A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
April 26, 2022
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 26, 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 Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the April 26, 2022 Lake County Board of County Commissioner (BCC) meeting and thanked those who were attending in person and online to participate in their local government. He said that the invocation would be given by Pastor David Averill, with First United Methodist Church in the City of Mount Dora, and he then provided information about the veteran who would lead the Pledge of Allegiance. He said that Mr. Brad Kaplan was a Fixed Assets/Surplus Specialist in the Office of Procurement Services, and that he had been with the County since November 2020. He commented that Mr. Kaplan served in the United States (U.S.) Army from September 15, 1998 through November 14, 2003, and that after completing his Basic and Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, he was assigned to Ft. Lewis, Washington and then Wiesbaden Army Airfield, Germany. He mentioned that he had served as a Personnel Sergeant in the S-1 with the 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division at Ft Lewis, Washington and the Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Corps Support Command in Germany. He elaborated that while stationed in Germany, Mr. Kaplan was a part of NATO training in Poland and Kosovo, and that he was later sent to Kuwait and Iraq with his unit as one of the first ground units to help establish operations for all other incoming units during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He thanked Mr. Kaplan for his service to the country and the county.
Pastor Averill gave the Invocation and Mr. Kaplan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commr. Parks mentioned that he would like to present a historical fact about Lake County provided by the Lake County Historical Society. He related that Lake County was incorporated in July 1887, and that the first BCC meeting was held at a store in the area of Yalaha called Mendenhall’s. He stated that the courthouse was known as the Pioneer Building, and that it was not dedicated until 1889. He mentioned that contracts were not given for construction of the first hard surface roads in Lake County until 1915, and that for those years in between, dirt roads and boat routes were the primary routes of transportation.
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, mentioned that additional location maps were added as backup documentation for Tab 4 since the agenda was first published, and that the Fiscal Year (FY) was updated on the fiscal impact statement on Tab 13, adding that Tabs 27 through 29 were all added as addendums after the first publishing.
Commr. Parks related that Tab 23 would be presented after the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update. He commented that there were those in attendance for various items, including the Mayor of the Town of Montverde, and that he would move the order of the tabs in the meeting.
ARPA update
Mr. Sean Beaudet, Grants Coordinator for the Office of Management and Budget, stated that staff would provide an update on the affordable housing solicitation results and use of ARPA funds. He related that the Board had tentatively approved $3 million for affordable housing projects and programs, and that the Office of Procurement Services had issued a formal solicitation to secure an affordable housing project.
Mr. Ron Falanga, Director for the Office of Procurement Services, said that the Office of Procurement Services had issued a request for proposal (RFP) between December 16, 2021 and January 20, 2022, and that they had received two responsive and responsible submissions from Find, Feed & Restore and New Beginnings of Central Florida. He mentioned that they were both ARPA compliant, and that evaluations had been conducted through formal selection committee procedures. He elaborated that the focus of Find, Feed & Restore was on workforce housing, which included tenants or buyers with income too high to qualify for standard affordable housing subsidies, and that they were being funded by grants and partnerships. He relayed that the development included seven duplexes, which comprised 14 three-bedroom, two and a half bath units with garages, on two acres on Pruitt Street in the City of Leesburg for a pathway to homeownership, and that it would be called Hannah Grace Gardens. He commented that they would require at least 18 months of Lake County residency/employment and enrollment in hosted financial literacy and homeownership mentoring programs to qualify for a unit, and that 30 percent of the units would be set aside for police officers and educators. He stated that the rent for a unit would be $900 per month compared to an average area rent of $1,345 per month, and that the total amount requested was $3 million. He then explained that the focus of New Beginnings of Central Florida was on transitional housing, which included temporary housing with supportive services for the unhoused or underserved, and that they were being funded by faith-based organizations and grants. He related that the project included building six cottage-sized two-bedroom homes for transitional housing on a 2.1 acre site located at 415 Citrus Tower Blvd in the City of Clermont which currently contained a 12,000 square foot building containing a training center and a thrift store. He mentioned that there were on-site caseworkers to aid residents in plan development for self-sufficiency, job trainers to enhance residents’ work skills while in the program, and volunteers to teach the necessary classes to prepare each person to live independently, and that the total requested amount was about $1.2 million. He said that based on the County’s needs and best interests, staff recommended that the County award $3 million to Find, Feed & Restore.
Mr. Beaudet concluded that the requested action was to award up to $3 million to Find, Feed & Restore and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
Commr. Smith asked if there was an opportunity to give the second proposal the $1.2 million they had requested and then give $1.8 million to Find, Feed & Restore, opining that seven duplexes costing $214,000 per unit was too high, and Mr. Beaudet indicated that it could be done.
Ms. Barker replied that the Board could choose the staff recommendation or propose a different recommendation.
Commr. Smith commented that he wanted to spread this funding around as much as possible, and he wondered if Find, Feed & Restore could lower their price from $3 million to $1.8 million to build their units.
Commr. Parks mentioned that there were many needs in Lake County, and that perhaps there was a way to make both projects work.
Commr. Smith opined that it would be good to have one in the City of Leesburg and one in the City of Clermont, and he wondered why it cost $3 million for seven duplexes.
Commr. Parks said that the Board could discuss it, adding that the next BCC meeting would be in two weeks.
Commr. Smith expressed appreciation to staff for their work in the selection process; however, he wanted to find a way to help as many people as possible.
Commr. Parks opined that there might be more involved besides just the duplexes, adding that he also respected the selection process.
Ms. Barker commented that Pastor
Brian Broadway, founder of Find, Feed & Restore, was in the audience, and
that if the Board had specific questions related to the project, he could
answer them.
Pastor Broadway explained that when they had first applied for the program four years prior, it cost $108 per square foot, and that now it cost $181 per square foot. He elaborated that $3 million would cover the preparation of the land and block houses, opining that stick houses would affect the property values of the homes around them. He mentioned that block housing was more expensive, but that it would add value to the surrounding homes. He opined that if they built stick houses the property would lose value over the years, and that block housing would gain in value and add value to the neighboring homes. He commented that when they built a family fit community, they could promise their neighbors that they would add value to their homes each year, and that they would not take away from their value by using manufactured or modular homes. He related that there were other costs that they would contribute to themselves with help from other organizations that they partnered with, adding that they had already paid for the land and the engineering services. He said that the goal was to build a property that added value to their neighbors.
Commr. Smith asked how many square feet each unit would be.
Pastor Broadway replied that each unit would be 1,522 square feet, which was about $198,000 for each.
Commr. Smith said that was about $142 per square foot.
Commr. Parks inquired if there would be an opportunity to award funding to the other project later without taking away from this project. He mentioned that ARPA funding was fluid, and that things could change. He asked Ms. Barker if there would be any constraints or limitations.
Ms. Barker replied that the Board had allocated 100 percent of the ARPA funding, but that staff could look at reprioritizing some of the other projects. She mentioned that if the Board wanted to allocate $1.2 million for the New Beginnings project, staff could explore that request and present the results at the May 10, 2022 BCC meeting.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that it would require choosing to move something around.
Commr. Shields commented that the County wanted to have a model that could be replicated and to have the Cities participate.
Commr. Parks asked if he was referring to the Cities participating financially.
Commr. Shields recalled that the County was 9,000 units short for workforce housing, and opined that there should be a model of how to accomplish that.
Commr. Smith mentioned that the square footage cost for the duplexes was not far from current housing prices.
Commr. Campione inquired how quickly Find, Feed & Restore could begin if the Board made a decision on the current day.
Pastor Broadway replied that they had received approval on their layouts, and had received approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. He mentioned that they would go back on May 3, 2022 for the septic system, and that there may be a pilot program available for that. He said that they could start leveling land in about three weeks, and that their goal with the family fit community was to create a model. He commented that regular housing programs could award nonresidents housing before residents because of their income; however, because they provided programs with housing, they could select residents of Lake County who had been there for at least 18 months and were allowed to reserve 30 percent of their units to go to police officers and educators. He elaborated that they were a financial literacy program which provided housing, and that the housing would cost less than what the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would charge. He said that they were zoned as a charity, and that the Florida Governor allowed them to be a charity organization that offered a program with housing, which was a model that worked the best. He explained that if they offered housing with a program, they would not be able to limit the program to Lake County residents, and that they would have to take who was next on the list regardless of where they lived.
Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for setting aside units for police officers and educators, opining that those could also be for first responders and firefighters, and Pastor Broadway indicated that was correct.
Commr. Campione inquired if the Hannah Grace Gardens program was the pilot program that the Board heard about at a prior BCC meeting, and Pastor Broadway indicated that it was. Commissioner Campione mentioned that an engineer was evaluating it to see if it would be cost effective to use the Onsyte distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS).
Pastor Broadway commented that there was a pilot program, and that the septic engineer would visit on May 3, 2022 to see if it qualified for that program.
Commr. Campione said that would be good because if they were able to use it for the pilot, then the County would be able to demonstrate how to do that in a multifamily setting. She commented that the project did not have the central sewer available, and that the Onsyte DWTS would become the alternative, which was technically a central sewer utility.
Commr. Parks thanked Pastor Broadway for what he was doing, and commented that Find, Feed & Restore had a wonderful event the previous weekend, opining that it was well attended. He mentioned that what they did in the community helped.
Commr. Smith thanked Pastor Broadway for the information.
Commr. Shields inquired if the County would try to find ARPA funding for the other project.
Commr. Parks said that the Find, Feed & Restore project was something that the County needed to move forward with on the current day, and that it would allow them to start their project. He commented that the County would continue to explore options for the second proposal, including partnering with the City of Clermont.
Ms. Barker stated that some alternatives would be brought to the Board at the May 10, 2022 BCC meeting. She clarified that the Board was awarding $3 million as part of the motion, and Commissioner Parks indicated that was correct.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to award $3 million to Find, Feed & Restore.
regular agenda
discussion and update of the four corners community center
Commr. Parks said that Ms. DeAnna Thomas, Executive Director of Lake Technical College (Lake Tech), and Dr. Heather Bigard, Executive Vice President of Lake-Sumter State College (LSSC), were in attendance for the presentation of Tab 23.
Ms. Barker commented that Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, would do the initial presentation and follw up on some requested information from the Board regarding the community center in Four Corners, and then Dr. Bigard and Ms. Thomas would conduct their own presentation.
Ms. Teslia stated that she would provide an update regarding the Four Corners Community Center facility, and that during the May 2021 Commission District 1 meeting, one of the main requests was a community center. She elaborated that in the January 25, 2022 BCC meeting, staff provided an overview of estimated costs to build the community center, and that it would cost around $13.4 million to build a 32,000 square foot facility, which did not include the land purchase, engineering fees, furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E), or operating costs. She commented that at that time, the Board directed staff to evaluate a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) to fund the community center, and that in March 2022, staff provided MSTU estimates based on properties that were within a three, five, and seven mile radius of the Four Corners area. She displayed a chart showing the assumptions that were used for a $15 million loan, not including interest or operating costs, with a repayment term of 10 years, and explained that the average single family home value used was about $160,000 and the average commercial property taxable value was about $2.86 million. She presented a chart showing what the total millage rates would be under the 2022 adopted rates, and said that the Board directed staff to seek alternate options. She mentioned that a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) was suggested as a possible funding option, but it was determined that the Four Corners area was ineligible for CDBG funding. She related that an alternate option to provide a full service community center would be to rent a facility, and that the County would need to research possible locations based on the spatial needs. She commented that the County Attorney’s Office would negotiate the lease terms, and the Board would need to determine the management of operations and programming, such as in-house or contract services. She mentioned that another alternate option would be to start work on the second floor renovation at Cagan Crossing Community Library, which was currently in the five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with funding from Infrastructure Sales Tax. She commented that the County was to begin the planning phase in FY 2024 and construction in FY 2025, and that it could provide a flexible space to accommodate multiple classrooms and meeting spaces. She relayed that in 2018, the cost study to complete the second floor was estimated at $1.8 million, and that based on recent construction costs, staff estimated the cost to be between $2 and $3 million, adding that a study would need to be done to determine that. She elaborated that education partnerships could be utilized, such as LSSC and Lake Tech, and that they could use the space to meet the educational needs of the south Lake County area, noting that Dr. Bigard was present to provide more information.
Dr. Bigard stated that LSSC had a 24 to one faculty to student ratio, which meant that they were well positioned to provide students with individualized instruction and attention to meet their needs. She elaborated that 90 percent of students found employment or transferred on to a higher educational program, and that 80 percent of their students were passing their courses. She related that they had robust enrollment and academic student support services available to prospective and current students, noting that many prospective students found it a challenge to navigate the higher education process coming out of high school and into college, and that they had a good team to help them through that. She commented that they offered certificate and degree programs online and in person, and that some of their newer programs included a lineman program and a Commercial Driver License (CDL) program offered at the Sumter Center.
Ms. Thomas stated that Lake Tech’s mission was to be an integral component of the economic growth and development in Lake County communities by providing high quality career training programs, and she expressed excitement about the possibilities of what they could bring to community members in the south end of the county where Lake Tech did not have many program opportunities. She said that they only offered programs that led to jobs, and that they had a 91 percent campus-wide completion rate of programs, a 91 percent direct job placement rate, and a 98 percent licensure rate for applicable programs. She elaborated that they offered programs from 10 of the 17 career clusters offered by the Florida Department of Education, which resulted in the 31 high-wage high-skill career certificate programs offered. She mentioned that they had four locations, which included their main campus in the City of Eustis, their public safety campus in the City of Tavares, their partnership with LSSC at their campus in the City of Clermont, and their partnership with the County at the animal shelter. She stated that they were the adult education provider for Lake County, including general educational development (GED) preparation classes, adult basic education classes, and adult English for speakers of other languages courses, which were offered at eight locations throughout the county, such as Cagan Crossings Community Library and the Cooper Memorial Library. She commented that they had been at Cagan Crossings Community Library since 2012 and had served over 1,000 students there, noting that they had temporarily stopped programming there during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. She related that they currently had 52 students attending there, and that there was a waiting list for that location. She said that this was only adult education, but it proved that there was a need for post-secondary training and for bringing occupational skills training as well as academic training.
Dr. Bigard commented that in the Four Corners zip code area of 34714, there was a significant opportunity for growth, and that 70 percent of the population had a high school diploma or less. She stated that 25 percent of the population were young adults in this growing area, and that the incomes and percentages of those with college degrees or career certificates were low compared to the neighboring areas. She related that the median household income was about $58,000 compared to an average of about $69,000, and that the per capita income was about $24,000 per individual compared to almost $30,000 countywide. She expressed her concern about the economic mobility in that area, and commented that they wanted to influence that. She said that the income potential for individuals that had completed some level of post-secondary education did translate positively into increased earning over a lifetime, and she displayed a chart showing how those skills influenced incomes.
Ms. Thomas displayed a chart with data about the Four Corners area employment percentages by industry, showing all the different industry sectors that were represented and the percentage of the employed population in those areas. She relayed that the employment growth sectors chart with data from CareerSource Central Florida covered a five-county area including the Counties of Lake, Sumter, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole. She mentioned that some of the highest percentages of growth included construction, utilities, transportation, warehousing, and health care, and that Lake Tech would base its potential programming on the job opportunities that were on the regional occupation list. She commented that they expected growth in the Four Corners area and in all four counties that were in that area, and that they had seen that growth in the last 10 years of working with that student population. She remarked that this partnership would uniquely position them to be the first post-secondary providers with a physical presence, and that although they had some programs there, they had not transitioned into higher education offerings, career certificates, or any type of occupational training for that area. She said that this would allow them to provide integrated training and career pathways, and that it would give them the ability to help students become self-sufficient and create economic impact and mobility. She relayed that the link between career certificates, associate degree programs, and successful careers is strong, and that in the Four Corners area, the percentage of individuals with a college degree or a career certificate are low compared to the neighboring cities. She commented that even though bachelor’s degree attainment was rising, according to data from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO), 51 percent of the fastest growing occupations in this region required a career certificate or a two-year degree, while 24 percent required a bachelor’s or master’s degree. She mentioned that degree attainment and post-secondary training was difficult for a number of minority groups and students without much mobility despite efforts to reduce barriers, noting that this project would reduce many barriers because of access to location. She related that it would help them learn the career pathways model, adding that students often did not understand the pathways to get to those careers or what their end goals were. She commented that their goal was to develop those integrated pathways, and she displayed a slide showing how to save taxpayer dollars while investing in students, noting that the return on investment in their education was much higher. She relayed an example of one of their integrated pathways for nursing which showed how a high school Career and Technical Education (CTE) student could earn a credential and continue on to Lake Tech to gain more skills and more career certificates, and that it would translate to valuable credit directly into LSSC and allow them to continue on to those advanced degrees. She said that she was proud to be working together with Dr. Bigard to establish this for the students that they served, adding that students could benefit from those examples and those tangible pathways and could reach their goals affordably.
Dr. Bigard commented that while Lake Tach had a presence at Cagan Crossings Community Library, LSSC did not, and that their campus was about ten miles north of that location. She mentioned that many residents of the Four Corners area struggled with transportation, and that it was important to make education possible for them by bringing these programs to them. She stated that their goals included the following: expanding access to postsecondary education and increasing attainment to further economic mobility; applying the partnership model between LSSC, Lake Tech, and Lake County Schools for the benefit of the Four Corners community; collaborating with the Cagan Crossings Community Library and the Lake County library system; and enhancing their career pathway model with onsite enrollment services and coaching in addition to the courses and programs offered there.
Commr. Parks thanked them for the presentation, for their partnership, and for the pathway to a career, adding that it could help with the County’s economic prosperity goals. He mentioned that the Board had been discussing a community center for the Four Corners area, and that it was challenging for the County to do that. He commented that this presented an option for the County to do something else in the Four Corners area, and that it was a good opportunity for Lake County to have a campus there.
Commr. Campione inquired if the current proposal was to use the space for educational purposes, and if there were other opportunities in other parts of the library that could be used for meeting centers. She commented that she supported building out the second floor for educational purposes; however, she hoped that there could be a way to create a community center, especially since there was a community leader in the area who wanted to host programs for young people. She wondered that if it could not be done at the library, then could there be another affordable place to facilitate a community center.
Ms. Barker replied that the County could search for property that could be used for recreational uses, and that the Cagan Crossings Community Library project could cover the educational portion of it. She commented that if a good opportunity was found, then staff would bring it back for the Board to consider.
Commr. Parks mentioned that Commissioner Shields had been a good leader to represent the County in the Four Corners area.
Commr. Shields commented that there had been some good meetings with the other Commissioners, but he did not know if the other Counties would participate in providing a community center. He mentioned that there had been a meeting in the previous week, and that Ms. Barker and Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, were in attendance. He said that the Four Corners area had been defined for each of the Counties, and that they were trying to find a way to provide services to all the residents in four counties without duplicating efforts. He opined that a community center would be a small step, and he hoped that all the Counties would cooperate in doing something good in the Four Corners area.
Commr. Parks recalled that there were concerns about the impact of an MSTU, and that it was not a feasible option. He said that the County could continue to look for options for something that could be temporary, and that there may be some community partners that could help.
Ms. Evelisse Bookhout, Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Hands of Hope America, relayed that she had been living in the Four Corners area for 10 years, and that she had established a nonprofit organization called Hands of Hope America. She explained that they had a food pantry, which was established in 2020, and that they had served over 250 families during the COVID-19 pandemic. She elaborated that in the prior year, with the help of the Community Foundation of South Lake, they had established a $15,000 grant which was used to provide social services, youth enrichment programs, summer programs and leadership programs for the youth, and a technical and educational component provided by South Lake Technology Resource Center at the Four Corners Community Center. She related that their mission was to equip, empower, and restore individuals, families, and children, and that they were focused on a holistic approach to provide accessible services and resources to restore self-sufficiency and dignity to families and children. She commented that since the Four Corners area covered four counties, she had been working with the Counties of Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Polk to see how they could work together to provide the necessary resources and services for families and children. She mentioned that in the prior year, they had served 2,569 individuals and over 850 families, and that it had increased in the current year, noting that they had 40 new applications from families suffering from food insecurity, homelessness, housing deficiencies, and educational literacy needs. She relayed that in the Four Corners area, Polk County had 1,959 residents, Osceola County had over 1,000 residents, and Orange County had over 500 residents, which was why she was working with the other Counties to find a way to partner with them to provide services. She said that their impact by ethnicity included over 4,000 Hispanic individuals, over 900 Caucasian individuals, over 600 African-American individuals, over 200 Native American individuals, and over 300 Asian individuals. She related that of the average household incomes in this area, 1,500 of them were under $10,000, over 3,000 were $10,000 to $25,000, over 2,000 were $25,000 to $50,000, and only 214 were over $50,000, and that of the children served by their programs, 337 were ages zero to four, over 1,300 were ages five to 12, and over 1,500 were ages 13 to 17. She mentioned that many of the children who faced food insecurity issues would not have grab-and-go meals for the summer months, and that this was an issue that they were in need of resources for. She commented that educational literacy was needed in the Four Corners area, especially for families who were not able to get jobs because they did not speak English well enough as a second language, and that they had a list of families they had been sending to Cagan Crossing Community Library to get the education they needed. She said that a community center could provide education, community programs, social services, recreational opportunities, events, and access to liaison offices, such as Find, Feed & Restore and a Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) substation, which was needed. She mentioned that youth needed to be mentored and taught how to have an entrepreneur mindset, so that they could create value for themselves instead of someone else assigning them value. She said that she was proposing a community center to the Board because it could bring in more than just education.
Commr. Parks commented that the County would continue to look for some options, and that the Board would move forward with the educational partnership with LSSC and Lake Tech, which would address some of the needs mentioned.
Ms. Bookhout opined that for the past 10 years, it had been difficult for the Four Corners area, and that even though she was glad they were now able to provide some services, it would have been better to have done this 10 years prior when there had been land and opportunities for resources. She mentioned that currently, there was an increase in homelessness and people needing resources, and she asked how much longer they would have to wait to provide the services and resources for the families to help them become self-reliant, opining that it would be better to be proactive and preventative.
Commr. Park thanked Ms. Bookhout, and he inquired if there needed to be any action taken for this item.
Ms. Barker commented that there was consensus to move forward with the planning of the second story in the Cagan Crossing Community Library, and that it was currently on the Infrastructure Sales Tax plan. She said that the County would continue to identify spaces that could become available for a full service community center.
Commr. Blake asked if $3 million was the cost to the County, or if it was a shared cost.
Ms. Barker said that it would be the County’s responsibility, but that there could be an opportunity for some partnerships with the surrounding Counties. She mentioned that this issue had been discussed in the previous week, and that sharing the cost could be an option for this project and also for a community center and a law enforcement services substation.
Commr. Blake inquired how that would come out of the Infrastructure Sales Tax.
Ms. Barker replied that there was funding already identified in the five year plan starting in 2024, and that the County could move forward with the expectation that it would be used for classroom space; furthermore, the County could start looking at design and fund appropriately in the five year plan for the Infrastructure Sales Tax.
Commr. Blake opined that the Hands of Hope America was an excellent organization, but that, as a general rule, community centers were not a core business of the County government. He commented that if an area did not have a community center, some other options existed, noting that it was a $13 million cost. He mentioned that as much he supported the mission, he opined that it was too expensive, and he suggested partnerships with churches that had buildings and private associations.
Commr. Smith asked if the $3 million cost was already included in the budget, and if it would affect the millage rate.
Ms. Barker stated that it was coming from the penny sales tax.
Commr. Smith commented that the Bassville Park area was building a community center, but they were doing it through all private funding, partnering with different churches. He mentioned that he was in favor of technical schools, and he opined that the 91 percent campus-wide completion rate of programs was because some students were being taken out of classes before they finished to go work on a job.
Commr. Parks opined that there could be a partnership opportunity with Hands of Hope America, and that there may be a corporate sponsor possibility. He commented that the cost was prohibitive, and that another focus in that area could be for more infrastructure, such as a walkover, to make a dangerous intersection safer. He mentioned that the County was looking for partnerships, but that the County could not commit to pay $13 million. He relayed his understanding that funding for LSSC and Lake Tech was limited, and that the Cagan Crossings Community Library project was something that the County could do to help by promoting career training and education.
Commr. Campione recalled that in a previous presentation from LSSC, they presented the fact that they had limited resources for facilities and expansion, and that this was a way for the County to partner with them for facilities, recognizing that the education and workforce development was a critical part of the County’s economic development goals. She mentioned that even though LSSC and Lake Tech would not be contributing to the cost of the facilities, they would do the educational part, and she expressed appreciation for their cooperation.
Commr. Blake congratulated Dr. Bigard on her new position.
Commr. Smith asked if it was time for fall enrollment for LSSC, and Dr. Bigard indicated that it was.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to provide up to $3 million for renovations at Cagan Crossings Community Library to accommodate classrooms and meeting space in partnership with LSSC and Lake Tech.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC Meetings of December 21, 2021 (Regular Meeting), December 30, 2021 (Special Meeting), January 4, 2022 (Regular Meeting), and February 7, 2022 (Special Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Deborah Shelley, with Citizens for the Preservation of Rural, displayed a copy of the rural conservation subdivision design standards ordinance, which would be presented to the Board at the May 10, 2022 BCC meeting, and she asked if it would be reviewed at that time.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that the Board had not seen the agenda for the May 10, 2022 BCC meeting, and that staff was still working on it. She explained that it would come before the Board for discussion at that time, and that they could give direction on how to proceed. She elaborated that staff would make those changes and then bring it back for approval to advertise, adding that the public hearing would follow that.
Ms. Shelley opined that the rural protection areas (RPA) should be included as applicable locations. She opined that all of the Cities would have to agree on this concept in order for it to work, and she asked if there would be another plan if the Cities did not agree. She also mentioned that members of Citizens for the Preservation of Rural would like to see the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreements (ISBAs) reviewed, and opined that the boundaries should be modified by excluding RPA boundaries. She opined that the ISBAs were not working as planned, and that the Cities were encroaching into some RPA boundaries with devastating effects. She opined that the Board would not have approved Hodges Reserve with 450 units on 150 acres with a 25 foot buffer in an RPA next to residents on five acre lots. She relayed her understanding that the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) would be assisting with the County initiative to involve all the Cities, and she expressed concern about current growth policies. She hoped that the County could improve on this, and said that she looked forward to continued participation in the County initiative to involve all the Cities.
Commr. Campione clarified that Hodges Reserve was approved by the City of Leesburg after the County had opposed it.
Ms. Shelley opined that the County would not have approved it, and that it would have received closer scrutiny.
Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, opined that the County should consolidate the trips of the waste haulers and discontinue the separate trips for recyclers. He also suggested that election integrity in the State of Florida could be improved, opining that Senator Alan Hays, Lake County Supervisor of Elections, provided vague answers instead of analysis and feedback on voting machine integrity and the rest of the system. He opined that there should be a formal audit, and he requested that an audit be initiated.
Pastor Michael Watkins, a resident of Lake County, related that there would be an event on June 12, 2022 at Wooton Park in the City of Tavares to unify the County and pray for the concerns of their communities and country, and he asked that the Board provide a proclamation for Race Amity Day. He opined that there were many organizations that were working to make this county better, and that this event could help build bridges and break down barriers.
Mr. Steve Bishop, Executive Director and President for the Florida Region of USA Volleyball, shared a progress report on the Hickory Point Beach Complex. He related that they had completed construction which enhanced the complex, noting that the County had invested $3 million of Tourism Development Tax (TDT) funds for this project. He commented that visitors had come to Lake County from over 100 cities across the State of Florida, from 25 states in the United States (U.S.), and from 15 countries of the world to visit Hickory Point Beach since 2014 when the complex opened, and opined that it had generated over $11 million in economic impact for the community. He mentioned that they were the official home court for the Lake-Sumter Lake Hawks Beach Volleyball program, which served LSSC, and that they were a national training site for USA Volleyball, one of four in the U.S., adding that they also serviced the Beach ParaVolley athletes. He related that in November 2021, World ParaVolley, an international Paralympic federation, designated Hickory Point Beach Complex as the first beach development center in the world, and that two weeks prior, Hickory Point Beach Complex had hosted the American Volleyball Coaches Association Small College Beach Championships, which included 34 colleges from 16 states, adding that it was the largest collegiate beach volleyball tournament in the country. He commented that on the following weekend, they would host the Sunshine State Athletics High School State Beach Championships, which included 22 schools, and that they were a finalist to host the Inaugural 2023 and 2024 National Beach Championships for the NCAA.
Pastor Jim Mory, of Union Congregational Church in the City of Tavares, stated that he was speaking in favor of Race Amity Day on June 12, 2022. He mentioned that he had previously been a police chaplain at the Port St. Lucie Police Department, and that he had ministered to the needs of the police department, residents of the community, first responders, and the firefighters. He commented that he was committed to community events that brought diverse people together, opining that it would build stronger relationships and a stronger community. He expressed appreciation for the Board’s consideration of Race Amity Day, and he hoped that it would be a wonderful event.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4, wondered if the Board could be quicker about initiating the rural conservation design standards and making it part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), opining that Lake County was losing many sensitive areas and RPAs. She commented that Seminole County was doing a listening tour, and she suggested that the Board attend a meeting or reach out to them for ideas.
Commr. Parks commented the Lake County was planning to have subdivision guidelines and conservation guidelines discussions starting on May 10, 2022, and that the ECFRPC would be moving forward with the countywide effort to include 14 Cities and the County. He opined that it would take time, noting that there would be meetings held throughout the county. He elaborated that there were 14 different councils with different views, and that awareness and education would be needed. He related that the County would do what they could, and said that he was optimistic about the countywide effort.
Commr. Campione mentioned that if there was a particular City that wanted to move forward before the others, there would be nothing to preclude them from doing that.
Commr. Parks agreed and pointed out that the City of Groveland and the Town of Montverde were currently ready to enter into JPAs with the County, opining that the City of Mascotte was also ready to move forward. He related that JPAs with individual Cities could proceed on a one-on-one basis at the same time as the countywide strategy, and that there could be different standards; however, there had to be a transfer of development rights (TDR) for all the Cities and the County in order for a TDR program to work.
Proclamation 2022-46 building safety month
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-46 designating May 2022 as Building Safety Month in Lake County.
Commr. Shields read Proclamation 2022-46 into the record and presented it to staff members.
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Blake, 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 and 2, 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 Leesburg Annual Financial Report
Notice is hereby provided of having received the City of Leesburg’s FY 2021 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Blake stated that he would like Tab 4 pulled for a separate vote. He commented that he had an issue with eminent domain in general.
Commr. Smith mentioned that he had the same issue on all eminent domain projects.
Commr. Campione related that there was a process for these projects, and that the owners were paid fair market value for their property, opining that it was a much needed project.
Commr. Parks commented that many roads had been completed because of this process, noting that it was one of the costs of infrastructure.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 17, pulling Tab 4 for a separate vote, as follows below.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved Tab 4 of the Consent Agenda.
Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend adoption of Resolutions 2022-47 (Mackin), 2022-48 (Greeson-Rice Jones), and 2022-49 (Gamble), instituting Eminent Domain proceedings for acquisition of property needed for the CR 466A Road Project, and approval to proceed with pre-suit negotiation offers. The fiscal impact (expenditure) cannot be determined at this time. Commission District 5.
Recommend approval of Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between Lake County and Alfred Street Holding Company, LLC, for the Clerk's Division of Inspector General at 401 East Alfred Street in Tavares. The fiscal impact is $6,502.17 for Fiscal Year 2022 (payments for July, August and September) and $26,138.72 for Fiscal Year 2023. Commission District 3.
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.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Recommend approval of Eighth Amendment to Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Lake County Central Park a/k/a Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park. There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 1.
Recommend approval:
1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and the Greater Orlando Sports Commission’s bid to host the 2022 Major League Fishing Cup tournament to take place on the Clermont Chain of Lakes; and
2. To authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement with Major League Fishing and the Central Florida Sports Commission, Inc. dba Greater Orlando Sports Commission, if selected as the tournament host location.
The fiscal impact is not to exceed $74,999 (expenditure – TDT funding). Commission District 2.
Recommend approval:
1. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and the Florida Region USA Volleyball, Inc.’s bid to host the 2022 NORCECA Continental Championship to take place at Hickory Point Beach in Tavares. The target weekend for this event is November 30 -December 4, 2022; and
2. To provide Tourist Development Tax funding for host fees and related event expenses for Lake County and the Florida Region USA Volleyball, Inc.’s bid to host the 2022 World ParaVolley Tour Stop to take place at Hickory Point Beach in Tavares. The target weekend for this event is November 30 -December 4, 2022; and
3. To authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements with Florida Region USA Volleyball, NORCECA Continental Championship, and World ParaVolley if selected as the tournaments’ host location.
The fiscal impact of the NORCECA Continental Championship is not to exceed $90,000 (expenditure – TDT funding). The fiscal impact of the World ParaVolley Tour Stop is not to exceed $60,000 (expenditure – TDT funding). Both events are located in Commission District 3.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Emergency Management
Recommend approval:
1. Of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Lake County's continued participation in the Orlando Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI); and
2. To authorize the Chairman to execute the MOA; and
3. To designate the Office of Emergency Management Director as the primary representative for Lake County to the UASI Working Group; and
4. For the County Manager to execute any future no-cost amendments or modifications to the MOA.
There is no fiscal impact.
Emergency Medical Services
Recommend approval of Second Amendment to Lease Agreement between Lake County and Phyllis B. Cross for the Eustis area EMS Station 141 located at 702 South Grove Street, in Eustis. The fiscal impact is $16,200 (expenditure) for Fiscal Year 2023. Commission District 4.
Planning and Zoning
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance creating Chapter XVI, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, entitled Wellness Way Area Plan Development Standards, which establishes design criteria for new development within the Wellness Way Area Plan. The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time. Commission District 2.
Public Safety Support
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 22-426 for tower lighting for Public Safety Support to Lumenserve, Inc. (Austin, Texas); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $58,363.20 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the fiscal year budget.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Facilities Management
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract Q2022-00058 for Lake County Parking Garage Cable Railing Repair to Restocon Corporation (Tampa, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The fiscal impact is $84,750 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 3.
Public Works
Recommend:
1. Approval of a Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement; and
2. Adoption of supporting Resolution 2022-50 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for construction and inspection services for the Green Mountain Trail project in Minneola; and
3. Adoption of Unanticipated Revenue Resolution 2022-51 adding $2,000,000 to the Federal/State Grants Fund for the Green Mountain Trail Project.
The estimated fiscal impact is $2,070,425 ($2,000,000 revenue/expenditure in grant funding, $70,425 expenditure – impact fees). Commission District 2.
Recommend approval of an amendment to extend contract #FWC11355 with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for six months for aquatic vegetation control services. There is no fiscal impact.
Transit Services
Recommend approval of the Coordination Agreement with United Way of Lake and Sumter Counties for the provision of transportation services for local Veterans to various locations throughout Central Florida that provide veteran services. There is no fiscal impact.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:35 a.m. for five minutes.
presentation of the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Mr. Schneider presented the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. He first gave a background of impact fees, and stated that they were required to be updated every few years in order to have the most recent and localized data for calculating the fee. He recalled that on August 24, 2021 the BCC accepted the study for the Library, Parks, and Fire Rescue impact fees as presented by Tindale Oliver which was now Benesch, and that a presentation was made regarding tiny homes and accessory dwelling unit categories for consideration. He commented that the BCC approved to move forward with a study update of the Transportation Impact Fee, and he then introduced Ms. Nilgün Kamp, with Benesch.
Ms. Kamp explained that road impact fees were implemented in 1985, suspended in 2010, and reinstated in 2013, and that the last update study was completed in 2019. She defined an impact fee as a one-time capital charge to new development that covered the cost of new capital facility capacity and helped implement capital improvement programs (CIP). She pointed out that the Impact Fee Act was enacted in 2006, which required that the fees be based on the most recent and localized data, a minimum 90 day notice was required for any fee increases after adoption, and the government had the burden of proof if there was any action challenging the fee. She indicated that House Bill (HB) 337 was passed in 2021, which put limits on how much the fee could be increased and specified that if the increase was up to 25 percent, it must be done over two years, and if the increase was up to 50 percent, it must be done over four years; additionally, she said that fees could not be increased more than once every four years. She said that if the fees needed to be increased more than 50 percent, the local government must show there were extraordinary circumstances and that would need to be discussed during two public hearings with an increase approval by two thirds of the governing body. She explained that they were using a consumption based methodology for their technical analysis, which was used by many Florida jurisdictions, and that it charged new growth based on its consumption of capacity while the fees were calculated at a rate that could not correct existing deficiencies. She noted that the basic impact fee formula looked at the cost to add capacity, which was the infrastructure roadway cost, and then subtracted any non-impact fee revenues being used toward the same infrastructure from future development, and that it would then be multiplied by the demand of travel. She then gave an example of a single family fee calculation and noted that the cost of one lane mile was about $3.6 million with an approximate road capacity of 9,200 vehicles; therefore, the cost per vehicle miles of capacity was approximately $392, which meant that it cost the infrastructure $392 every time a car was added to the county’s roadway system. She related that the average household traveled about 13 miles on the county roadways for a total impact of about $5,240, and that after subtracting revenues from new development the net cost equaled to about $5,160. She said that they calculated the demand by looking at the amount of trips generated daily, how long those trips were, and how many of those trips were new, and that they used the National Institute of Transportation Engineers reference book, the Florida Studies database, and the Central Florida Regional Planning Model as reference sources. She indicated that there were several adjustments to the demand component, and noted that they removed the portion of trips occurring on interstate and toll facilities, they accounted for longer trips as modeled in Lake County, and they excluded a portion of the state road facilities. She stated that for the cost component they looked at historical local projects, reviewed the cost estimates of the capital improvement plan and long range plan, and supplemented that with data from other Florida jurisdictions for a larger sample. She displayed a chart showing the changes in construction costs and pointed out that in 2006 the costs started increasing, in 2009 it started decreasing, and were now back to increasing. She mentioned that when they looked at the roadway cost for county roads they had to consider the $2.15 million per lane mile that was spent on six recent improvement projects and the $2.14 million per lane mile estimate for six future projects, which they thought was reasonable considering the average construction cost per lane mile throughout the state was about $2.8 million. She elaborated that the design, right-of-way, construction, engineering, and inspection costs factored into the total estimated cost per lane mile, which was about $3.6 million. She pointed out that for the credit component, most of the County funding was being used for operations and maintenance; however, road impact fees and sales tax would be used for future capacity expansion projects. She related that fuel taxes were on a per gallon basis and that state pennies were indexed but local pennies were not. She also said that fuel efficiency was increasing and the penny was worth only half of its value now; therefore, they now had a situation where the cost of infrastructure was increasing but the dedicated revenue source was becoming more inefficient resulting in fuel taxes only being sufficient for maintenance in most jurisdictions. She commented that for a single family residential home the impact fee credit was about $78 with a net impact fee of about $5,163. She indicated that compared to the last study, demand size stayed about the same, the cost increased about 30 percent, and the credit decreased; however, the net impact fee increased about 33 percent. She then displayed a chart showing the impact fee comparison for the existing adopted rates as compared to the full calculated and maximum allowable, and pointed out that there were different fees for the central and north central district as well as for the south and northeast district. She related that the single family home rate was about $1,000 for the central and north central district and $2,706 in the south and northeast district; additionally, she said that the full calculated fees were about $5,200 with the maximum allowable at $1,500 for the central and north central district and $4,059 for the south and northeast district. She then displayed a chart showing the impact fees for Lake County as compared to surrounding Counties, and pointed out that the single family rates ranged from about $1,800 to $15,000. She indicated that when fees were varied there was an implied effect on the level of service and that the level of service for transportation was measured in terms of speed of travel; furthermore, she said that average speed for a level of service “D” was about 17 miles per hour (MPH), which was what they used for all roads even though half the roads were worse and half were better. She mentioned that by doing that it made the impact fees conservative compared to the actual achieved average. She stated that the volume to capacity ratio was one and was much better than the adopted standards; additionally, she said that most districts traveled at 35 MPH or more. She related that sometimes Counties tiered their fees and made them higher in rural areas and lower in the urban areas to help align with the growth management policies; however, when the adopted fees were worse than one, that meant that over time the district would become more congested. She displayed a chart showing the road impact fee revenue projections, and mentioned that they used three year and six year trends to calculate the revenue projections. She noted that the south district generated $4.12 million in impact fees during 2015 to 2020 and that the maximum allowable projection was between $6 million and $7 million. She also pointed out that the central district generated $400,000 with a $1 million to $1.2 million maximum allowable projection, the north/central district generated $270,000 with a $650,000 to $720,000 maximum allowable projection, and the northeast/Wekiva district generated $240,000 with a $760,000 to $850,000 maximum allowable projection. She then showed a slide that listed the priority projects on the Lake County Transportation Project Needs list for each district and stated that it would take over 15 years to fund the projects in the south, northeast/Wekiva, and the central districts, whereas, it would take about four years to fund the needs in the north central district. She displayed a chart showing the impact fee rate comparison for each district for full calculated rates, and pointed out that the adopted fee for a single family home in the north and central districts was $10,830 and the calculated fee was $15,555 which was about a 43 percent increase. She commented that the adopted fee for a single family home in the south and northeast/Wekiva districts was $12,536 and the calculated fee was $15,555 which was about a 24 percent increase. She also displayed a chart showing the same information for the maximum allowable rates and noted that the adopted fee for a single family home in the north and central districts was $10,830, and the calculated fee was $11,690, which was almost an eight percent increase; whereas, the adopted fee for a single family home in the south and northeast/Wekiva districts was $12,536, and the calculated fee was $14,249, which was almost a 14 percent increase. She explained that they were also asked to determine rates for tiny homes/cottage homes, accessory dwelling units, and multi-family homes, noting that they created smaller sized tiers for the tiny homes and accessory dwelling units and separated the multi-family into townhouse, apartment, and condominium categories. She showed charts of the impact fee schedules with tiering for the north and central districts, and mentioned that single family homes of 800 square feet or less would have almost a 50 percent decrease as compared to the average rate and apartments of 800 square feet or less would have between 34 and 53 percent decrease while those greater than 800 square feet would have a six percent increase. She also said that condominiums and townhouses would experience decreases in all levels since their impacts were less than apartments and that mobile homes of 800 square feet or less would have a decrease of about 11 percent whereas the larger mobile homes would have a slight increase. She also showed charts of the impact fee schedules with tiering for the south and northeast/Wekiva districts, and pointed out that the percentage changes were similar to the north and central districts for each category. She then commented that once they received input from the BCC, they would move forward with the final report and then with the implementation process.
Commr. Shields asked what would happen if they lowered the impact fees for workforce housing, and how that translated to the actual rent being paid.
Ms. Kamp answered that rent and housing prices were determined by market conditions, and that although this would be one of the tools, she did not think it would alter the market conditions since the market had been very active and rent was increasing.
Commr. Campione opined that it could affect a project where some of the costs were reduced; however, she questioned how it would affect the determination of how many years they would be able to catch up and pay for the needs and how the number would be affected if they waived the fees for certain categories in order to meet workforce or affordable housing needs.
Ms. Kamp replied that it would reduce the revenues, and noted that affordable housing was typically not a very large portion of permitting; therefore, the County could keep track of it and manage it in relation to the needs. She also said that it did not have to be zero percent.
Commr. Campione commented that they could do 50 percent which would not require backfilling as long as it was 120 percent or less of the median income.
Ms. Kamp confirmed this, and stated that it would need to be tracked in order to make sure they were not given a discount and then selling to someone who did not qualify.
Commr. Campione mentioned that it would have to be a project like a State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) project or a Habitat for Humanity project, as those were monitored.
Ms. Kamp indicated that some Counties used a tier system to determine the discounts for affordable housing based on the years; therefore, she said there was a lot of flexibility, and the County could design a program that fit their needs.
Commr. Campione said that she believed the SHIP program had a 10 year limitation on when a unit could be sold where one would not have to pay anything back, and she questioned how that would factor in.
Ms. Marsh commented that she believed SHIP had either a 10 or 15 year limitation; however, there were also some with 30 year limitations depending on which funding year a person qualified under. She pointed out that they would not adopt a lower rate for affordable housing since they had a waiver program and could just adjust that program. She also said that currently, a person could receive up to 100 percent for a single family unit and would have to sign a seven year mortgage to the County, and should they sell the unit, they would be required to pay it back; however, after the seven years, the mortgage would be forgiven. She related that they also had a multi-family housing program and the BCC could determine how they wanted to reduce that.
Commr. Campione pointed out that in regards to the impact fee charts previously shown, a single family residence built in the city would have to pay transportation, water, and sewer impact fees, which would increase the total fees.
Ms. Kamp confirmed that these were non-utility fees. She then mentioned that there were many things in HB 337 that were not defined well, such as how to apply the 50 percent increase. She indicated that Counties were applying it two different ways depending on how it was interpreted, and noted that an unintended consequence of applying it to each land use with the idea that nobody should pay more than 50 percent higher, was that it was distorting the proportionality between land uses. She remarked that if a single family had 10 trips and an office had 20 trips, technically the office should pay twice; however, that relationship was not being maintained because demand was adjusted and not every land use increased by the same percentage. She related that the residential fees were taking a big hit if they tried to adjust for that and use the highest increase as a gauge.
Commr. Shields asked if she could discuss the slide for road impact fee revenue projections.
Ms. Kamp explained that the full calculated amount was their best estimate of new gross cost minus what was contributed through taxes, and the maximum allowable was the HB 337 limits.
Commr. Shields mentioned that the south was collecting about half of what they should be collecting, and Ms. Kamp confirmed this.
Ms. Kamp said that the full fee would be $8 million to $9 million; however, they were only collecting about $4 million because it was not adopted at the full rate, adding that the rate was discounted.
Commr. Campione explained that was because of the legislation.
Commr. Shields opined that was an important slide, because it showed the County was not charging the full amount of what it cost them to provide infrastructure to the people moving in.
Commr. Parks said that they had the ability to waive or reduce the fees to 50 percent for attainable housing, and asked if they knew how many homes would be impacted by this.
Ms. Barker answered that she did not think they had a total number; however, the affordable housing permits were substantially lower than traditional residential and commercial permits.
Commr. Campione remarked that they could look at it annually and see what the collections were, and then they could cap the amount they wanted to waive or reduce each year to ensure they were not getting too far behind.
Ms. Kamp pointed out that some jurisdictions put a dollar cap on them, too.
Commr. Parks asked if they needed to make a decision that day or if they were just accepting the study.
Ms. Barker answered that they were only accepting the study on the current day and staff would then bring back any rate change proposals at a later date.
Commr. Parks commented that they had some decisions to make as they wanted to address attainable housing while realizing it was going to be difficult to try to catch up to the numbers greater than 15 years. He said that he would be reaching out for more input before they made a decision.
Commr. Blake suggested thinking about reducing the school impact fee to offset the transportation impact fee.
Commr. Parks mentioned that Commissioner Blake had brought up in the past the changes with the schools and how attendance numbers were not increasing as much as predicted, and noted that they would need to get the Lake County School Board’s input on that first.
Commr. Campione opined that it would be helpful to get updated information, adding that enrollment was helping to keep up with the brick and mortar side of schools, and she wondered if that was because there was less enrollment or because of what the fee was currently. She opined that there needed to be a discussion about the issue, pointing out that the roads were in desperate need of more funding. She then said that she was interested in talking more about the slide regarding the levels of service, and noted that from a legal standpoint, they were not allowed to limit a certain number of trips on the roads.
Ms. Kamp agreed with that, and noted that there was some room to discuss the impacts. She then said that the state legislation did away with concurrency except when there was a land use amendment or some intensification.
Commr. Campione mentioned that if someone already had certain entitlements on their property and came in for a permit or site plan approval, that might be treated differently than a situation where someone was asking to rezone to increase the number of units from one unit per acre to four units per acre. She opined that the BCC could deny that if they were at a level of service “F” because that would exceed the level of service, and that it was worth exploring. She then asked how they would change the way they graded roads, adding that the way they were currently graded allowed for more congestion.
Mr. Schneider explained that the level of service for county roads was measured by quality of life from the perception of the driver, and pointed out that a level of service “D” was for a certain level of congestion that was allowed in most of the county except in rural areas, which was a level of service “C”. He related that a level of service “E” meant it was at capacity based on planning standards, and that there was not much room for control of new growth by the current statute and legislation.
Commr. Campione asked if he agreed that they could deny an application to double the density or increase the square footage of a property if they were already at a level of service “F” until that level of service increased to an “E”.
Mr. Schneider replied that he thought they would have the ability to do that with Planned Unit Developments (PUD); however, he was unsure that could be done with regular rezoning applications.
Commr. Campione asked if they could make those decisions with state roads and not just county roads.
Mr. Schneider answered that they could make decisions based on what was adopted in the Comp Plan. He elaborated that if a development approval came through on a road that was over capacity, and it was happening within a city, it fell within that City’s Comp Plan regardless of whether it was a state or county road.
Commr. Campione agreed that it was complicated when Cities annexed property that was on a county road with a level of service “F”, and she hoped that the City would take into account the level of service when making their land use decision.
Mr. Schneider pointed out that one issue was that the roads were under-designed and underbuilt for what was being proposed even though they were not necessarily over capacity yet. He elaborated that they had many roads with no right of way and roads with only nine or 10 foot lanes, and that the added developments resulted in the need to improve the roadways.
Commr. Campione opined that needed to be part of the discussions with the Cities about the overall planning as it was intertwined with the land use, and that they needed to discuss how to handle the roads that were either at a level of service “E” or “F” as well as the ones that did not have the right of way to add the capacity to handle the additional trips.
Commr. Parks said that the biggest frustration from the residents was when they saw a development being planned on a road that was a level of service “E” or “F” and the County was told they had to approve it or could not factor that into the decision. He added that in reality, those decisions affected those roads.
Ms. Kamp indicated that this fee was conservative because it only included county road costs and not state road costs, and noted that many jurisdictions included both county and state roads in their fees, which were the higher fees shown in the comparisons.
Commr. Campione asked if they would have to remit that to the state if they included state roads.
Ms. Kamp replied that they would not, and noted that they would need to set the standard for state roads and possibly need to contribute towards some of the state roads by building parallel roads to help with the congestion on state roads.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study and directed staff to come back with recommendations at a later date.
PRESENTATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN ELEVATE LAKE
AND LEAD
Ms. Tracy Garcia, Interim Director for Economic Growth, explained that she would discuss a public/private partnership between the Office of Elevate Lake and Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD). She indicated that LEAD was an initiative created by Lake 100 to serve Lake County as a public/private partnership focused on the economic development of Lake County, representing a significant investment by the private sector in the growth of the community. She mentioned that LEAD had contracted with the Ocala/Marion County Chamber and Economic Partnership (Ocala CEP) to start this initiative. She related that LEAD gave a presentation to the BCC regarding a potential partnership at the January 25, 2022 BCC meeting, and that the BCC tabled LEAD’s request to allow time to gather additional information. She mentioned that the Office of Elevate Lake gave a presentation to the BCC at the Budget Strategies Workshop on February 15, 2022 detailing the Office of Elevate Lake’s mission and economic development activities, and at that time, the Office of Elevate Lake was asked to work with representatives of LEAD to craft a potential partnership plan to bring back to the BCC. She noted that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD representatives met on three occasions to discuss the potential partnership plan. She said that staff was asking for consideration and direction on this partnership plan, and noted that this plan was a starting point for a public/private partnership that would evolve over time as more of the details developed. She pointed out that the Office of Elevate Lake’s overall mission was to attract, retain, and grow higher wage jobs in Lake County in target industries such as agribusiness, agro technology, aviation/aerospace, life sciences/medical services, logistics/distribution, and manufacturing, noting that staff provided support for businesses of any size and across all industries. She mentioned that they currently had 5.5 full-time employees (FTEs), and noted that the Office Manager position was vacated in 2021 and was currently unfilled and unfunded for FY 2023 for an estimated savings of $78,300. She also said that one of the Business Development Manager positions was vacated in February 2022 and was currently unfilled and planned to be unfunded for FY 2023 for an estimated savings of $78,600; additionally, she said that the reduction of those two positions was estimated at $156,900 in savings. She indicated that their business attraction included bringing new businesses into Lake County through collaborative partnerships, strategic marketing, and business attraction efforts, specifying that they were the designated County Economic Development Office (EDO) with Enterprise Florida, Inc. (EFI) which ensured direct state leads, participation in EFI’s board meetings, and a presence in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) trade expos. She mentioned that LEAD had requested to be the EFI designated EDO for Lake County and by doing so the Office of Elevate Lake could then focus on special projects, such as hotel developments, to help build the tourism industry. She stated that the Office of Elevate Lake created and managed Lake County’s incentive programs, which were designed to assist with business attraction and expansion, and that upon receipt of a completed application, the Office of Elevate Lake verified eligibility of the project, prepared the item for BCC agenda review, and performed annual verification that the company met the requirements for the grant payments, if approved. She commented that LEAD would work with their attracted companies to fill out the necessary application paperwork then submit to the Office of Elevate Lake for processing. She displayed a slide showing their local and regional collaborations, and highlighted that the budget for the Business Opportunity Center through the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) with the University of Central Florida (UCF) had been reduced from $50,000 to $28,500 for FY 2023, as the City of Mount Dora location was no longer in place. She remarked that the SBDC at UCF agreement was renewed in August 2021, and the Orlando Economic Partnership (OEP) sponsorship was renewed in December 2021, noting that the paid sponsorships could change in the future considering potential overlap of services that may be provided by LEAD. She mentioned that the Office of Elevate Lake had helped more than 2,000 businesses through the Lake Cares grant program in 2020 for a total of $21.9 million and that most of their business retention and expansion referrals had come to them organically through their current business relationships, the chambers, website generation, and by community partners. She related that in-person company visitation resumed at the beginning of 2022. She pointed out that much of the entrepreneurship business support was accomplished through the Business Opportunity Center and that the SBDC staff provided training classes, one-on-one consulting resources, and specialized services at the center and remotely; furthermore, she said that Lake County provided the annual sponsorship of $150,000 to the SBDC to ensure that most of those services were free to Lake County businesses. She explained that another aspect of economic development was product development, as it was important for business attraction as well as available workforce. She related that collaboration was crucial for product development, as the end goal was to help develop shovel-ready sites that could be offered to new and expanding businesses so they could be operational in a cost effective and timely manner; additionally, she said that a good strategy for any EDO was knowing which sites and buildings were currently available, which sites needed rezoning to meet highest and best use, and what types of infrastructure needed to be put in place to make those sites viable to market. She mentioned that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD could collaborate on those types of product development initiatives. She explained that the Office of Elevate Lake could continue to focus on supporting Lake County’s strategic corridors such as Wellness Way, Wolf Branch Innovation District, and the Christopher C. Ford Commerce Park if LEAD took on the business attraction and marketing. She indicated that there were multiple projects either underway or in the planning stages in each of those corridors, and specified that they would assist Lake County and the City of Mount Dora to meet metrics within the 10 year timeframe to comply with the $2.5 million Florida Jobs Growth Grant that was secured in 2019 to negate repayment to the state for the Wolf Branch Innovation District. She mentioned that their workforce development included collaborating with employment agencies and local educational institutions to ensure that students and workforce skills were being cultivated to align with the business needs in the community, and by bringing workforce partners and businesses together through quarterly workforce taskforce meetings to ensure that the workforce development ecosystem was meeting the needs of the business community. She indicated that they would also work closely with education partners and businesses on programs and initiatives to bolster the workforce pipeline, and that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD could collaborate on workforce development initiatives. She displayed a chart showing their budget considerations, noting that the numbers were based on the FY 2022 budget and known expenditure updates moving forward for FY 2023, and that the expenditures were directly tied to the economic development tasks and initiatives discussed previously; however, the chart did not include federal or state grants and other miscellaneous operating expenditures for other aspects that were not relevant to the initiatives discussed. She mentioned that they did not have the estimate for personal services yet for FY 2023. She related that $43,400 of the $100,000 budgeted for promotional activities had been obligated for FY 2022 and that part of this commitment was to create a “Why Lake County” video to use for business attraction efforts through a $10,000 grant from the Duke Energy Foundation. She stated that the Aids to Government Agencies line included the Wellness Way consulting services at $35,000 per year for two years, the SBDC sponsorship, and the Business Opportunity Center located at the Hunt Industrial Park in the City of Groveland for a total of $213,500, which reflected the savings of the $21,500 for the elimination of the City of Mount Dora Business Opportunity Center.
Ms. Garcia then discussed the potential partnership with LEAD, and stated that LEAD’s goals and initiatives were to create a public/private partnership to assist and grow the existing business base and to help retain and create employment opportunities. She indicated that LEAD requested funding in the amount of $150,000 for FY 2022 and $500,000 for FY 2023. She mentioned that for business attraction, LEAD would recruit new primary employers to Lake County and had requested to be the EFI designated EDO for Lake County and pursue EFI leads and business expos. She related that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD would collaborate in the early stages of projects to verify eligibility for incentives when requested by a prospective business. She commented that LEAD and the Office of Elevate Lake would collaborate on project management and attraction marketing as needed. She pointed out that for business retention and expansion, LEAD would provide a visitation program where every industry would receive at least two visits a year, industry-focused training opportunities, and a Plant Managers group. She related that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD would collaborate with municipalities, chambers of commerce, and other local, regional, and state groups to assist existing businesses with retention and expansion efforts to ensure equitable representation regardless of LEAD membership status. She stated that the Office of Elevate Lake would continue to work on existing expansion projects bringing in LEAD as needed, and that they would also manage County initiated projects or programs, such as the Lake Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) resident assistance grant program that was done in 2020, as directed by the County Manager or the BCC. She said that for business creation and entrepreneurship, LEAD would provide direct, one-on-one counseling as well as training and networking opportunities, incorporating the widely regarded 1 Million Cups and FastTrac programs from the Kauffman Foundation, and that the Office of Elevate Lake would assist as needed. She indicated that the Office of Elevate Lake would continue to partner with UCF to provide a Business Opportunity Center at the Hunt Industrial Park in the City of Groveland, and that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD would collaborate on product and workforce development initiatives. She then emphasized the importance of strategy and strategic planning, and noted that an updated strategic plan was needed for the county; additionally, she opined that a partnership between the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD could be a catalyst for moving forward with an update, and that strategic planning should be a collaborative effort with all stakeholders involved to craft a plan to guide Lake County’s short term and long term economic goals.
Mr. Kevin Sheilley, President and CEO of the Ocala/Marion County Chamber & Economic Partnership (CEP), stated that he was enthusiastic about the opportunity for the partnership between LEAD and the Office of Elevate Lake, and he thanked Ms. Garcia and her team. He mentioned that this was about a partnership regarding how they could advance development opportunities and jobs in Lake County.
Commr. Campione asked if he believed this partnership format would work.
Mr. Sheilley answered that he did, and that what they had done in Marion County was very similar. He said he believed that the private side should handle the business attraction, and the government side should handle the coordination of incentives. He mentioned that they would make recommendations, and the County would manage it.
Commr. Shields asked how they could keep this from becoming a political issue, and mentioned that in the past, the BCC had Lake 100 contribute on decisions they were making, opining that it did not help.
Mr. Sheilley opined that there would always be a political side as long as government was involved and that there would be projects along the way that people did not want. He related that their next step was to put together a strategic plan to address the County’s broader goals and that LEAD would list out things they planned to do on a monthly basis in a memorandum of agreement with the County and give a performance metric showing how they were doing, which he opined was the best way to depoliticize economic development as it was more about delivering on what they said they would do.
Commr. Shields asked if the Cities were on board yet.
Mr. Sheilley replied that he would have to defer to the members of Lake 100 who were involved with LEAD on that; however, he believed that the Cities were on board.
Commr. Blake asked which Cities were on board.
Ms. Mandy Wettstein, with the Leesburg Area Chamber of Commerce, answered that the Cities of Leesburg, Tavares, Mount Dora, Eustis, and Umatilla were all on board. She noted that the Town of Lady Lake and the Cities of Fruitland Park and Clermont had committed; however, they still had to go through their formal process. She related that the Cities of Groveland, Mascotte, and Minneola had not committed yet.
Commr. Campione opined that was a good starting point and that hopefully the others would come along as well.
Commr. Blake asked if “committed” meant that the City Manager expressed interest and would take it for a vote.
Ms. Wettstein replied that some Cities had done that or had committed funds, but had not gone through their FY 2023 process yet. She related that there were some verbal commitments and some formal commitments.
Commr. Campione opined that looking at the breakdown of the various responsibilities of the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD was an important component to this and should help the Cities make their decisions. She said that all of the Cities would be part of the Lake County economic development mission; however, it would be ideal to have all 14 Cities plus the County on board.
Ms. Wettstein addressed Commissioner Shields’ comment earlier about Lake 100, and emphasized that LEAD was not going to be part of Lake 100 and was a completely separate organization run by people who had nothing to do with Lake 100.
Commr. Smith expressed that he was eager about having a public/private partnership in economic development, and noted that they could gauge the success of this organization by the performance matrix. He opined that they should move forward with this partnership and see where it led the County, and that it was a good opportunity for businesses to have the expertise of both the public and private sector.
Commr. Parks said that he appreciated all of the work on this and that he was in favor of moving forward with the partnership. He mentioned that the City of Clermont seemed interested; however, they still had some questions, and that he would try to facilitate that. He stressed that this would affect every City in Lake County as they were all part of a community, and economic development would affect them no matter how small or large they were. He urged the Cities who had not committed to seriously consider this and not disregard the potential growth.
Commr. Campione explained that the growth they were discussing was high wage job creation, job development, and bringing companies into the county that could provide career opportunities for students graduating from Lake Technical College and Lake-Sumter State College, so that after graduating they were not moving elsewhere to find their dream job.
Commr. Parks commented that the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD would create a team to provide the BCC with data and studies to help them make decisions about the economic impacts of a land use decision which would help them get the right kind of growth that would provide higher wages and not be a fiscal drain on the County. He said that he believed there was a higher and better use of land, and that should factor into their decisions, opining that what they thought may be good growth may actually not be good and may not serve them well.
Mr. Sheilley mentioned that although they wanted all the Cities involved and engaged as that benefited everyone, he said it did not matter as their goal was to help people start and grow businesses in Lake County, as well as to help existing businesses expand. He remarked that this was not a pay to play scenario.
Commr. Shields asked if there was any risk if the Cities of Groveland, Mascotte, and Minneola never committed to this.
Mr. Sheilley answered that there was not, adding that they could make a bigger impact with the more resources they had; however, they were only interested in winning projects and creating jobs.
Commr. Blake mentioned that he had called some of his contacts in Marion County and everyone had nothing but great reviews about Mr. Sheilley and the CEP, adding that he was impressed with that. He then asked about the confidentiality of the initial stage of a project and how that information would be shared according to state law.
Ms. Marsh answered that if they gave the EDO designation to LEAD then the County would no longer have access to that confidential information. She mentioned that in the past some companies came to the County for the tax rebate program and the County kept their information confidential as they wanted to lock that down before they announced what they were doing and where they were going; however, that would not be allowed anymore if the designation was given to LEAD.
Mr. Sheilley pointed out that they did not allow companies who came for incentives to do projects under code names as they wanted them to come publicly, even though he believed that Section 288.075, Florida Statutes, allowed for confidentiality for a period of time even when done by a third party.
Commr. Parks remarked that this policy was to keep it transparent and public.
Mr. Sheilley confirmed this, and added that he would not want to be asked to approve incentives for a company without knowing what company it was. He opined that the BCC and the public needed to know how the funds were being used because then the BCC could decide whether it would be a good investment for the community.
Commr. Blake commented that he had a long conversation with a member of the executive board of LEAD on that current week that helped him feel more comfortable about this, specifying that he wanted to make sure the Board understood all of the implications of this partnership. He related that one of his concerns was about giving up the EDO designation and whether there would be a political issue to gain that back if something did not work out. He stated that he asked LEAD if they would be comfortable having a two year sunset, noting that the EDO designation would expire and come back to the County, and then they could reauthorize it if desired; furthermore, he said that LEAD indicated they were comfortable with that. He mentioned that his other concern was about making sure they were not only complying with the law, but they were also complying with the spirit of the law. He said that he asked if they would be comfortable with this going out as an RFP to make sure they were following all procedures, and he indicated that LEAD informed him that they were fine with that. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with this partnership if they could do those two things, adding that he wanted to make sure they were doing their due diligence.
Commr. Parks said that it was his understanding that they were going to evaluate the LEAD effort in one year after it had officially kicked off.
Commr. Blake thought that reassessing after two years was better than only after one year since that gave them more time to see how this was progressing.
Mr. Sheilley indicated that moving the EDO designation only required a letter from the BCC, and that they did not have to set a timeframe for it as they could change it anytime. He then suggested that the BCC give them two years before evaluating, so that they had a better chance of demonstrating what they could do.
Commr. Campione mentioned that she did not see a difference in setting a sunset to evaluate after a certain time as opposed to having the opportunity of deciding at any time to change the designation.
Commr. Blake commented that getting monthly reports would make him feel better as well.
Commr. Campione agreed that monthly reports would be critical. She then said that she was unsure whether an RFP was necessary for this situation since it was unique, adding that LEAD had the expertise of working closely with an adjoining County, and she was not sure they would find another organization with such a perfect fit.
Commr. Blake remarked that he suspected that was the case and that putting an RFP out would confirm that.
Commr. Campione mentioned that the timing would be a concern.
Commr. Blake asked what the timeline would be if they put out an RFP.
Ms. Barker responded that they typically put out RFPs for no less than two weeks.
Commr. Smith asked if this would require an RFP.
Ms. Marsh answered that State law would not require them to bid this as it was not a service or public works project; additionally, she said that according to County procurement policies, if the BCC determined it was a sole source, then they would not need to do any competitive procurement.
Commr. Smith commented that he agreed with the sunset idea and having it come back in two years for a ratification vote; however, he did not think an RFP was necessary as he had done his own due diligence on this over the past few months and would not want to create delays to investigate a new company should one come up during the RFP process.
Commr. Parks related that he looked at this as a sole source.
Commr. Blake clarified that he did too; however, he felt that the proposal happened very rapidly and he wanted to make sure they had protection for the taxpayers.
Ms. Wettstein commented that if they put out an RFP they could potentially stall the momentum they had going from the two years of work that had been put into this, especially since they had secured many private sector partners and investors, as well as most of the Cities. She elaborated that this had all been done based upon the LEAD model which was very transparent and that speaking for Lake 100, they would not support an RFP.
Commr. Blake opined that the BCC’s fiduciary responsibility was to the Lake County taxpayers and not to a private, paid, membership-only organization. He also opined that the two years of planning had not been transparent as most people did not even know who Lake 100 was. He reiterated that he was more comfortable with it after doing his own due diligence; however, he would only support it if an RFP was included.
Commr. Campione indicated that she interpreted the presentation to mean that this was the framework for a partnership and that staff wanted BCC direction on whether to start moving forward with the logistics of it. She added that they could still keep the momentum going and could try to have all five Commissioners voting in favor of this.
Commr. Shields said that he agreed with Commissioner Blake; however, he pointed out that a safeguard was built in so that the BCC could stop this at any time.
Commr. Blake stated that philosophically he liked this idea and the private sector involvement; however, he believed their role was to represent the taxpayers and make sure the process was fair. He hoped it was successful if it passed.
Commr. Shields asked what the requested action was.
Ms. Barker explained that staff was recommending to move forward with the partnership with LEAD as previously described, and to approve the requested funding of $150,000 for FY 2022 and $500,000 for FY 2023.
Commr. Smith asked if LEAD would be taking over all of the marketing, noting that $750,000 was designated for another marketing group that they could give to LEAD.
Ms. Garcia answered that they would take over the majority of the marketing, and pointed out that the $750,000 was for the Office of Visit Lake, which was for tourism and was a completely different office.
Commr. Campione suggested approving the $150,000 to take them through the end of this fiscal year and then doing a request for quotation (RFQ) over the next two to three weeks to see if there were any other organizations out there willing to make an offer, which she thought was highly unlikely; however, it would show that they went through the regular process.
Ms. Barker indicated that the $150,000 was not an issue for the current year; however, they could hold off on the $500,000 and add it later in the budget process for FY 2023, as they could do that any time through September 2022.
Ms. Marsh commented that a contract would come back to the BCC setting forth all of the performance measures and deliverables, and at that point, they could determine how they wanted to fund it.
Commr. Shields made a motion to move forward with the funding request of $150,000 for FY 2022 and to work on a contract for the Office of Elevate Lake and LEAD partnership, and Commissioner Smith seconded the motion.
Ms. Barker asked to clarify if they would also move forward with an RFP.
Commr. Campione opined that the RFP needed to be done within a two to three week period, and Ms. Barker confirmed they could do that. Commissioner Campione said that they could look at any other offers at the same time as when they were making a decision on the contract at an upcoming meeting.
Commr. Dan Robuck, with the City of Leesburg, stated that he understood the reason for the RFP; however, he was concerned since they had well over six figures in private sector funding waiting on this decision and that this could negatively impact their ability to move forward. He opined that this was very transparent, as it had been discussed publicly now for months, and he wished the idea of an RFP had been brought up with the initial concerns so it could have been addressed instead of it being brought up at the last minute while people were waiting to make financial commitments. He opined that all of these financial commitments could go away if there was a change, as everything was based on this particular model.
Commr. Smith said that he did not think the motion included an RFP.
Commr. Parks commented that it would entail another three weeks of uncertainty, and noted that the Board would have the contract in front of them and could address it at that point.
Commr. Campione asked if the private contributions were transparent.
Mr. Sheilley replied that anyone could visit their website and see who the investors were and at what level.
Commr. Blake asked if he thought a brief two week inclusion of an RFP would negatively impact this.
Mr. Sheilley answered that he could not answer to the fundraising aspect of it as he had not been involved in it; however, he opined that it was a little disingenuous that they had worked hard to outline an entire proposal that would now be public, opining that someone else could look at it and possibly see if they could do better. He remarked that they would have been agreeable to an RFQ had it been brought up earlier.
Commr. Blake remarked that he had asked these questions all along and did not think his behavior was disingenuous.
Commr. Campione opined that this had been a great discussion, and that it had been refreshing to be open and talk about their concerns. She agreed with Commissioner Blake that their fiduciary responsibility was to the taxpayers of Lake County and noted that they tried to make sure they were making the best decision for the taxpayers. She related that after all of the work she had done and the research others had done, she was comfortable with it and did not believe there was anyone else who could offer something better as this was a unique situation, and she did not want to lose this opportunity. She said that she would like to think that the people who committed funds would stay on board for the next three weeks. She mentioned that everyone involved had been working on this together and were trying to come up with the best long range process for economic development and bringing in and retaining high wage jobs, opining that they had a good proposal. She indicated that she liked the idea of having a two year sunset requiring an automatic review; however, she could modify her position on the RFP or RFQ.
Ms. Barker then repeated the motion on the floor, which was to have staff bring back a contract, to approve the funding request of $150,000 for FY 2022 and $500,000 for FY 2023 since they no longer wanted to do an RFP, and then have the EDO designation sunset in two years from the signing of the contract.
Commr. Smith remarked that he believed this motion carried into their fiduciary responsibility, as the $150,000 was for the current year and there would be a reevaluation of the $500,000 for FY 2023, which was a perfect segue into their responsibility of ensuring the taxpayers’ money was correctly taken care of.
Commr. Blake said that he hoped this was successful as he thought it was a unique and innovative model and that he was comfortable with LEAD’s transparency and how they operated; however, he would have been more comfortable with an RFP.
Commr. Smith asked if the sunset could be brought up for a vote of whether to sunset or not instead of being automatic, especially if the partnership was going well.
Ms. Barker replied that they would have to vote in two years; however, they could fix it along the way if they wanted to do that before then.
Commr. Campione mentioned that when they got the contract they would also be looking at monthly reports. She then commended staff on how great of a job they were doing with interacting with businesses, adding that she hoped this partnership would help to free up staff so they could do more, and that this would be a good relationship.
Commr. Parks opined that they had a very talented group, and that this was being viewed as a great addition.
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved for a contract to pay $150,000 for the current year, and that $500,000 be placed in the budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, with a provision to sunset the economic development organization (EDO) designation in two years.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: Resolution 2022-53 vacate platted right of way
Mr. Schneider presented Tab 21, which was a public hearing for vacation petition #1267. He explained that the owner was Ms. Patricia Powers, and that the property was located in the City of Umatilla area in Commission District 4. He showed on a property map that the road to be vacated was located east of County Road (CR) 450 and north of East Umatilla Boulevard, and that the applicant owned both sides of the right of way, noting that there were no utilities or roads there. He elaborated that on the west side, there were some lots which the applicant would combine into one large lot once this was vacated, and that there was a buyer who had requested that it be vacated before they closed on the property. He related that one benefit of this vacation was that if the property was developed, it could reduce the number of driveways along CR 450 and provide for safer access to CR 450 from East Umatilla Boulevard, adding that staff recommended approval of the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2022-53 to vacate a platted right of way located east of CR 450 and north of East Umatilla Boulevard. The closest municipality is the City of Umatilla.
Public hearing: Resolution 2022-54 vacate parts of rights of way
Mr. Schneider presented Tab 22, which was a public hearing for vacation petition #1269. He explained that the applicant was Mr. Andrew Murray Johnson, who was the owner and registered agent for Shadow Oak Farms, LLC, and that the property was located northwest of Lake Yale in the City of Leesburg area, in Commission District 4. He showed on a property map that the proposed vacation was located east of CR 452 and south of Em En El Grove Road, and that it was originally an unrecorded plat of Higley. He elaborated that the applicant owned both sides of the right of ways, and that there were no letters of objection or utility issues. He commented that if approved, the portions of right of way to be vacated would not leave any lots, blocks, or parcels without access, and that the applicant would combine the individual parcels into one, adding that staff recommended approval.
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. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2022-54 to vacate portions of unimproved rights of way as shown on the unrecorded Map of Higley located east of CR 452 and south of Emeralda Island Road. The closest municipality is the City of Leesburg.
Town of montverde traffic calming
Commr. Parks commented that he wanted to discuss a letter he had received from the Town of Montverde regarding traffic calming on CR 455, and that Mayor Joe Wynkoop was in attendance. He explained that there were concerns about increased traffic and speeding in the Town of Montverde, and that there was a request to receive assistance from the County. He elaborated that Mr. Schneider had been working with them to make recommendations, noting that there were some solutions that would require a vote from the Board.
Mr. Schneider mentioned that the Town of Montverde had requested that the County evaluate traffic safety and speed on CR 455 within the Town limits, and that staff had obtained traffic volume and speed counts from TEDS, Inc., which had been hired under contract with the County. He related that staff had evaluated possible improvements within the Town of Montverde and had proposed both short-term and long-term solutions, adding that some of these had been discussed with the Town. He displayed a map which showed the town limits and the roadways that go through the town, such as CR 455, Ridgewood Avenue, and Fosgate Road, and a graph showing a 20 year traffic count. He commented that the total volumes of traffic had not varied much over time, noting that it was around 2,800 vehicles per day. He explained that these counts were taken every year in the winter when the volume was highest, and that there were two count stations which monitored speed limits on CR 455. He elaborated that the speed data received from TEDS, Inc. indicated that where the speed limit changed southeast of Fosgate Road from 45 MPH to 35 MPH, 85 percent of traffic traveled within an expected range of the speed limit, and that traveling farther east, the average traffic speed was very close to the posted speed limit. He relayed that they also counted directional traffic, noting that the volume of traffic significantly exceeding the speed limit was 85 percent higher leaving the Town, and he questioned how they could carry over the slower speed limits on the far edge of the area near Fosgate Road. He mentioned that one option was to move the 35 MPH speed limit on CR 455 to the west side of Fosgate Road, which would move that speed transition area to the west side of Fosgate Road; furthermore, it would work well with the future fire station proposed for that area. He commented that a three way stop at Fosgate Road and CR 455 was requested by the Town because of increased traffic and a hill coming from the south, adding that staff recommended it. He related that the County had put in residential area signs, and that there was an existing radar sign near the count station location going east into town but not going out; therefore, they could put another radar sign at that location and two more radar signs by the other count station. He mentioned that resurfacing was going to occur this year in that location, and that the County could reduce the lane width to 10 feet with a two foot shoulder, opining that this could result in some change in speed even though it did not obstruct the roadway itself. He commented that the speed limit and stop signs were on the agenda for a May 2022 BCC meeting, and that the radar signs would have to be ordered, noting that they were $3,500 each. He said that this was the short-term plan, and that once these things were in place, the County could take those counts again to see if it made a difference. He elaborated that some traffic calming features in the future could include an island splitter, such as the one on Morningside Drive in the City of Mount Dora, which was a vertical obstruction that helped with traffic; however, it would not work well with a fire station and high emergency access. He related that staff could explore these options in a couple of locations for the next two to three years, and that they would work with the Town to establish agreements for maintaining the landscaping. He mentioned that other locations that had been considered for a traffic calming islands were where Hillside Drive and Gladys Street intersected with CR 455, and that if the landscaping was not desired, it could have brick or colored concrete in the middle. He related that a complete street section could change the perception of the roadway itself, and that staff had requested funding from Lake-Sumter (Metropolitan Planning Organization) MPO for a design of a complete street section. He explained that with a complete street section, the perception of a road could be changed, opining that people drove what they felt was reasonably safe, and that if the road was open, it could invite a higher speed. He commented that this would be a long-term goal, and that the County was working with other Cities and other areas and asking the Lake-Sumter MPO to place it on the work program for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funding for design. He elaborated that it could include a section of trail, which the County had laid out in the past but lacked the right of way to complete. He said that the summary included the following: lowering the speed limit to 35 MPH through the Fosgate Road intersection; installing additional signage designating residential areas; placing additional radar feedback signs; installing a multi-way stop at the intersection of CR 455 and Fosgate Road; resurfacing CR 455 with 10 foot lanes and 2 foot shoulders; and then evaluating speed and traffic data upon completion of the short-term improvements. He reiterated that the long-term improvements included designing additional traffic calming improvements, such as splitter islands and pedestrian treatments for trails, and identifying funding for installation, reiterating that a request had been made to Lake-Sumter MPO.
Commr. Parks remarked that he wanted the Board to know about the issue, adding that the request would come before the Board at the May 2022 BCC meeting for the speed limit and stop signs. He mentioned that there had been discussion about lowering the speed limit from 35 MPH to 30 in the town limits, but that could be discussed another time. He commented that staff would present the complete streets plan to the MontverdeTown Council in either June or July 2022, and that it could include the use of speed tables at a crosswalk.
Mr. Schneider commented that staff was aware of the concern and would continue to monitor it, adding that they could move forward with other improvements, if needed, to help control speed in that area.
City of Eustis request to purchase Lake county fairgrounds
Commr. Parks related that there were two appraisals for the selling of the fairgrounds property to the City of Eustis, noting that this sale had been part of the plan for many years to move the fairgrounds to Tavares. He commented that there needed to be a decision to move forward with selling it and what price it would be, opining that the County should work with the City of Eustis on the price.
Mr. Tom Carrino, Interim City Manager for the City of Eustis, mentioned that in 1967, the City of Eustis gave the property to the County for the purpose of the fairgrounds. He said that the most recent appraisal was $2.87 million, and that the City would not be able to purchase the property for that amount. He relayed that much had changed since 1967, and he hoped that there would be some consideration for the potential sale back to the City. He commented that they were willing to work with the County to potentially acquire the property, and that they would listen to what the Board had to say.
Commr. Smith remarked that he was in favor of the opportunity, and that the City of Eustis and the County could work together, adding that even though it had been given to the County, there had been improvements on the property. He opined that they could reach a mutually beneficial price, and that the County could use the old fairgrounds while the new facility was being built. He said that these things could be negotiated, and he expressed appreciation that the City of Eustis would engage in these discussions.
Commr. Parks asked if the Board wanted to negotiate a price which was less than the last appraisal for the sale, and Commissioner Smith indicated that he was in favor of that.
Commr. Campione inquired what the price range would be for the City of Eustis.
Mr. Carrino replied that no numbers had been discussed at the last City Commission meeting.
Commr. Smith opined that negotiations were for that purpose.
Commr. Parks opined that it would be between the first and the last appraisal.
Commr. Campione asked what the first appraisal was.
Ms. Barker replied that it was about $1.6 million in 2018.
Commr. Parks said that he was in favor of working with the City of Eustis, and that the County could move forward with negotiations.
Commr. Shields inquired about the value of the improvements.
Commr. Campione opined that it could be listed on the appraisal.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could find out what the assets were valued at, and that they would include the construction of the expo hall and the pavilions.
Mr. Carrino opined that the appraisal did not include improvements because the value was determined as a redevelopment site.
Commr. Campione commented that the property could be divided, which could create more value.
Commr. Parks reiterated that the County was willing to work with the City of Eustis on the price, and not go with the highest appraisal, adding that the County would start the negotiations and keep the Board informed.
Ms. Barker said that she would keep in touch with Mr. Carrino as he moved through the process with the City of Eustis, and that she would inform the Board of the County’s discussions with them.
Commr. Campione opined that moving the relocation process along as quickly as possible should be a priority.
Ms. Barker related that there was a feasibility study being done currently, and that there was a meeting on the following week with the consultant who was doing that study to review some options. She pointed out that most of the expense would be from the expo center, and that the County wanted to harden the building for use as a multipurpose shelter and training facility. She mentioned that if the Board would rather have a nice air-conditioned facility to be used for the expo center, that was also an option.
Commr. Campione opined that both should be considered along with the difference in price.
Ms. Barker commented that it was a significant change in price to harden the facility to make it ready for special needs.
Commr. Campione wondered if it could be done in phases, opining that there could be a way to move the fair while considering whether or not to harden the new expo center. She mentioned that the County could begin the process of improving the property and hold the fair at the new location, adding that it would give them some options to review.
Commr. Smith agreed and asked if the master plan was completed or near completion.
Ms. Barker replied that the County would receive the options for the expo center at the meeting on the following week, noting that there were 41 acres.
Commr. Campione commented that the negotiations with the City of Eustis should also be considered, opining that the County could continue to use the building while making the transition. She related that this would allow the County to generate revenue and have operations as usual while completing the improvements to the new property, and that the fair could be moved later.
Ms. Barker mentioned that in the legislative request, the County requested funding for design of the expo building, and that it was awaiting a signature from the Governor. She said that the County had also requested federal funding through Congressman Daniel Webster’s office, and that the County was seeking funding opportunities and other innovative ways to acquire funding. She emphasized that the expo center was key, and that even if there was a temporary location, the fair could not be held there without it.
Commr. Parks opined that the City of Eustis would be willing to allow the fair to continue on the property, and that they only needed certainty to move forward with their plans. He wondered about the construction manager and the numbers he had seen.
Ms. Barker related that the new construction manager had started, and that the position was filled.
Commr. Parks inquired what the impact could potentially be on the cost, opining that the price per square foot could go up for government work.
Ms. Barker commented that it could have a large impact on price, and that the construction manager could come in to address some generalities related to construction and how to reduce costs using the construction manager process.
Commr. Parks noted that there was a consensus to sell the property to the City of Eustis and that the Board would be updated at a future meeting.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 12:45 p.m. for five minutes.
regular agenda
GFL solid waste southeast and waste pro of florida rate change
Ms. Mary Hamilton, Operations Director for the Office of Public Works, explained that she would provide background of what two of the three waste haulers were requesting, and that their representatives would be available to answer questions. She related that after receiving requests for a rate adjustment from GFL Solid Waste Southeast (GFL) and Waste Pro of Florida, she had contacted the third hauler and learned that they would not be submitting anything. She displayed a map showing the areas serviced by those companies, and commented that the contracts currently in place would not expire until September 30, 2027, adding that there was one final renewal available for one additional term of three years unless the haulers or the County chose not to renew. She elaborated that the extraordinary rate adjustment requested was allowed under section 38.5 of the contract, and that the haulers could petition the County every year before April 1 for this type of rate adjustment based on extraordinary or unusual changes in the cost of operations. She stated that if the County Manager denied the request, the contractor could ask for a hearing before the Board, which they both did; furthermore, the Board had 60 days after the request for a hearing to approve or deny, and the Board’s decision was final and non-appealable. She relayed that if the contractor’s request was granted in whole or in part, the Board would have the right to later reduce the contractor’s rates if the factors that caused the price increase have changed. She commented that in Area 1, GFL’s request was to adjust their once a week service rate to $17.67 per month, which was a 32 percent increase from the current rate of $13.37 per month, and that for their twice a week customers, the rate would go up to $19.53 per month from $16.09 per week, which was a 21 percent increase. She said that in Area 3, Waste Pro’s request was to adjust their once a week service rate to $18.61 per month from $14.61 per month, which was a 27 percent increase, and that their twice a week service would be $23.94 per month from $19.94 per month, which was a 20 percent increase. She displayed a chart showing what the rates to the customers would look like, and explained that Area 2 showed the $6 assessment increase, which was discussed during the strategies workshop. She relayed that Areas 1 and 3 showed the current requests in addition to the $6 assessment increase, which resulted in about a $51 increase annually for the once a week customers and a $41 increase annually for the twice a week customers in Area 1, and a $48 annual increase for the customers in Area 3.
Commr. Parks mentioned that the Board had received a copy of the financial statements that were submitted, noting that they were revenue and expenses attributable just to Lake County, and he asked if the County could ask for the corporate-wide financial statements.
Ms. Marsh replied that the contract stated that they had to give an audited statement of contractor’s historical and current expenses demonstrating that the contractor had incurred an extraordinary increase in the cost due to factors beyond their control, which had occurred through no fault or negligence of their own. She commented that it did not specify the extent of that, but she recalled that several years ago, the contractors were requested to provide an overall company audit, which were not provided.
Commr. Parks wondered if they were incurring losses from local operations or if it was corporate-wide, reiterating that they had only submitted what was attributable to Lake County.
Ms. Marsh commented that the contract said that the County could audit the contractor’s records at the County’s expense.
Commr. Smith wondered why Areas 1 and 3 were different than Area 2 for the same work, and asked if the options included approving or not approving this.
Ms. Barker indicated that was correct, and commented that she had already sent a denial, noting that they were exercising their right to appeal to the Board.
Commr. Smith inquired if the contractors would stop their service if the request was denied.
Ms. Marsh said that they were in attendance, and that they would need an opportunity to present their case.
Mr. Jake Pack, District Manager at GFL Environmental, related that the contractor for Area 2 owned the transfer station and landfill that was used by all the haulers, and that instead of petitioning the County, they had increased their fees to the haulers by 30 percent for disposal costs, noting that they listed the same reasons, such as labor, oil, steel, and transportation. He commented that these increases went into effect April 1, 2022, and that they would not be on the audited financial statements. He mentioned that he had moved to Lake County in 2013 when GFL was awarded Area 1, and that he was asking for the extraordinary rate adjustment due to the increase of costs across the board. He relayed that he was proud of GFL and their local hauling team, noting that they had met challenges in the prior year. He commented that issues around the state included the following: recycling in the City of Jacksonville had been suspended for eight months; St. Johns County still did not have yard waste collection; Clay County still did not have recycling collection; and Polk County suspended recycling collection and was considering purchasing their own collection vehicles to collect trash. He stated that GFL had not suspended any services in the State of Florida, opining that it was noteworthy considering all the challenges the industry faced. He explained that the nationwide commercial driver shortage was exacerbated the previous year by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that they had multiple open positions; additionally, many employees either tested positive or came in close contact with someone who did. He elaborated that they changed their starting pay rates and started offering $4,000 sign-on bonuses, which increased labor by 10 percent. He said that their maintenance costs increased in the following areas; tires went up 25 percent; electrical components increased as much as 200 percent as computer chips were difficult to obtain due to the global supply chain shortage; truck rims increased 30 percent; and batteries went up 45 percent. He mentioned that they were given the directive from their corporate maintenance department to start inventorying rims and batteries for six months out because of the shortages, and that they continued that practice currently. He related that disposal was also a factor as the rates continued to climb, adding that in 2014, recycling was free with a rebate, and that currently, they were paying over $60 per ton to dispose of recyclables not including the 30 percent increase that occurred on April 1, 2022. He asked that the Board would consider their request for the extraordinary rate adjustment, and mentioned that Flagler and Citrus County contracts had expired during the previous year, and that their residents were now paying $30 per month. He noted that their rates were half of that, and opined that they were not asking for that much of an adjustment, adding that they just wanted to be made whole in their costs of doing business in Lake County.
Commr. Blake inquired what the dollar amount impact to GFL was for the $13 per ton rate adjustment, and what it would do to their costs for Lake County.
Mr. Pack replied that the dollar amount was $60 per ton, and that it would cost about $10,000 per month. He explained that the County had a contract with the haulers to take garbage to the landfill, and that the County also used the landfill for yard waste, adding that they had to pay for the recycling.
Commr. Blake asked if the total impact to GFL from that $13 per ton increase was $120,000 annually, and Mr. Pack indicated that it was correct.
Commr. Smith inquired if the Area 3 hauler was present.
Ms. Hamilton replied that Mr. Platt Loftis was in attendance.
Commr. Campione asked if only the recyclables were going to the transfer station.
Mr. Pack said that it was for the Lake County contract, adding that they took more there, but it was not from the residential contract for Area 1.
Commr. Campione inquired what the process was for recyclables.
Mr. Pack explained that Waste Connections transferred it to the City of Miami, and that there was a facility there that sorted them and put them on ships.
Commr. Campione asked if the County had any responsibility to ensure that it was recycled.
Ms. Hamilton commented that if it was a properly permitted facility, the County would have no responsibility.
Commr. Parks opined that the company made a large investment to position themselves in recycling.
Mr. Loftis, a representative of Waste Pro of Florida, mentioned that two years prior when the contract was extended, there was a much different economic reality than there was now, noting that prices were stable, inflation was only 1.5 percent, and truck parts were available for next day delivery. He commented that since the COVID-19 pandemic, everything had changed, and that frontline commodity pricing in rolled steel, fuels, oil, hydraulic fluid, truck parts, tires, technology, labor, and processing fees had increased. He relayed they were asking the Board for some relief, opining that it was not sustainable to continue in this inflationary mode. He said that the independent audit, which covered the previous three years, showed that in FY 2021, there was a net loss of $2.1 million. He remarked that this was an economic issue and a matter of fact, and that they were not trying to increase their bottom line. He opined that this was a unique inflationary situation that necessitated this request, and that it was currently unsustainable. He mentioned that it was not happening in Lake County alone, and that they had the same request for the Town of Montverde and other municipalities that they had contracts with before the pandemic. He concluded that they were asking for a $4 rate increase, and that even though it seemed like a lot, it would just make them whole.
Commr. Smith inquired if this contract would not be sustainable if this increase was not approved.
Mr. Loftis indicated that this was correct; however, they valued their contract with the County and did not want to leave. He hoped that they could move forward with some type of agreement, adding that they had invested in property and employed many Lake County residents, and that it would not behoove them to leave. He said that if inflation kept rising, they would eventually have to make a business decision.
Commr. Smith commented that he understood about having to make a business decision, and asked if the hauler for Area 2 had the capacity to provide service to Areas 1 and 3.
Ms. Barker replied that she could have Ms. Hamilton reach out to the Area 2 vendor to see if they had that capacity.
Commr. Smith opined that the County should have a contingency policy in case it became unsustainable, and that he was not in favor of increasing the rates on residents by 35 to 40 percent. He commented that if there was a company that would work with the regular assessment that was discussed in the workshop, and if one company was unsustainable and had to make a business decision, then there would be a contingency plan to move forward, so the County would not be left without these services.
Commr. Parks explained that the request was to approve the rate increase either whole or in part.
Commr. Blake remarked that he would not be comfortable making that decision until there was a contingency plan evaluated, opining that the Board needed to protect residents from rate increases.
Commr. Parks commented that they did not have to make a decision on the current day until there were some answers to those questions.
On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied the request for the rate increase of Areas 1 and 3, and approved a contingency plan with Area 2 if Areas 1 and 3 voluntarily pulled out of their contracts.
public hearing: Resolution 2022-52 FY 2022 supplemental budget
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, stated that the purpose of the mid-year budget amendment was to make adjustments to the FY 2022 budget to add previously unanticipated revenues and expenditures and to include any necessary changes that had been identified including the beginning fund balances. She related that the current countywide budget, which included previously approved unanticipated revenue resolutions, was $667.53 million, and the proposed changes for the current day were $33.02 million, which would bring the supplemental budget to $700.55 million. She mentioned that the total mid-year adjustments for the General Fund revenues were $850,000 and included adjustments for revised revenue projections for the state shared revenue and state sales tax receipts, noting that they were currently trending higher than the initial estimates made during the budget process the previous year. She commented that the total mid-year adjustments for the General Fund expenditures were $850,000 and included the following: $170,000 for camera system upgrades at the jail, which was 50 percent of the funding for that project; $84,000 for parking garage railing repairs; $79,000 related to personnel changes; security enhancements at the Astor drop off center and housing office; a rate adjustment for the County’s share of the Medical Examiner’s Office, which was attributable to the population increase the County had seen; and other miscellaneous adjustments, such as temporary labor for the Office of Planning and Zoning and software maintenance for judicial support in the amount of $64,000. She said that after the mid-year adjustment, the net effect to the fund balance for the General Fund was minimal, and that it increased reserves by $250,000, which totaled $31.9 million, representing 19.1 percent of the operating budget. She related that the current Board policy stated that reserves should be between seven and 12 percent of operating expenses, and that the long range target of adopted reserves was a minimum of 16.7 percent, which was the recommended best practice by the Government Finance Officer’s Association (GFOA) for Counties. She elaborated that the total adjustments to the other funds were approximately $32.2 million and included the following: adjustments to the beginning fund balances due to audit adjustments; about $1 million in adjustments resulting from grant reconciliations related to Section 8; the Federal and State grant fund and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider relief funding including the transfer of seven FTEs from the Office of EMS to the Office of Fire Rescue; adjustment for school impact fees; an increase in the Infrastructure Sales Tax fund related to the higher revenue projection trends; and other miscellaneous adjustments including other minor grant reconciling adjustments and position funding for Fire Rescue. She mentioned that the most significant adjustment was due to the new GASB 84, which required the County to recognize the pass-through of school impact fees, adding that the County had to do an adjustment for these at the yearend cleanup for FY 2021 in November 2021 for approximately $34 million. She explained that it would need to be included in the budget annually, and that it would be included as part of the FY 2023 budget recommendation. She stated that year to date collections were over $18 million, and that the payments would be made to the School Board based on those collections. She related that the requested position changes included the following: one FTE and funding for an Assistant County Attorney and Office Associate, which would be funded from the offset of the vacant Deputy County Manager position; funding for a Construction Program Manager for the Office of Facilities Management; a new District Chief for the Office of Fire Rescue; and a Public Hearing Coordinator for the Office of Planning and Zoning.
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.
Ms. Teslia stated that requested action was for approval of an amended budget for FY 2022 to include a reconciliation of beginning fund balances and other adjustments, new position requests, and the approval of a resolution adopting a supplemental budget of $700,552,749 for FY 2022.
Commr. Campione commented that it would be interesting to know what projects the school impact fee funded, and that previously, they had committed to not bonding improvements. She mentioned that in light of enrollment issues and growth issues, it would be interesting to find out if all those fees were committed to actual projects, or if they were accumulating fees for future projects.
Commr. Parks wondered if the expenditures were reflective of where the impact was.
Commr. Campione remarked that she would like to know where they felt the most pressure and what new construction was happening, and she wondered if they were paying for those improvements or accumulating funds for certain projects.
Commr. Shields suggested having a presentation.
Commr. Campione agreed and commented that residents occasionally asked questions in land use cases about what the situation was in the schools, and that the only information she had was from the newspaper, adding that it would be helpful to hear that.
Ms. Barker said that she could reach out to them on the current day.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the amended budget for FY 2022 to include a reconciliation of the beginning fund balance and other adjustments, and the adoption of Resolution 2022-52 for a supplemental budget for FY 2022.
other business
appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Mariela Garcia to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and approval of applicable waiver, as a member who is actively engaged in the residential home building industry in connection with affordable housing.
appointments to the Library Advisory Board
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Ms. Mary Nichols as the primary and Mr. Harvey Miller as the alternate to the Library Advisory Board as members representing the City of Umatilla, Ms. Mary Page as the primary member representing the City of Minneola, and Ms. Norma Emerson as the primary member representing the City of Tavares.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – district 1
Arts and Cultural Alliance
Commr. Shields commented that he had attended an Arts and Cultural Alliance meeting.
Four Corners meeting
Commr. Shields said that he had attended a Four Corners meeting with the other Counties there.
water safety day
Commr. Shields mentioned that he had been working on Water Safety Day.
commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3
Tourist
Development Council vacancy
Commr. Smith mentioned that a long term board member had a medical emergency which would not allow him to perform his duties at this time, and proposed that a temporary member should be appointed to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) until he had the ability to return or until his term ran out.
Ms. Marsh stated that staff could put out a notice accepting applications, and that those would be brought to this Board for an appointment.
Commr. Campione inquired if there was an issue with having a quorum on that board, and if it was imperative at this point to appoint a temporary member.
Commr. Smith mentioned that there was a three/three vote at their last meeting on a very important item.
Commr. Shields commented that he would like to have a representative of the vacation rental industry since the percentages of the revenues coming in from hoteliers were less than half, noting that the rest were coming from RV parks, Airbnb, and VRBO. He said that he already had someone in mind, and that it would be good to do it as a temporary appointment. He opined that there were three people absent which could make having a quorum an issue.
Commr. Campione asked if that was a regular issue.
Commr. Shields remarked that they were regularly missing two or three.
Commr. Parks thought it was important because there was a plan to spend more on capital.
Commr. Shields commented that they were working on a plan, and that he looked forward to bringing it before the Board.
Commr. Parks asked if the Board wanted to advertise the position, noting that Commissioner Shields already had someone in mind.
Commr. Shields inquired how a temporary appointment worked.
Ms. Marsh replied that it would be advertised as a temporary appointment, and that after the applications had been filed, they would be brought before the Board.
Commr. Smith commented that this would be a temporary appointment until he had the capacity to come back or his term was up.
Commr. Campione indicated that she was not in favor of it.
Commr. Blake asked if the time period would be included, and what the temporary time period would be.
Ms. Marsh said that she would work with staff to word it so people would understand that it would be an alternate position.
Commr. Blake commented that he would be in favor of an alternate position.
Commr. Campione inquired if the permanent member would be able to come back when he was ready, and if he would be the one to determine when that time would be.
Commr. Smith indicated that this was his intention.
Commr. Shields related that the letter he received was very concerning, which said that there was no indication of if or when the permanent member would be back.
Commr. Parks commented that the intent was to appoint an alternate, and that when that position or term expired, there would be an option to vote to keep them or not.
Commr. Campione said that she would be in favor of sending a letter to the family and asking if they preferred that the Board appoint an alternate.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Ms. Alison Strange, with PFX Athletics, mentioned that the TDC was comprised of three types of people, which included elected officials, tax collectors, such as hoteliers and vacation rental owners, and business owners and operators, adding that she worked with those owners and operators on a regular basis. She explained that currently, over half of the taxes came from vacation rentals, and that the rest came from hoteliers, a few resorts, and another specific area. She elaborated that all three seats for the tax collectors were taken by resort owners or operators, and opined that the voices of those who were collecting the bulk of the taxes were not represented. She related that there was a situation recently concerning a rights holder who had sent an RFP to 15 different hoteliers for an event during the slow season, and that they had ignored the request or declined the request because they were already full with patrons for that event; however, because the hoteliers refused to work with him, he left. She concluded that there needed to be equal representation if the TDC was going to be effective, noting that vacation rentals were a large contributing factor of the TDT. She opined that the Board should structure a TDC that was representative of where the funds were coming from and going to, and that those individuals could speak for those groups, which could help the County avoid situations, such as the one that was mentioned.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Campione inquired if the vacation rental community knew about the TDC and the meetings, and wondered if they could be invited to be involved with the process, adding that if they were not on the TDC, they could come to the meetings and follow what was happening. She opined that that there was a gap there that could be filled that did not necessarily involve filling a position on the TDC.
Commr. Parks mentioned that the County had the ability to contact those who were contributing to the TDT.
Ms. Barker commented that the County could post general information on social media and the Office of Visit Lake website to ensure that they were informed about the collaborative open public process that they could participate in.
Commr. Parks opined that the alternate could provide representation; furthermore, Commissioner Shields’ opinion would weigh highly in that decision because he was the TDC Chairman.
Commr. Smith asked if there could be a letter sent to the family of the original member explaining the reasons for appointing an alternate and emphasizing that he was not being taken off the Board, adding that it would keep the TDC moving forward.
Ms. Barker said that staff could draft a letter.
collegiate beach
volleyball tournament
Commr. Smith commented that he had attended the American Volleyball Coaches Association Small College Beach Championships, relaying that there were 34 teams from 16 states and over 3,000 visitors over five days.
Bassville Park community Center
Commr. Smith related that he had met with the Bassville Park community concerning a community center on April 20 and 21, 2022. He commented that they were working with a church to revitalize the Bassville Park area, and that there was good participation from the community.
Commr. Campione asked how things were generally in the Bassville Park area, noting that in the past, there had been issues with crime, drug activities, and code enforcement issues.
Commr. Smith commented that this community development was trying to help enhance the Bassville Park area, which still had those issues, noting that the Sheriff was doing a good job protecting the residents there. He related they were working on a lighting project to help obtain more street lights.
ride along
Commr. Smith mentioned that he and Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, had participated in a ride along.
Farm Bureau dinner
Commr. Smith related that he had attended the Farm Bureau dinner on the previous evening.
Lake Apopka Trail Loop
Commr. Smith commented that he and Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Lake County Office of Parks and Trails, visited the Lake Apopka Trail Loop to meet with an Orange County Commissioner there.
commissioner campione –district 4
community
meeting in Sorrento
Commr. Campione relayed that she had attended a community meeting held by a developer on a land use case that would be heard the following week, and that it was in her district. She mentioned that while there, some residents told her that Sorrento Pines had removed many trees that were supposed to be left intact, and she asked staff to investigate it, adding that she would like to discuss what course of action would be appropriate and how to ensure that it could not happen.
Ms. Barker said that staff would look into it.
Commr. Campione hoped that these were trees that had been marked to be removed, adding that there were many old trees there.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5
National Tax
Freedom Day
Commr. Blake commented that April 18, 2022 was National Tax Freedom Day, and that the American Tax Foundation had calculated that it was the date on average that people had worked all year to pay off their tax obligations.
higher education reform bill
Commr. Blake said that he had attended the bill signing with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in The Villages area for the higher education reform bill, and commented that it was very well attended. He commented that among the attendees was the Florida Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran, and Senator Manny Diaz, Jr. who would be the new Florida Commissioner of Education.
Twitter acquisition
Commr. Blake relayed that Mr. Elon Musk had announced his plans to acquire the social network company, Twitter, and he opined that it was a positive sign that society could coexist.
commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2
Farm Bureau
dinner
Commr. Parks remarked that he had also attended the Farm Bureau dinner, and that they wanted to keep agriculture in Lake County.
Florida Wildlife Corridor summit
Commr. Parks commented that he had attended the Florida Wildlife Corridor summit, and he distributed a handout containing data that they had compiled over the prior two years about wildlife corridors and working with the agriculture industry, noting that Representative Keith Truenow and Representative Paul Renner were in attendance.
Lake/Orange Expressway
Commr. Parks related that the plan for State Road (SR) 516, which was the Lake/Orange Expressway, was presented at the South Lake Chamber of Commerce, and that he would like to have it presented to the Board in a future BCC meeting. He commented that it was the only road in the southeast that would have dynamic charging, allowing an electric vehicle with the capability to charge while driving over it.
Commr. Campione asked if one had to drive slower in order to charge the vehicle.
Commr. Parks indicated that that one would not, and that it was safe. He noted that there would be testing on it to see who would use it and how viable it was, adding that there would not be a toll. He mentioned that he was interested in it, and that there were conservation features that would make it a one of a kind road; additionally, it would fit in with the Wellness Way area and what the County wanted to do there. He opined that even though he preferred a gas vehicle, there were others who may want to use it.
Citrus Ladder
Commr. Parks mentioned that there were artifacts and displays in the Lake County Historical Museum that would be moved to the Lake County Administration Building rotunda, such as the Great Citrus Ladder, which was 38 feet long. He said that it would highlight the citrus culture and agricultural roots in the County.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
_________________________________
SEAN PARKS, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK