0933B, and 21-0933C for architectural services on an as-needed basis to Forefront Architectural and Engineering, LLC (Clermont, FL), K.T.H. Architects, Inc. (Orlando, FL), and Powell Studio Architects, LLC (Clermont, FL).

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

The annual fiscal impact is estimated at $250,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-722 with Lake Jem Farms, LLC (Tavares, FL) for Bermuda Sod delivery and installation.

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

The estimated annual fiscal impact is $125,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

Recommend approval to:

1. Apply for a $100,000 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Boating Improvement Grant to be used towards the construction costs of a boat ramp, aluminum floating dock, a floating ADA compliant paddle launch, and improvements to the entry road and staging area.

2. Adopt supporting Resolution 2022-29 authorizing signing and submission of the grant application and supporting documents and assurances to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

3. Approval to accept and implement the grant, if awarded.

There is no fiscal impact from this action. Commission District 4.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract’s 22-413 for bahia mowing at North Lake Regional Park to JDMF, LLC (Gotha, FL).

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $71,880. (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 budget. Commission District 4.

Public Works

Recommend approval of an Interlocal agreement between Lake County and the cities of Eustis, Tavares, and Umatilla relating to the North Lake Trail Phases 1 & 2 Project.

There is no fiscal impact. Commission Districts 3 and 4.

Recommend approval of a Roadway Improvement Agreement Amendment with Jen Florida 30, LLC (Oviedo, FL) to extend North Hancock Road from County Road (CR) 561A to the proposed entrance of the Del Webb Minneola residential subdivision.

The fiscal impact is $1,098,280.38 (expenditure) from the South Impact Fee Benefit District, as transportation impact fee credits. Commission District 2.

Recommend approval of a Roadway Improvement Agreement with Richland Developers - Florida, Inc. to extend North Hancock Road and associated Trail from 1,200 feet north of County Road (CR) 561A (the proposed entrance of the Del Webb Minneola residential subdivision) to CR 455 (Green Mountain Scenic Overlook).

The estimated fiscal impact is $8,724,724.33 in South Transportation Impact Fees credits and $2,000,000 (expenditure) in South Transportation Impact Fees Infrastructure funds. The total fiscal impact is $10,724,724.33. Commission District 2.

Recommend:

1. Approval of a Local Agency Program (LAP) agreement and

2. Adoption of supporting Resolution 2022-30 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for construction and inspection services for the Lake Ella Road safety project in the Lady Lake and Fruitland Park area.

3. Adoption of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-31 adding $425,945 to the Federal/State Grants Fund for the Lake Ella Road Safety Improvement Project.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $425,945 (revenue/expenditure - 100 percent grant funded). Commission District 5.

Recommend:

1. Approval of a Local Agency Program (LAP) agreement; and

2. Adoption of Resolution 2022-32 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for design services for the Lake Wekiva Trail Segment 1 from Tremain Street to State Road 46 in the Mount Dora and Sorrento area; and

3. Adoption of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-33 adding $2,000,000 to the Federal/State Grants Fund for the Lake Wekiva Trail Segment 1 Project.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $2,001,070. $2,000,000 is grant funded (expenditure/revenue) and $1,070 (expenditure) is funded through 2nd Renewal Sales Tax. Commission District 4.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-34 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a platted Right of Way located east of CR 450 and north of East Umatilla Blvd. The closest municipality is the City of Umatilla.

The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 4.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-35 to advertise a public hearing to vacate unimproved rights of way as shown on the unrecorded Map of Higley. The closest municipality is the City of Leesburg.

The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 4.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-36 supporting and authorizing County staff to apply for a Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant for funding of design, right of way acquisition, and construction of the Wekiva Trail Segment 1 and Segment 5 in Tavares, Mount Dora, and Sorrento.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $8,000 (expenditure) and is within and will not exceed the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission Districts 3 and 4.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-37 and perpetual communications systems easement to AT&T Corp. for the relocation, installation, operation, maintenance, and replacement of communication systems consisting of cables and wires, waveguides, surface testing terminals, conduits, manholes, markers, regeneration huts and other appurtenances for a portion of Schofield Road.

The fiscal impact is $130.50 (expenditure-recording fees). Commission District 1.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-711 for Roadside Mowing and Litter Removal Services to Aero Groundtek, LLC (Ocoee, FL); and

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

The estimated annual fiscal impact is $446,558.32 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 21-0921 with OM Engineering, Inc. (Orlando, FL) to provide engineering and design services for Hartwood Marsh Road - Phase I; and

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $787,906 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 2.

lake norris conservation area settlement agreement

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, presented Tab 29. He said that the SJRWMD was the owner and manager of the Lake Norris Conservation Area (LNCA), that public access was allowed with parking areas off Hart Ranch Road and Lake Norris Road, and that the LNCA included the Black Water Swamp located one mile south of the Ocala National Forest. He stated that the Blackwater Creek Mitigation Bank was located on SJRWMD property consisting of 377 acres, and that Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC (BWC) managed and operated the wetland bank by permit and agreement with SJRWMD. He explained that there were large sand piles and that the wetlands were damaged, and as part of conservation and restoration, those areas could be restored to a functioning wetland; additionally, once this was done, the created areas became credits for any agency or developer that may damage wetlands in another location within the basin. He commented that BWC had purchased up to 10 credits from this wetland mitigation and that if one acre was damaged or destroyed, one would typically purchase three more credits somewhere else. He elaborated that once credits were sold, then the location was required to be maintained in perpetuity as part of the credit sale and permit. He mentioned that BWC managed and operated the wetland bank by permit and by agreement with the SJRWMD, though the SJRWMD still owned the land underneath the bank. He relayed that the bank had service areas, and if one impacted a wetland within those service areas, one could go to this particular bank and purchase credits as part of their Army Corps of Engineers or SJRWMD permits. He showed a map of the region and pointed out the primary service area, which was the basin, noting that it extended from the City of Winter Garden to the north side of Lake George. He added that there was a second service area of the mitigation bank north to near Satsuma. He then provided the following background information regarding the litigation: in February 2019, an agreement was presented to the Board which would have allowed the use of Hart Ranch Road under specified conditions such as bonding, resurfacing, safety measures, etc.; the Board denied the agreement; in August 2020, a second agreement was presented to the Board to allow the use of Lake Norris Road which was also denied by the Board, noting that staff recommended denial because Lake Norris Road was poorly built and could not handle the needed hauling; in October 2020, the County was served with a multi-count lawsuit alleging inverse condemnation and several violations of both the State and Federal Constitution; and in August 2021, BWC served the County with an additional claim under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Act, and sought $5.64 million in damages. He commented that the parties had tentatively reached a settlement which, if approved, would resolve both the court case and the Bert Harris claim. He then relayed the following information regarding the settlement agreement terms: the County would acquire all the rights to, and operation of, the Blackwater Creek Mitigation Bank; the County would pay to BWC $5.75 million over three years, noting that about $2.88 million would be due at the time that any agreement would be signed, that approximately $1.44 million would be due in year two, and that roughly $1.44 million would be due in year three; there would be an annual interest rate of 1.75 percent; and BWC would transfer all remaining unsold mitigation bank credits to the County which could then be sold on the open market. He said that there was a remainder of 18.26 mitigation credits available with an estimated value of about $2 million. He relayed that the mitigation bank sold approximately one credit annually with current credits selling from $100,000 to $120,000, noting that a previous owner of the mitigation bank would receive a seven percent royalty on all sales. He stated that the County could use a mitigation marketing company, and that the estimated cost of the mitigation bank operation and maintenance is $100,000 annually, noting that they would have to provide quarterly and annual reports to the permitting agencies, in addition to maintaining the ledger with regards to credit sales. He commented that with an average of one credit sold per year, the County would likely have enough funding to operate the mitigation bank for another 20 years. He remarked that the SJRWMD represented to the County that if some bushes or vegetation grew in those areas, sometimes a prescribed burn was the only way to address it, noting that one of the areas required this. He said that for the transfer, operation and maintenance, staff estimated $200,000 in initial funds to ensure the bank operation continued through the transition until credits were sold to assist with maintenance; additionally, they would need the assistance of an environmental consultant. He added that the County would negotiate with SJRWMD to take over ownership of the entire LNCA and bring the land management under its operation, and that the sale of mitigation bank credits was dependent upon economic demand. He explained that to maintain the land and its resources, there was currently the SJRWMD, the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). He said that they provided the following basic services: keep the property open to the public, clean and safe; fire lines; ongoing monitoring and reporting; and staffing levels. He then mentioned that allowed activities included the following: wildlife viewing; hiking; fishing; horseback riding; camping; and paddling. He stated that the estimated annual operating cost was $200,000, and this would be for the entire 3,677 acres, which did not include the mitigation bank. He said that the Office of Parks and Trails would like to improve these ecosystems in the following ways: increase plant and wildlife diversity; control invasive species; mechanical treatments; chemical treatments; and prescribed fires, noting that the cost varied depending on the task. He mentioned that tasks could be performed in phases as additional funding was made available, and they were estimating up to $100,000 annually. He summarized the item by providing the following information, noting that if the settlement agreement was approved the County would: acquire the Blackwater Creek Mitigation Bank to own, operate and maintain; negotiate with the SJRWMD for the transfer of the LNCA to Lake County and approval of the memorandum of understanding; pay BWC $5.75 million over the course of three years and acquire all rights and responsibilities of the mitigation bank; need an estimated $100,000 annually to manage and maintain the mitigation bank in compliance with permit conditions; need an estimated $300,000 annually for land management and restoration efforts; and need an initial account in the amount of $200,000 to handle the transfer and continuous operation. He concluded by requested approval of the following items: a settlement agreement between Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC and Lake County; a memorandum of understanding with St. Johns River Water Management District regarding the conveyance of the Lake Norris Conservation Area to the County; and a budget transfer reallocating from reserves for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 settlement payout in the amount of $5.75 million over three years.

Commr. Shields asked if there was some LCWA property nearby.

Mr. Schneider displayed a map of the area and pointed out that the LCWA owned some property along the east side of Lake Norris, noting that they also had some agreements with the SJRWMD to operate the campground/canoe location.

Commr. Shields inquired about the thoughts about the leftover sand.

Mr. Schneider replied that there was about two million cubic yards of sand that would have to be removed to continue the restoration of wetlands.

Commr. Campione mentioned that the chronology in the presentation did not reference the date in which the initial mitigation bank was established, noting that the concerns and issues between the residents of Hart Ranch Road and the SJRWMD were occurring for years before the issue surfaced at the County in 2018. She elaborated that the residents had been told by the SJRWMD Board that there would not be any use of Hart Ranch Road, and when they talked to the County about using Hart Ranch Road, the County had this history to consider. She commented that the SJRWMD then made the decision to utilize Lake Norris Road, which she opined was not a substantial road, noting that it was in a rural area. She opined that it was in conflict with everything about the area, and this was what the Board was considering when they said that the roads could not be used for trucks for that weight and that number of trips.

Commr. Smith indicated an understanding that the SJRWMD sold the rights of the property to BWC, and SJRWMD made a deal for BWC to use a road that was not sustainable for moving sand. He asked why BWC was suing the County instead of the SJRWMD.

Commr. Campione said that the County was the only authority with the ability to prevent the use of the roads for the heavy trucks.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that they were estimating about $100,000 per year for mitigation credits received, and that they had almost 19 credits. He commented that it took almost $100,000 per year to manage the mitigation part, and that it would be $400,000 total per year for the entire property. He expressed interest in giving the property back to the SJRWMD.

Commr. Campione indicated concerns for the SJRWMD making the same kind of decisions that they had previously made about the property. She said that the impacts had been on the residents and the environment in the county, and she opined that the best way for the County to influence the future of the property and to ensure that it stayed natural in perpetuity was for the BCC to be the entity that oversaw it. She thought that the numbers were higher and that staff had included a large amount of cushion; therefore, she did not think that would be near $300,000 or $400,000 per year.

Commr. Parks added that staff was also being conservative for the mitigation credits, and he thought that they could receive about $140,000 per credit.

Commr. Smith asked who took care of the property currently.

Mr. Schneider replied that the SJRWMD managed and operated the conservation area, and that the mitigation bank was currently responsible for the bank itself. He added that according to their agreement with the SJRWMD, once they sold all their credits, it would revert back to ownership and maintenance by the SJRWMD.

Commr. Smith inquired if the SJRWMD was spending $300,000 per year to maintain the property.

Commr. Campione thought that it was more in the $40,000 to $50,000 range.

Commr. Smith asked why it would cost the County $300,000, noting that it was a natural preserved area. He did not think they needed to have trails and mow weeds.

Mr. Schneider mentioned that $200,000 was for land management, and $100,000 was if improvements were required.

Commr. Campione said that it was a passive recreation area, and that this could remove $100,000 from the cost. She stated that for the $200,000, $100,000 was associated with mitigation, and $100,000 was associated with the 3,677 acres, noting that most of it was wetlands and that they would not do anything to maintain it. She relayed her understanding that the SJRWMD only spent about $50,000 per year doing this. She did not think that they were close to spending $300,000 per year on this, and she added that if they sold the mitigation credits at around $140,000 or $150,000 per credit, then they could be funding about $100,000 of this per year.

Commr. Smith noted that this would only be for about 20 years, and then it would have to be funded by the citizens of Lake County.

Commr. Parks relayed an understanding that the SJRWMD had a management plan for the property after the mitigation would run its course, and at that point they would open it to the public, noting that the cost could possibly increase at that point.

Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, said that currently, the County accepted the management plan as it was written by the SJRWMD, noting that there were requirements that they would have to fulfill. He stated that if they were able to amend or edit or the management plan, then they could possibly reduce the requirements and lessen the cost. He mentioned that this property was larger than all 13 public lands properties that the County currently managed; therefore, a level of monitoring and supervision would be required for activities to take place in a safe manner. He relayed that they could work with the numbers as long as they could remove some of the permit conditions.

Commr. Campione asked about the $100,000 for improvements.

Mr. Bonilla replied that they would have to increase staff for that side due to due diligence and documentation that would need to occur, and that the $200,000 included increasing the staff level, along with some equipment. He mentioned that they could keep it as basic as possible, but there would still be a cost to the property. He said that if the Board decided to perform any restoration, then this would require additional funding; however, they could also leave it alone.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that after selling all of the credits, they would not be doing any bookkeeping; additionally, they could possibly include that property with the rest with regards to ongoing management. She said that there seemed to be an opportunity to work with the SJRWMD on amending the management to be less costly.

Commr. Smith praised the SJRWMD and commented that this was a great property, though he thought that the SJRWMD could possibly take it back over and leave it as conservation land, noting that this would save Lake County citizens a significant amount of money in perpetuity. He opined that the SJRWMD got the County into this issue, and that they could at least help the County to continue to keep the property as it was and alleviate the cost to the citizens.

Commr. Campione commented that if the SJRWMD did not transfer the property to the County, those 80 credits would still be there; additionally, the SJRWMD still had the authority to use the land as a mitigation bank or to make any future agreements regarding this. She added that the only way to remove the right of the SJRWMD using it as mitigation bank was to take ownership of the property.

Commr. Blake asked what percentage of the $5.75 million was for attorney’s fees.

Ms. Marsh replied that the settlement agreement was not broken down specifically, and she was unsure how much of it would be for attorney’s fees. She also said that the County had the two issues. She explained that the first issue was the settlement agreement, noting that the Board could choose to go forward with the agreement and buy out the SJRWMD’s contract rights. She added that they would not have to take title to the property; however, there would be nothing to prohibit the SJRWMD from providing or selling those rights to another individual to remove the sand and obtain the mitigation credits. She stated that the Board could also try to negotiate an agreement with the SJRWMD for them to agree not to do this, but the risk was that if the SJRWMD chose not to enter into that agreement, the Board would have already approved the settlement agreement and paid that money. She mentioned that the third option would be to not approve the settlement agreement and not take title, in which case the claims would proceed to trial. She believed that it would be a jury trial and that the jury would decide whether the actions of denying BWC the right to use both roads to haul the dirt impaired their contract rights and violated their constitutional rights. She said that if this was the case, then the jury would decide the amount of damages and that it could be more or less than the $5.75 million.

Commr. Smith remarked that a fourth option possibly was to approve the settlement agreement and the title, and give the title back to the SJRWMD under conditions that the County would provide.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the Board could negotiate however they liked with the SJRWMD after the fact. She said that the dilemma was that the County had a stay from the court only until April 1, 2022 to make a decision on the settlement agreement, and it was their outside counsel’s belief that the court would not give them an extension.

Commr. Shields inquired that if the County took title, would they be able to discuss the expenses ahead of time as part of the normal budget process.

Ms. Barker said that it would be part of Mr. Bonilla’s budget presentation, and that the land management portion would be part of the Office of Parks and Trails’ budget. She added that Mr. Bonilla would have to be in compliance with whatever management plan was required of the County through the conveyance of the property, but that everything above and beyond this would be part of Mr. Bonilla’s presentation and the budget process.

Commr. Shields asked about the minimum number, and Mr. Bonilla relayed his understanding that it could possibly be $100,000 as a minimum.

Ms. Barker stated that because the property was so large, they would have to have additional staffing in Mr. Bonilla’s office.

Commr. Campione added that they could consider outsourcing it with a request for proposal (RFP) and do what was most economical that achieved what was needed.

Commr. Parks expressed support for this and said that the Board could ask staff to consider a revenue model, noting that there was possibly a chance to outsource this part of the maintenance. He remarked that there could possibly be a way through fees to have some revenue for use of the site for recreational purposes only.

Commr. Shields stated that a neighborhood organization to volunteer had been discussed.

Commr. Campione said that there were entities and nonprofits that were another possibility. She thought that the County could consider ways to do this efficiently and comply with the minimum requirements.

Commr. Blake asked if it was possible that the jury would come back with monetary damages and also say that BWC had the right to use these roads.

Mr. Isaac Ruiz-Carus, Lake County’s outside counsel for this case, stated that this would be for the court to decide because it would be in the nature of equitable relief.

Commr. Campione stated that the Board had to make this this decision in the context of all of these variables. She did not think that it was prudent to move forward if the County did not also possess the property, opining that they had to have something in return that would belong to the county residents without fear that it could be used later for a mitigation bank or other purpose.

Commr. Parks agreed and opined that if the County was going to pay $5.75 million, then the property needed to belong to the County.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Scott Atkins, a resident on Lake Norris, noted that this area was a wildlife corridor and opined that it was a pristine property. He mentioned that someone mowed the grass each week, and he relayed his understanding that there was not much maintenance there. He added that 78 percent of the 3,677 acres were wetlands and that there was nothing to be done there. He commented that residents could mow the property, and he opined that it would not be a heavy burden on the county. He relayed his understanding that the controlled burn would be the most significant item, but he thought that the SJRWMD had only done this twice since they purchased the property. He also thought that the mitigation credits would help offset everything and that it would be a win-win situation for everyone. He opined that it was the best interest for everyone to accept this item as it was and to reduce the cost, noting that it was a destination for kayakers and horseback riders.

Mr. Paul Renick, a resident of the LNCA, opined that the issue started when the seller of the sand mine property sold the property to the SJRWMD but retained the rights to the sand and the mitigation; therefore, the SJRWMD never held the mitigation rights. He said that the management of the mitigation area was currently outsourced and that the majority of the property was managed by the SJRWMD. He relayed his understanding that someone mowed about four times per year from Lake Norris Road around the perimeter of the property to Hart Ranch Road, along with some trails in between. He commented that the only item addressed by the LCWA was that their receptionist/secretary kept track of who was going in and out and using the canoes and campground. He relayed that the management plan was written in 2009, and he opined that it was not being done the way it was said. He said that occasionally, someone would spray an invasive species along the main trail, and that nothing was done on the main part of the property because a cattleman had been leasing it for years before this started. He encouraged the Board to get everyone out of the property except for the County, opining that the best management would come from the BCC to keep it as it was.

Ms. Elaine Renick, a concerned citizen, opined that what the SJRWMD did was minimal, and that it was conservation land and should be left alone. She mentioned that someone went out and made sure that the campground was cleaned up, and she offered to volunteer to do this; additionally, Mr. Renick could volunteer to mow the property. She opined that the people who had been coming there did not expect restrooms or for it to be mowed all the time. She urged the County to take ownership of the property.

Commr. Parks thought that it was a great idea to formalize something with the neighbors where they could voluntarily check on things.

Commr. Campione added that the County had a structure for this because they had set this up in other places in the county, such as friends of particular parks.

Ms. Lavon Silvernell, a concerned citizen, said that she had 9.5 acres of pasture and five acres of scrub, and that it took management. She opined that it was not cheap to do this, and that a currently pristine property may not stay that way. She stated that if the County adopted this property, they would have a responsibility to take care of it. She opined that volunteer groups could only do so much, and then there was a cost to land management.

Ms. Katherine de Jongh, a concerned citizen, said that she viewed the acceptance of this agreement as a worthwhile investment. She expressed concerns for some of the budget analysis, and she opined that the LNCA was a safe place to ride her horse. She noted that it was a passive park, and opined it did not need the maintenance that the Office of Parks and Trails felt was necessary. She also opined that the benefits outweighed the concerns of the funding that the County would spend.

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

Commr. Smith asked to confirm that the County already had volunteer groups to take care of other passive parks.

Commr. Campione confirmed this and added that they had a structure set up and that this had come up previously when they were considering the Lake Edwards Wildflower Area, noting that a group of residents had volunteered to check trash cans, etc.

Commr. Smith said that it could be the “Friends of Lake Norris.”

Commr. Parks expressed support for this item, and he said that they could continue to refine the budget, consider outsourcing, and possibly use some revenue to offset it through fees or usage.

Commr. Smith expressed concerns for the numbers displayed in the presentation, and said that after hearing the conversations, he thought that they could possibly reduce the numbers to $50,000 per year. He clarified that he was not against the conservation land, but was against a cost of $400,000 per year.

Ms. Marsh explained that this was an MOU with the SJRWMD, and that the County still had to go through the process of conveyance, noting that it would come back to the Board.

Commr. Campione opined that the SJRWMD had wonderful people in the agency, and said that the County appreciated what they did. She commented that the County was hopeful that they could address some of these details, and they appreciated that the SJRWMD was willing to make the transfer and be part of the solution.

Commr. Parks thanked Mr. Ryan Atwood, a SJRWMD Board member from Lake County, noting that the County could work with him as well.

Commr. Blake relayed that he would be voting against the item partially because of some of the concerns that Commissioner Smith raised, and he also indicated concerns for burdening taxpayers with this. He opined that there were entitlements and rights on this property that the County had interfered with.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved the following items: a settlement agreement between Blackwater Creek Wetlands Mitigation, LLC and Lake County; a Memorandum of Understanding with St. Johns River Water Management District regarding the conveyance of the Lake Norris Conservation Area to the County; and a budget transfer reallocating from reserves for Fiscal Year 2022 settlement payout in the amount of $5,750,000 over three years.

Commr. Blake voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:35 a.m. until 10:54 a.m.

lake county septic to distributed sewer program

Ms. Mary Hamilton, Director for Public Works Operations, said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide implementation options for the OnSyte distributed sewer program. She showed a map of the county and stated that they were speaking to the non-serviced areas for distributed sewer, and that the areas were the cities and their utility districts. She displayed a map showing thousands of existing septic tanks, with many of them being within springsheds or basin management action plans (BMAP) areas. She mentioned that there were three major BMAPs in Lake County, noting that the County had received septic tank loading goals for Lake Harris, Lake Yale, Lake Carlton and Trout Lake. She showed a graphic of where the BMAPs covered, noting that it almost all of the county. She displayed a slide with the four lakes in question and the respective pounds of nutrients that the County was going to attempt to reduce through management actions. She said that the intent was for the County to make some progress by 2027, and she showed images of the four mentioned lakes with nearby septic tank locations, noting that the County had spoken to HOAs near Lake Harris and Lake Yale; additionally, the City of Eustis may have some utility lines near Trout Lake. She showed a slide regarding septic tanks that people currently had, noting that they were not providing any treatment options, nor were there any inspections. She then displayed a slide regarding a distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS), which was the OnSyte product. She explained that it was basically a decentralized wastewater plant, and that it had good nutrient reduction and was better for the environment. She showed a graphic indicating that there was only one permit for the OnSyte system, whereas each home needed its own permit for the traditional septic system. She said that for total nitrogen removal, the OnSyte system went from 80 to 88 percent, and total phosphorus removal was 90 to 99 percent; additionally, biological oxygen demand (BOD) went from 94 to 96 percent, and suspended solids were from 70 to 96 percent. She showed information related to the costs, noting that a DWTS cost $15,000 to $20,000 per unit. She stated that the County had a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) grant of $1 million, and FDEP wanted the County to go through the competitive process; furthermore, OnSyte was their only bid received. She relayed that the County received the $1 million and was using ARPA funds as the match, and said that the grant agreement was written for impaired BMAP areas. She stated that staff came up with four potential options that they thought could get this grant and OnSyte process moving forward. She said that option one was the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA), and she relayed the following information: would utilize the existing FGUA permit; County was already a FGUA client under the current interlocal agreement; FGUA would set rates, provide operators, bill, and address inspecting testing, maintenance and reporting; OnSyte would install the DWTS under contract with the County; and the County would work with FDEP to receive their 50 percent reimbursement. She said that option two regarded the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, noting that the Town also received a grant for $400,000 from FDEP for the same technology, and she provided the following information: County could partner with the Town to begin the program, potentially in the interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) area, plus other pilot areas; the Town would contract with OnSyte for installation and operation; the two agencies would receive their respective reimbursements from FDEP; the Town and the County set a uniform rate; and the Town would provide the billing service. She remarked that option three was if the Board was willing to begin the utility business themselves, and she relayed the following information: County could partner with the Town to create a new utility authority, which would be a special purpose entity; OnSyte would contract with this new entity and operate units in the county and the town; the grant funds could be put together in one agreement, and they could maximize funding for $2.8 million with the match; either the utility authority or OnSyte would provide the operator; the utility authority would handle the rate setting and billing; and this option would require a new entity to be formed by interlocal agreements, etc. She then stated that option four would include the following: OnSyte providing turnkey service, including installations and operation under contract with the County; County would receive reimbursement from FDEP for installations; the County would send a letter to FGUA and FDEP requesting the transfer of the existing permit to OnSyte; the County would set the rates; and OnSyte or the County would have to utilize a subcontractor for billing services. She requested Board direction, and remarked that she had sent in the documents to FDEP to bring the agreement back to the Board, noting that one question was who would be the utility provider. She added that the County was not able to award OnSyte’s contract yet because they wanted to know who the utility provider would be and which services the County wanted OnSyte to perform for them. She stated that she would be coming back to the Board with formal documents, but staff needed this interim step to receive direction if the Board liked any of these options.

Commr. Shields asked what her preferred option was.

Ms. Hamilton replied that if they were wanting to move things quickly, her preferred option would be option two, at least for the pilot area.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that none of the maps showing septic tanks were in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills. He asked if they were part of the BMAP.

Ms. Hamilton confirmed this and clarified that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had conceptually agreed to be the operators for Lake Harris and Lake Yale.

Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Town of Howey-in-the-Hills Administrator, explained that the town and the surrounding area, barring the Mission Inn area and new residential development, was currently all on septic tanks.

Commr. Campione asked if Mr. O’Keefe was receiving feedback that neighborhoods or individuals wanted to switch over to the OnSyte system.

Mr. O’Keefe replied that they had some interest expressed on an individual basis.

Commr. Campione relayed that some people were primarily interested in the environmental benefits and that they did not have any other choice but to be on a septic tank. She thought that once the information was provided, the County might find that they had many people who were willing to pay the cost of having a contract and a monthly or annual fee.

Commr. Smith opined that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills model could be beneficial, noting that it could be moved into the Town of Astatula or any other small communities that did not have a municipal wastewater treatment plant.

Commr. Parks inquired about the difference between options two and three.

Ms. Hamilton replied that the County would become the utility authority in option three.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there were some lakes in South Lake that were not impaired, but were Outstanding Florida Waters. He asked if option three would help the County address this at a later time.

Ms. Hamilton thought that option three would set them up countywide, but it would take longer to do this. She said that the County could likely begin moving with option two fairly quickly, and they would need an interlocal agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills; additionally, they would have to complete the document for grant agreements and bring it back to the Board for their approval.

Commr. Parks asked if staff would be doing this regardless with option three.

Ms. Hamilton relayed her understanding that for option three, they had to have an ordinance and a board set up.

Ms. Marsh said that it would take more time to do this because generally, one would establish a dependent special district via an ordinance, and they would also need a board, etc. She noted that Ms. Hamilton had some grant deadlines.

Commr. Campione inquired about a two-step process, going with option two to use the immediate grant funding, but part of their interlocal agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills would include the future option to move to a countywide utility for the unincorporated area or the areas that the County wanted to target to provide this as an option to residents. She added that if the County became a utility at that point, then they could convert those customers to the utility. She believed that the County had added to its planned unit development (PUD) requirement for neighborhoods over 50 units that if they did not have a municipal utility provider, then they would have to use an OnSyte distributed system. She stated that if the County had a utility in place, then they could address doing this, and she questioned how the recent Lake Nellie Crossing development was being structured.

Ms. Marsh thought that OnSyte was taking care of this.

Commr. Campione asked how the utility side was being handled.

Mr. Jeff Littlejohn, with OnSyte Performance, clarified that OnSyte was in the process of working with the development on a proposal to be the operator as a standalone developer-provided utility; however, OnSyte would like to have a transition to a public utility. He noted that one permit could cover the entire county, noting that his company was not built to do many private and standalone permits and utility agreements; rather, they were built to interface with a public utility.

Ms. Marsh clarified that currently, the County code did not require 50 or more lots to use this system. She said that the County could require it as part of a conditional zoning, but she did not believe that the code required it. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) stated that if one was within 1,000 feet to a municipal service, then they would have to connect, or they could use a regional or subregional system; additionally, she believed that OnSyte qualified as this. She added that otherwise, they would have to ask for a waiver.

Commr. Campione stated that they had to ask for a waiver if they were not connected to a central utility system, and the County considered this as a central utility system because it was considered this by FDEP. She commented that the County could see more of this in the unincorporated area, and she asked about other Cities seeing this as an opportunity.

Mr. Littlejohn responded that a countywide utility authority would create a special purpose government layer, countywide, that municipalities could opt into. He said that it took two or more local governments to create a utility authority, and then they transferred whichever utility rights that they wanted to include in the utility authority, and then it would become a special purpose government. He elaborated that depending on how the original interlocal structure was created, it could allow for other municipalities to opt in.

Commr. Smith said that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills could have an agreement with Lake County and do the billing and connect with OnSyte, noting that they would essentially be creating a utility company for the town, similar to how the Cities of Tavares and Eustis had a wastewater plant and a utility. He added that they could replicate this and take it to the Town of Astatula for them to run their own utility, noting that Mt. Plymouth could do this as well; however, Lake County would have to determine how to address the unincorporated residents.

Commr. Campione opined that people in the unincorporated area would not want to receive a bill from an adjoining municipality. She wondered if it was possible for the County to do the utility for the unincorporated area on its own.

Ms. Marsh said that the County could create a dependent special district for the unincorporated area.

Commr. Parks commented that because time was of the essence for the grant, the County could move forward with the option with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills for this area, and then set it up countywide.

Commr. Campione remarked that the County could do an agreement with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills to administer the grant for this purpose, and they could concurrently start working on the steps to set up an unincorporated utility district.

Commr. Smith agreed with doing this concurrently, and said that he also liked the idea of the Town of Astatula possibly following the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills model.

Commr. Campione commented that Mt. Plymouth could be a logical location for this because of the Wekiva River Basin, and she thought that this could possibly be done with the Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).

Commr. Parks said that if they used the countywide model, then this could be done in the unincorporated areas. He also opined that it could be better to have it through a public entity.

Mr. Littlejohn asked the Board to consider that in the future, how many different rates they would like to see in the county. He elaborated that if each small community had its own distributed sewer utility, then it would have the ability to set its own rate, noting that this meant that there would be a separate permit and a separate contract with someone to provide the services. He opined that one of the benefits of a countywide multijurisdictional utility authority was the opportunity to have a single permit for the entire county and a single contract with a provider. He added that if there was a single utility authority for the unincorporated area and for municipalities that wanted to join, then there would only be a single authority with a single rate and permit, noting that the messaging could be easier to communicate with residents.

Commr. Campione added that the more users they had in one entity, the more likely they could keep the costs down.

Mr. Littlejohn stated that this was the model that the FGUA was created under, noting that it was a special purpose utility authority created by two or more local governments that joined through an interlocal agreement.

Commr. Parks asked if the bill would be from the entity that had its own name if there were a few Cities and the County that did this.

Mr. Littlejohn confirmed this and said it would be a standalone utility authority with its own board, rate setting function, and ability to contract. He added that the retail customer would be receiving a bill from that authority, and that this entity would also interface with the State for regulatory purposes in addition to contracting with one or more private companies to provide services.

Commr. Parks clarified that this was not an attempt to force people to go to the DWTS, and that it would likely apply to new development with 50 or more units. He elaborated that in areas where people could opt into it, or if a grant became available and made sense, then this was how it could work. He said that it was a long term move regarding how to protect water resources and make this transition.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that the installation cost was a 72 percent increase for a house when compared to a conventional septic tank.

Mr. Littlejohn explained that this was for when one already had a septic tank, and that the $18,000 cost included the cost of abandonment and replacement. He said that $15,800 was the cost with the RFP, and that for new construction, a contractor would not be limited to acquiring a single treatment unit for each home, noting that OnSyte manufactured larger community-sized treatment units. He stated that at the larger form factor, they could get the price point per lot to below what a septic tank would be.

Commr. Campione said that with having the DWTS, a developer could possibly do a conservation design and have their homes closer, noting that they could save money on infrastructure as well.

Commr. Parks indicated his understanding that conventional septic tanks would not become cheaper, and that modifications could be required to increase the cost.

Mr. Littlejohn confirmed that there were new regulations currently under development at the State. He opined that in impaired watersheds, there could be an obligation for the homeowner to purchase an advanced septic tank and receive their own permit if they could not connect to one of these types of programs or central sewer, noting that this could cost more.

Commr. Blake asked if $600 per year was still the correct estimate for maintenance per unit.

Mr. Littlejohn explained that there was an internal cost to maintain equipment, along with the retail sewer bill that the end user would receive. He said that the $600 per year was a good estimate of what the retail sewer bill would be, noting that they would not have to mark this up. He agreed with the FGUA’s analysis that a good retail rate could be $50 to $55 per month and sustainable at scale. He added that as the scale of the program increased, there was an opportunity to put some downward pressure on the sewer bill, resulting in a cost of $600 to $660 per year for the homeowner. He said that this did not include power, but that this was only about $5 per month.

Commr. Blake stated that he did not think that the $600 annually included a bill and that it was just the annual maintenance expense.

Mr. Littlejohn explained that the number was more like $420 per year per unit for the utility, and the difference was for billing and administrative overhead. He added that $50 per bill was a good estimate, and that the statewide average bill for sewer was $51 per month.

Commr. Campione thought that Cities tied this to one’s water usage, and having more people in a household could increase the sewer bill.

Mr. Littlejohn said that this could be set up as a flat rate service, and that his organization did not charge differently depending on the number of bedrooms in a home.

Commr. Campione inquired if the provider had to pump these systems and how often it would be.

Mr. Littlejohn confirmed that they required pumping out, but the frequency was lower than a conventional septic tank, noting that they were predicting about a 10 year pump out frequency and that a traditional septic tank was every three years.

Commr. Campione mentioned the possibility of doing more public outreach to recommend that people pump their septic tanks, and she asked if the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) was doing this in other places. She said that it could be worthwhile to reach out to the State to see if they would consider helping local jurisdictions fund this.

Mr. Littlejohn clarified that FDOH did not require pump outs, but that they may have done some public service announcements (PSAs). He added that the septic tank regulation program was switched to FDEP in the previous year, and that county health departments were still implementing it locally.

Commr. Campione mentioned the possibility of using a PSA to tell the story about this program and the opportunity for residents to take advantage of it, in addition to pumping septic tanks. She expressed support for option two for this grant, and also to consider the special purpose or multijurisdictional utility and begin those steps.

Commr. Parks said that the Board could select option two, and staff could bring it back.

Ms. Hamilton stated that once they received the grant document back, it would be on FDEP’s schedule and would be ready for the County Attorney’s review; furthermore, staff would bring it to the Board as soon as possible.

Commr. Parks stated that staff could present the parallel option of the multijurisdictional or countywide utility, and that the Board could possibly take action at that point.

Commr. Campione asked if a City could join an intergovernmental utility entity and overlap their existing utility district.

Mr. Littlejohn believed that they could, because the special utility authority’s purpose would be for decentralized or unserved areas. He thought that it could run on top of any existing interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) for the purpose of the centralized collection and distribution system coverage area.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that Mr. Littlejohn was recommending the multijurisdictional option.

Mr. Littlejohn confirmed this and said that he saw some advantages for administrative efficiency, the efficiency of rate setting, and communicating program availability. He thought that while it was more complicated, another advantage was that municipalities could opt in or out as they wanted.

Commr. Parks noted that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills was interested; therefore, they already had two entities.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to move forward with option two.

Commr. Blake voted no.

2022 economic forecast presentation

Ms. Tracy Garcia, Interim Director for Economic Growth, presented the 2022 economic outlook and said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide a historical overview and projected forecast for national, state and regional economic indicators to be considered as part of the FY 2023 budget process. She displayed the sources of information, which included economists’ opinions and forecasts. She then discussed the gross domestic product (GDP), which was the total monetary or market value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period, noting that it functioned as a comprehensive scorecard of an area’s economic health. She relayed the following information regarding the national GDP: the U.S. economy was suffering from long-haul symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policies; in 2020, the economy contracted by 3.4 percent before rebounding to grow at a rate of six percent in 2021; 2022 was showing little GDP growth signs due to remnants of omicron, coupled with dwindling fiscal stimulus; economists were decreasing their prior forecasts of GDP growth; and interest rate increases were expected to cause GDP to decrease. She showed the national GDP year over year percentage change, along with the state and Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) product. She then discussed interest rates and relayed that the federal funds rate was critically tied to the U.S. economic outlook. She provided the following information: the Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to near zero in the face of the COVID-19 induced recession; the Federal Reserve raised interest rates on March 16, 2022 a 0.25 percent point, bringing the rate now into a range of 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent; this was first interest rate raise since 2018; there was the potential of six more 0.25 percent point raises in the current year; three more rate increases were anticipated in 2023; and the conflict in Ukraine brought uncertainty for monetary policy. She displayed the consumer price index, which indicated whether the economy was experiencing inflation, deflation, or stagflation, pointing out the trend of inflation over the past few years. She also explained that the federal funds rate was the target interest rate set by the federal open market, and that it could influence short term rates on consumer loans and credit cards; additionally, more recent forecasts in the past week indicated a larger increase in these rates than what was initially projected. She displayed a graph related to the 10 Year Treasury Note, explaining that it was a debt obligation issued by the U.S. Government with a maturity of 10 years upon initial issuance. She said that investors paid attention to movements on 10 year notes because they served as a benchmark for borrowing rates, such as mortgage rates, and when the 10 year note fluctuated, it could have significant implications across the financial landscape. She stated that when the 10 year treasury notes rose during periods of low demand, there would be an increase of interest rates on longer debt. She mentioned that these notes were increasing through 2023, and the forecast was raised to 2.25 percent by the end of 2022, and 2.45 percent by the end of 2023, noting that they were subject to change. She then discussed the labor market and relayed the following information for the national outlook: the total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 678,000 in February 2022, and the unemployment rate decreased to 3.8 percent, according to information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released on March 4, 2022; job growth was widespread, led by gains in leisure, hospitality, professional and business services, healthcare and construction; nearly 4.3 million people quit their jobs in January 2022; there were 11.3 million job openings in January 2022; despite this, data indicated the U.S. labor market would remain strong in the first half of 2022; and there was high demand for workers with employers raising pay due to the Great Resignation trend. She showed employment numbers and said that in 2018 and 2019, the Orlando MSA was outpacing the nation; however, in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. dropped almost six percent while the State of Florida dropped 5.2 percent, noting that the Orlando MSA decreased almost 10 percent. She elaborated that the U.S., the State of Florida and the Orlando MSA rebounded in 2021, with the Orlando MSA being anticipated to have a stronger rebound than the U.S. and the state through the following year. She displayed data related to the unemployment rate and commented that in 2020, the Orlando MSA surged over 10 percent on average, leveling off in 2021, and was expected to decrease over the next few years. She mentioned that the unemployment rates had declined faster than anticipated, noting that the U.S. and Orlando MSA employment rates were at 3.8 percent, while the state unemployment rate was at 3.5 percent. She relayed that the U.S. unemployment rate averaged 5.76 percent from 1948 to 2022; therefore, their region and state numbers were encouraging.

Ms. Garcia then discussed consumer spending and provided the following information: U.S. consumers powered the recovery in 2021 as they were ready to spend following lockdown, and spending soared due to pent-up demand and federal stimulus payments; average quarterly spending growth was anticipated to be 7.4 percent, but was currently anticipated to be lower due to rising costs of goods and services; inflation numbers released on March 10, 2022 stated that consumer prices increased by 7.9 percent, which was the highest number in 40 years; consumer sentiment fell to lows seen during hyperinflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s; there was an economic conundrum in that there was low consumer sentiment, but spending had remained strong; and consumers may reduce spending soon due to persistent high inflation. She showed information relating to consumer spending, noting that consumption of goods and services was the largest contributor to the U.S. economy, accounting for 69 percent of the American GDP in 2021. She mentioned that the U.S. consumer was affected by the 2020 lockdowns creating economic activity restrictions, and consumer spending plummeted. She added that pent up demand from consumers was released in 2021, and spending rebounded to almost eight percent; however, now that they were experiencing cost increases, supply chain disruptions and labor shortages, consumer spending was slowing to an estimated 3.3 percent in the current year, and 2.4 percent in the following year. She then discussed business spending and relayed the following information: uncertainties felt by the pandemic and regulatory burden held back business investment through 2021; political and geopolitical events were affecting material costs; low interest rates in the previous year helped fuel investment growth in certain sectors as pandemic uncertainty subsided; business nonresidential structures investment was anticipated to grow at an average rate of 1.3 percent through 2024; residential fixed investment was anticipated to grow at an average rate of 0.7 percent through 2024; and semiconductor shortages were gradually improving, but were still a factor through 2022, with needs being anticipated to be met in early 2023. She explained that businesses used consumer spending data in their supply and demand economic calculations, and that supply and demand projections helped business produce goods and services at the most favorable consumer price points. She stated that businesses adjusted their spending to fill unmet consumer needs and to develop new products, and she displayed a chart indicating how business spending lowered in 2020, rebounded in 2021, and was anticipated to level off in 2022 and 2023. She discussed the state and regional outlook and provided the following information: from 2021 to 2024, the State of Florida’s real gross state product was expected to expand by 2.4 percent annually; the state’s payroll job growth would continue to outpace the U.S. growth as the labor market climbed out of the COVID-19 impacts; the year over year growth should average 4.3 percent in 2022, 2.1 percent in 2023, and 1.2 percent in 2024; the state’s labor force growth was expected to average 2.2 percent through 2024, especially since there were more available jobs and wages were increasing; the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent in December 2021; and the unemployment rate was anticipated to average 4.6 percent in 2022, 4.1 percent in 2023 and four percent in 2024. She elaborated that the sectors expected to have the strongest average job growth during 2021 to 2024 were leisure and hospitality at 8.1 percent, professional and business services at 3.8 percent, information at 3.7 percent, financial activities at 2.8 percent, and education and health services at two percent. She stated that housing starts remained strong, but was not fast enough to ease the shortage of single-family housing in the short run; additionally, total starts were anticipated to be approximately 169,678 in 2022, over 155,000 in 2023, and over 149,000 in 2024. She also indicated that the lower inventory of housing had continued to put upward pressure on prices and rents, and that construction had been behind the curve of growth and its subsequent demand. She commented that affordable housing remained a growing issue; however, economists anticipated house values to even out over the next several years as housing inventory caught up to demand. She provided the following information for the State of Florida: real personal income growth would average 1.3 percent during 2020 to 2024, starting with 3.5 percent in 2021, then accelerating through the end of 2024 and reaching 2.5 percent in that year; the state’s average income growth was expected to be 0.4 percent points lower than the national growth rate over a four-year span of 2021 to 2024; retail sales strengthened during 2021 and were anticipated to remain steady through 2024, with growth averaging nearly 3.6 percent, noting that these numbers did not consider rising inflation; and an economic conundrum was low consumer sentiment, yet strong spending in the state due to more jobs and higher wages. She then relayed the following information about the Orlando MSA: includes Lake, Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties; the gross metro product was estimated to be more than $134 million, and would be the fourth highest in the state; the population was expected to grow at an average of 1.4 percent annually; an average annual wage growth of 2.9 percent would increase the average annual wage level to $63,700; the per capita income level of $44,000 would be increased by personal income growth of 4.6 percent; the unemployment rate should average at 4.7 percent, noting that it was 4.4 percent as of December 2021; and job growth was expected to be strongest in the sectors of leisure and hospitality at 10.1 percent, other services sector at 6.4 percent, professional and business services at 5.9 percent, manufacturing at 0.3 percent, and trade, transportation and utilities at 0.2 percent. She mentioned that personal income was the individual’s total earnings, and that these numbers looked good when considering the challenges of the past few years due to the pandemic. She added that the Orlando MSA looked to continue to outpace the state in personal income growth with 1.2 percent in the current year, and 4.6 percent in the following year. She displayed a graph indicating that the state was anticipated to stay flat in the current year, but would increase by four percent in the following year. She then displayed a chart for housing starts which compared the state to the Orlando MSA, pointing out that State of Florida housing starts in 2022 were anticipated to be 10.5 percent less than in 2021, but the estimated number of starts was still significant at over 169,000. She stated that Lake County housing starts had not been discussed in previous presentations, but she believed that this was due to having strong housing starts regionally which helped satiate local demand. She showed a slide with taxable property value forecasts for Lake County, the region and the state for FY 2022 and 2023; furthermore, she concluded that the forecast for Lake County in FY 2022 was a 7.2 percent increase, and that it was 6.3 percent in 2023.

Commr. Parks asked to make this information available to the Cities.

Ms. Barker said that staff could make this available and also provide it on the County website.

first public hearing: ordinance for scheduled & permitted uses

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; ADDING FAST FOODS RESTAURANTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN C-1 ZONING DISTRICTS; ADDING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND COMPREHENSIVE TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN CFD ZONING DISTRICTS; ADDING TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE TO THE R-3, R-4 AND R-6 ZONING DISTRICTS; ADDING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE TO THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT; CLARIFYING THAT RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS ARE A PERMITTED USE IN THE RV ZONING DISTRICT; CLARIFYING THAT ELECTRONIC GAME ROOM FACILITIES ARE A PERMITTED USE IN ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; MAKING OTHER MINOR UPDATES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Marsh added that there was no ordinance number because this was a first reading, and that she had also handed out an errata sheet to correct a statutory reference for assisted living facilities (ALFs). She commented that if the Board chose to approve this item, it would come back at the April 12, 2022 BCC meeting for final adoption.

Commr. Campione asked how gambling facilities being listed as a permitted use tied into the County’s limitations on the number permitted and the grandfathering provisions.

Ms. Marsh explained that on the schedule, there was a note that referred to the code section where the County created the regulatory process, commenting that they could not exceed the number in that section. She recalled that the Board had wanted to get that in place quickly because at that time, they were seeing a large number of those facilities opening in the county; therefore, they had not amended the schedule at that time. She clarified that the current item was just adding it to the schedule and was not changing where these facilities could be used, noting that it could only be in commercial districts. She believed that they added commercial and industrial for that use, and that it still had to meet the requirements.

Commr. Campione inquired if there was a note indicating that it was not just a permitted use.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, and she believed that there were about 28 facilities which had been permitted because the Board allowed them if they had been in existence prior to February 23, 2021; however, as the owners changed or as they went out of business, the number would drop to a cap of 20 for the unincorporated area.

Commr. Campione then asked if ALFs would be conditional.

Ms. Marsh said that it was placing them in Community Facility District (CFD) zoning.

Commr. Campione stated that if a property was not zoned CFD currently and they wanted to have an ALF, they would still have to go through the zoning process.

Ms. Marsh said that this was correct and that it was never added to the list, though it had always been CFD. She added that the only substantive change would be adding fast food restaurants in Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zoning.

Commr. Campione asked where they were currently allowed.

Ms. Marsh replied that they were allowed in Community Commercial District (C-2), Employment Center District (C-3), and Planned Commercial District (CP). She mentioned that staff was approached by a developer who realized that their C-1 zoning did not allow it, and that this was why this item was being moved forward; additionally, it was allowed in the equivalent use in surrounding counties.

Ms. Michele Janiszewski, Chief Planner for the Office of Planning and Zoning, mentioned that when staff researched this, it was in comparable uses in other counties and jurisdictions.

Commr. Parks inquired about other current uses for C-1.

Ms. Janiszewski responded that it included general restaurant, convenience retail, self-service laundry and marina.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that this would not be opening the door for them in rural support.

Ms. Janiszewski denied this, indicating that the specific uses for rural support were stated in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), noting that they would still have to go through the rezoning process.

Commr. Campione thought that as a general rule for new zoning, if someone wanted to build a fast food restaurant and they did not have a zoning of C-1, C-2 or C-3, then staff would direct them to apply for CP.

Ms. Janiszewski explained that it depended on the property and the future land use (FLU) category, noting that some FLU categories had uses with a conditioned zoning district, in which case staff would request a CP zoning district.

Commr. Campione said that she could not recall when the Board was asked for a straight zoning on a commercial use, and that applicants had requested CP because the County wanted to know items such as the entrances, the site plan and how it fit with the surrounding community.

Ms. Janiszewski thought that some of the older PUD and CP ordinances specified C-1 or C-2 uses.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, said that she was unclear on how having a category for ALFs in the code would affect the ramifications when it came to the protected areas. She mentioned that Pendry Estates in the Wekiva River Protection Area was looking to expand, and she expressed support for regulations to exclude some of these areas. She mentioned that the Wekiva River Protection Area receiving and sending areas were limited to impervious surface ratio (ISR), but not floor area ratio (FAR) or intensity based calculations, and she relayed her understanding that the ALF did not have a cap on the number of beds. She expressed concerns for a large parcel building up in a protected area and still be within the ISR, but have large amounts of water usage, sewer and other impacts to the area. She asked the Board to come up with an amendment or draft protection so that there would not be a gap in protection for the Wekiva River Protection Area and areas where she saw a potential impact.

Commr. Campione said that there was not a gap because the code was not changing other than the chart.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and added that it was making ALFs a permitted use in CFD, which was a conditional zoning and had to come to the BCC; furthermore, this was the process currently. She elaborated that this was just showing and designating it in the chart, and tying the statute to ALFs, noting that they had to be licensed ALFs. She commented that if the Board wanted to move forward with any other changes for ALFs, then this would be a separate ordinance. She said that if the Board did not want to make this change on the current day and tie it to a separate ordinance, then she recommended that the Board remove this category rather than delaying the entire ordinance.

Commr. Campione stated that they were only making the chart consistent with the fact that ALFs were an allowable use in CFD, noting that CFD was a conditional zoning. She reiterated that they were not changing anything substantively.

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

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved this item to come back on April 12, 2022 for final adoption.

public hearing: town of montverde fire services

Ms. Marsh placed the proposed ordinance on the floor for reading by title only as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; INCLUDING THE TOWN OF MONTVERDE INTO THE LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT FOR FIRE PROTECTION; INCLUDING THE TOWN OF MONTVERDE IN THE LAKE COUNTY FIRE ASSESSMENT; CREATING A NEW SECTION 20-1(25), LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Marsh said that the ordinance was part one, and that part two was approving the interlocal agreements with the Lake County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector so that they could have these items on the tax bill and collect it in the following year. She added that the third part was the resolution expressing the intent of Lake County to use the uniform method of collection, taking the fire assessment and placing it on the tax bill.

Commr. Campione asked if they would have the same issue as in the City of Fruitland Park with regard to churches.

Ms. Barker stated that she could contact the Montverde Town Manager and receive a list of churches in the area to address this. She added that she could bring this back to the Board for consideration of waiving the fees.

Ms. Marsh noted that this would not go on the tax bill until November 2022; therefore, they had several months to prepare for this. She said that the County could pay it for that year, or the County could ensure that the churches received notification to prepare for it.

Commr. Parks relayed that the Town of Montverde was happy with the County and the transition with fire services.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items; Ordinance 2022-15 for the inclusion of the Town of Montverde into the Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) and Lake County Assessment for fire protection and creating a new section of the Lake County Code; Interlocal Agreements with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector to levy and collect the MSTU and Fire Assessment; and Resolution 2022-27 expressing the intent of Lake County to use the uniform method of collection in Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for the levy, collection and enforcement of non-ad valorem assessments associated with the Lake County Fire Assessment and Lake County Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU).

appointment to the tourist development council

Commr. Shields said that the City of Clermont currently had one representative on the Tourist Development Council (TDC), Mr. Ebo Entsuah, but that Mr. Entsuah could not attend many meetings due to working full time; therefore, Councilmember Jim Purvis, with the City of Clermont, had offered to serve.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Jim Purvis to the Tourist Development Council as an Elected Municipal Officer to complete the unexpired term ending December 1, 2022, and to serve an additional four years for a term ending December 1, 2026; and approval of applicable waiver, and approval of associated Resolution 2022-38.

appointment to the library advisory board

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Betsy Dokken to the Library Advisory Board as a member representing the City of Eustis.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

changing comprehensive plan in protected areas

Commr. Shields recalled that a few meetings prior, he had mentioned trying to include an item on the ballot about requiring a supermajority to change the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) in the protected areas, particularly the Green Swamp and the Wekiva River Basin. He said that he had spoken to Ms. Marsh, and that she had indicated that it would really only be a straw vote. He elaborated that if the residents indicated support, a future BCC could undo this, and noted that all they would be doing would be receiving the pulse of voters.

Commr. Campione opined that the pulse of the public was currently against growth and traffic, and that they would view this as slowing it down. She said that she was not in favor of doing something like this when it did not accomplish anything.

Commr. Parks stated that he did not mind it as a limited land use for possibly the Green Swamp and Wekiva River Protection Area, and that he also did not mind requiring a supermajority vote for those areas.

Commr. Shields was not sure what placing it on the ballot would do for the County, other than hearing that people likely wanted to protect the sensitive areas.

Commr. Smith opined that the Board already knew that answer.

Commr. Blake expressed concerns that it could give individuals a false sense of security.

Commr. Campione noted that the County could not protect the rural protection areas (RPAs) unless the Cities were willing to do this with them.

Commr. Shields said that he was looking for solutions.

League of cities meeting

Commr. Shields said that he had attended a League of Cities meeting and that an individual with the St. Johns River Water Management District had given an update on their projects.

major league fishing tournament

Commr. Shields indicated that he had spoken at the Major League Fishing tournament in the City of Leesburg.

east central florida regional planning council meeting

Commr. Shields stated that a recent East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) meeting was at the Brevard Zoo, and staff gave an update on the carbon footprint for the region. He mentioned that there were some things that could be done to save the Cities and County money.

Commr. Parks said that by outsourcing their fleet, the County reduced its carbon footprint and saved a significant amount of funding. He also asked if the ECFRPC had finalized Ms. Tara McHugh as the Executive Director, and Commissioner Shields believed that this had occurred.

valencia grove grand opening

Commr. Shields mentioned that three Commissioners attended the Valencia Grove grand opening, and that Commissioner Campione did a nice job speaking. He opined that it was a great model for affordable housing and that they needed to keep promoting it throughout the county.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

city of tavares smart growth workshop

Commr. Smith said that he attended the City of Tavares smart growth workshop, noting that they were interested in community input on smart growth within the city. He thought he saw momentum throughout the county to start focusing on what smart growth meant and how they could make it better for everyone.

visiting lake nellie

Commr. Smith stated that he recently visited Lake Nellie and that it was a beautiful piece of property.

valencia grove grand opening

Commr. Smith commented that Commissioner Campione did an excellent job speaking at the Valencia Grove grand opening and that she represented the County well.

congratulating mr. mike stephens

Commr. Smith congratulated Mr. Mike Stephens for being appointed to the Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation.

commissioner campione –district 4

joint meeting in astor

Commr. Campione mentioned that she had attended a joint meeting with the Astor Community Association and the Astor Area Chamber of Commerce, noting that she heard from the community about issues affecting Astor. She said that they were appreciative of possibly receiving the Butler Street boat ramp restroom facility, and that they were interested to hear about the North Lake Trail and the River to Hills Trail. She also stated that she had been working with staff on the Astor transfer station, and that the library rebuild was exciting.

valencia grove grand opening

Commr. Campione commented that it was great to have two other Commissioners at the Valencia Grove grand opening, noting that a partner on this was the foundation of Mr. Alonzo Mourning, a former Miami Heat player, which was a nonprofit focused on affordable housing, education, poverty reduction, etc. She stated that it was interesting to hear how they utilized the different funding sources to have a project that basically looked like a market rate project; furthermore, they were able to provide rents at certain income levels based on the interest rates when they borrowed funding to build the project. She said that most of the units had to stay intact at those affordable rates for 30 years, and some had to stay intact for 50 years due to receiving federal funding. She relayed that she had spoken to them about how the County could potentially replicate it in other locations, noting that one of the ways to move up on the list for funding was to have land donated, or a partner on the cost; therefore, the County may want to consider some of their affordable housing ARPA funding. She added that they needed a minimum of eight acres for this type of project, and that they would also need water and sewer. She indicated that the County may want to consider sending someone to locate parcels where the County could do a co-purchase using ARPA funds.

Commr. Parks said that the County could support a project in South Lake, and he relayed his understanding that there were a few sites in North Lake that had been identified.

Commr. Campione was unsure if the County had anything of this size, and she asked if the Rolling Acres property was large enough.

Ms. Marsh thought that it was at least 10 acres, but there were individual lots in between and it was not a solid block of property.

Commr. Campione stated that the County could possibly consider it to see if it could be worked around. She added that Valencia Grove currently had a waiting list, and when the County initially did a contribution to help them, they discussed requiring someone to have been a Lake County resident for six to eight months. She mentioned that if the County partnered on other projects, they could place limitations on preference to firefighters, teachers, and healthcare workers, and possibly have a requirement for individuals to have been county residents for two years, noting that the requirement could be removed if they did not have enough tenants. She also said that the City of Eustis did a great job working on the Valencia Grove project, opining that the property was beautiful with many amenities. She added that this project was for individuals over 62 years of age.

Commr. Shields thought that the price range was between $275 and $900 per month, and Commissioner Campione said that units were only one and two bedrooms.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

article from reason magazine

Commr. Blake shared an article with the Board from Reason Magazine regarding affordable housing.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

florida wildlife corridor foundation meeting

Commr. Parks said that he participated in the Florida Wildlife Corridor Foundation’s Corridors 101 meeting on the previous Friday, noting that it was about a two hour course. He stated that he had mentioned that Lake County was doing a countywide effort and that he thought it had been successful thus far. He added that a tool that could help them address long term rapid growth in the county was transfer of development rights (TDR), and a way to do this could be a market based incentive to reduce current entitlements to be less dense, or to address areas that needed to be identified through wildlife corridor mapping as areas they should protect. He elaborated that a land trust could be a tool to do this, and he opined the County had to implement this at some point to make TDRs effective. He was unsure if the County could set up their own land trust or if they could be in partnership with a regional land trust, but he opined that the County had to start exploring this as an instrument to do TDRs, noting that it would be a market based incentive program. He mentioned that he would start working with Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, to include this with the County’s plans with the Cities.

lake county historical society items

Commr. Parks commented that Lake County Historical Society had items which were not currently on display, and he wanted to continue to pursue having some of those items on display in the Lake County Administration Building.

Commr. Campione wondered if any more discussion had occurred or if they had met with the Arts and Cultural Alliance. She thought that they were going to use parts of the Lake County Administration Building rotunda, and she said that there could possibly be a collaboration between the Arts and Cultural Alliance and the Lake County Historical Society.

Ms. Barker confirmed that staff was currently working on this and that they could reach out to the Lake County Historical Society.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK