A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

May 10, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 10, 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 meeting and announced that the meeting would be streamed online for those who wished to participate virtually. He said that the Invocation would be given by Pastor Brooks Braswell, with First Baptist Church of Umatilla, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by Mr. Johnny Taylor who was a Hazardous Waste & E-Cycling Supervisor with the Department of Public Works and had been a Lake County employee for 14 years. He explained that Mr. Taylor had served in the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps from August 1983 until he retired as a Master Sergeant (E-8) Senior Enlisted Advisory in March 2008. He elaborated that after completing Infantry training school at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, Mr. Taylor was assigned to the occupation specialty of Machine Gunner, and that his extensive career assignments included Team Leader, Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant, Platoon Training Chief, Automotive Maintenance Technician, Infantry Weapons Small Arms Repairman, Infantry Ordnance Weapons Chief, Hazardous Waste Material Manager, Ground Safety Officer/Manager, Senior Ground Ordnance Weapons Chief, and Senior Enlisted Advisor. He related that Mr. Taylor’s overseas assignments included Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Joint Task Force Operations, and that during his distinguished career, Mr. Taylor was awarded three Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medals, three Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medals, the Combat Action Ribbon, two Navy Unit Commendations, six Good Conduct Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. He also introduced Mr. Taylor’s family, and expressed appreciation for his service.

Pastor Braswell gave the Invocation and Mr. Taylor 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 the Astor area was originally named Manhattan in 1874, and that Colonel John Astor IV, who founded it, was the richest man to perish when the RMS Titanic sank.

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, remarked that precinct maps were added to Tab 13 from the Supervisor of Elections since the first publishing, and that Tabs 16 and 17 were added as addendums, adding that Tab 16 should be moved up and included with the presentation of proclamations.

Commr. Campione requested that the proclamation presentations be done before the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update, the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, and the committee updates.

Commr. Parks indicated that they would do that, and commented that the ARPA update would occur later in the meeting.

employee awards

Ms. Jeannine Nelson, Human Resources and Risk Management Manager, announced that they would be recognizing employees who had reached significant milestones in their careers with Lake County, as follows:

FIVE YEARS

Carol March, Accounting Technician

Office of Housing & Community Services

Chuck Rossi, Service Desk Administrator

Information Technology Department

Daniel Velez Rubio, Branch Supervisor

Office of Library Services

TEN YEARS

Joseph Hinton, Construction Inspector II

Public Works Department

FIFTEEN YEARS

Salena Braddy, Security Analyst

Information Technology Department

Vicki Gesinski, Senior CAD Technician

Public Works Department

RETIREMENT – 30 YEARS

Russell Cheatham, Mosquito & Aquatic Plant Manager

Public Works Department

RETIREMENT – 31 YEARS

Donald Stewart, Survey Technician II

Public Works Department

SPECIAL RECOGNITION

Office of Fleet Management

Joe Blackwell

Allyson Griffin

Larry Higgins

Floyd Bush

Tim Chastain

Richard Sullivan

Devon Lynch

Bob Weaver

Roberto Rodriguez

Paul Rade

Ms. Nelson related that the Office of Fleet Management had been named one of the National Association of Fleet Administrators (NAFA) Fleet Management Association’s 100 best fleets, which recognized the peak performing fleet operations and identified and encouraged the increasing levels of performance improvement and innovation within the public fleet industry. She explained that the criteria for this award included accountability, collaboration, quick and efficient turnaround, and competitive pricing. She elaborated that some of their accomplishments for the current year included the following: mechanic of the year award; organization of mechanics to work in teams, which increased efficiency; a new quick lube service to reduce the time of vehicles in the shop; an encouraged use of convenient and cost effective services; and four field sites. She then congratulated the Office of Fleet Management for this honor.

PROCLAMATION 2022-42: mental health awareness month

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-42 naming May 2022 as Mental Health Awareness Month.

Commr. Shields read Proclamation 2022-42 into the record.

Proclamation 2022-43: National ems Week

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-43 designating May 15-21, 2022 as National Emergency Medical Services Week.

Commr. Campione read and presented Proclamation 2022-43 to members of the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

Proclamation 2022-55: First Female eagle scout in lake county

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-55 recognizing Ms. Melissa Janes as the first female Eagle Scout in Lake County.

Commr. Campione read and presented Proclamation 2022-55 to Ms. Melissa Janes. She congratulated Ms. Janes, and commented that the Board wanted to bring her accomplishments to the attention of the community and honor her for the hard work she had done to achieve this. She mentioned that Ms. Janes would be attending college at the University of South Florida (USF), and said that she looked forward to hearing more about her accomplishments moving forward. She expressed appreciation to her parents, and related that there were two Eagle Scouts on the Board, Commissioner Shields and Commissioner Parks.

Commr. Parks congratulated Ms. Janes, and commented that she was making history.

presentation of new voting precinct map

Mr. Alan Hayes, Supervisor of Elections, related that every 10 years, a census was taken, and the County went through the redistricting process. He said that he would provide the new precinct maps to be reviewed, and hoped that the Board would approve them, adding that the legislative districts, the congressional districts, and the County Commissioner Districts had already been accomplished. He explained that the objective was to blend the maps passed by the legislature, the Board, and the Lake County School Board with precincts that maximized the convenience for the voters, minimized any inconveniences, and utilized budget saving measures where appropriate. He expressed appreciation to the following individuals: Mr. Duke Jackson; Ms. Cecelia Kennedy; and Mr. Dan Dean from his office; LPG Urban & Regional Planners, Inc. in the City of Mount Dora; Mr. Will Davis; Mr. Mike Rankin; Mr. Greg Beliveau; and the County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) staff. He relayed that the State Legislature had placed Lake County in two congressional districts as shown on the map, noting that District 6 was in the northern part of the county, and District 11 was in the southern part of the county. He commented that the entire county was in Senate District 13, and that the House of Representatives Districts included Districts 25, 26, and 27 starting in South Lake County and moving north; additionally, he displayed a map showing the County Commission Districts. He stated that with those boundaries established by the legislature, the county would be divided into precincts, and that their efforts to establish a uniform pattern of numbering had resulted in all precincts receiving a new three-digit number in the current year. He related that the first digit showed which Commission District the precinct was in, and the remaining two digits gave the relative position in the district. He mentioned that the numbering began in each Commission District in the northwest corner of that district, going left to right, and north to south, and that they purposefully spaced the numbers with room in between the numbers for additional precincts if necessary. He explained that there were a few precinct numbers which did not strictly adhere to the proposed numbering system, noting that there was a small number of voters residing in one Commission District that were placed in a precinct numbered by another Commission District. He elaborated that there were several factors that contributed to that, such as polling site location and other things, adding that it was a policy that was adhered to as closely as possible. He relayed that they utilized natural geographical features, such as lakes, streams, highways, and city limits, and that they tried to make the precincts as compact as was reasonable while trying to minimize the driving distance to the polling places for the voters. He commented that by trying to make the precinct boundaries coincide with city limits and legislative district boundaries, it would minimize the likelihood of ballot mix-up, and that it would minimize split precincts and multiple ballot styles in each precinct. He said that they were able to retain most of the polling places, noting that some had asked to be relieved and others were no longer utilized because of consolidation. He related that the reduction in the number of precincts went from 103 to 91, and the reduction of polling places went from 96 to 85; furthermore, they were proposing utilization of five locations which would be used by two precincts voting at the same location. He hoped that the Board would adopt this plan on the current day in order to notify the voters of any changes as soon as possible. He mentioned that in order to minimize any confusion on Election Day, they would send the registered voters in Lake County new voter information cards, which would tell them what precincts and districts they were in and the location of their polling places; additionally, the front of the mailer would emphasize the importance of the information contained.

Commr. Parks commented that he liked the new numbering system.

Mr. Hayes remarked that it made sense, and that even though many residents did not care which precinct they were in, his organization cared and knew that this would determine which ballot they received.

Commr. Parks inquired when they would receive the new voter information cards.

Mr. Hayes replied that, assuming the map was approved, they would mail them on June 20, 2022.

Commr. Campione asked if their website would show every single precinct and voting location.

Mr. Hayes said that it would, and that they planned to have each individual precinct map accessible through the website, as well as the polling places. He commented that there would be consolidated lists of the polling locations, and that this information would also be on the new voter information cards; additionally, they would be prepared to field phone calls and answer questions.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved a new Voting Precinct Map to address the redistricting changes made to federal, state, and local boundaries.

Ordinance for Dangerous use of public rights of way

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, stated that this was a request for approval to advertise an ordinance, which would amend Chapter 3, and that the title of the ordinance would be Dangerous Use of Public Rights-Of-Way. She related that this was brought forward by Commissioner Smith, and that the purpose of the ordinance was to try to eliminate some of the stopping or standing by pedestrians in the medians and on the side of the road while addressing motorists in vehicles at traffic lights. She explained that it was not a panhandling ordinance and would state that if a pedestrian was in the median for more than two cycles of the light, then it was presumed that the pedestrian was standing there for purposes other than crossing the road; additionally, if a pedestrian was on the side of the road and was exchanging items with a person in a vehicle that was not parked but at a traffic light, then that could also be a violation of this ordinance. She elaborated that it had been reviewed by the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), and that the Board could hear from Lake County Sheriff Peyton Grinnell.

Sheriff Grinnell said that he was in attendance to address the ordinance from a public safety perspective, noting that traffic was their number one complaint in the County. He mentioned that even though this was not a panhandling ordinance, panhandling was usually the issue brought to their office especially from the 55 and up communities, such as Lakes of Leesburg, adding that it was dangerous to the person in the roadway, and intimidating and concerning for the citizens in their vehicles trying to pay attention to the traffic light and oncoming vehicles while someone was approaching their vehicle. He elaborated that the motorist would not know why that person was coming towards their vehicle, and that it could cause them to run a red light or brake suddenly. He commented that from a public safety perspective, he recommended the approval of the ordinance proposed by Commissioner Smith.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he had personally visited 12 of the 14 municipalities in Lake County, and that there had been no objections to this ordinance. He said that he had letters of support from many of the Cities, and that he would like the support of the Board on this.

Ms. Marsh commented that this would be a countywide ordinance for purposes of addressing county roads within municipalities, and that if a municipality wanted to adopt something similar, they were welcome to do that.

Commr. Parks inquired if it would affect a pedestrian walking on a crosswalk and then stopping.

Ms. Marsh replied that it had a presumption that if a pedestrian was there longer than two cycles, then the pedestrian was there for a purpose other than trying to cross the street; additionally, law enforcement could use their judgement. She pointed out that there were exceptions, such as law enforcement and people getting on or off buses, and that those types of things would not be considered a violation of this ordinance.

Commr. Parks related that in South Lake, there was a man who went through crosswalks to brighten everybody’s day.

Commr. Smith opined that it would be considered his freedom of speech, and that he was welcome to do that as he crossed and danced.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that the important part would be that he was not approaching the vehicles or exchanging things with the motorists, adding that he could cross the street all day long.

Commr. Parks opined that even though it may seem odd at first, it added character and spice of life in South Lake, and he hoped that this individual would not stop doing that.

Ms. Marsh reiterated that this vote was for an approval to advertise, and that if it was approved on that current day, it would be brought back for a public hearing and adoption.

Commr. Parks commented that it was a safety issue, and he expressed appreciation for it.

Commr. Blake mentioned that he had asked Ms. Marsh in advance if the change that the State Legislature had made after the intentional political blocking of traffic two years prior applied to this issue, adding that it had made a change in 2021 to Section 316.2045, Florida Statutes, removing the prohibition about approaching motor vehicles. He commented that the third part of that statute prohibited the endangering of safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon; however, it was not as specific as this ordinance. He said that he had checked that with Ms. Marsh, and had no objection.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to advertise an Ordinance creating Article XII, Chapter 3, entitled Dangerous Use of Public Rights-Of-Way, providing for the prohibition of stopping or standing by pedestrians in a median.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC Meetings of January 11, 2022 (Regular Meeting), January 25, 2022 (Regular Meeting), February 1, 2022 (Regular Meeting), and February 8, 2022 (Regular Meeting).

annual comprehensive financial report

Mr. Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, announced that the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report would be presented for the fiscal year (FY) ended September 30, 2021, and that the Popular Annual Financial Report was provided to the Board, which was a condensed, easier to read version that could be useful for the citizens of Lake County, adding that those reports would be available on the Clerk’s website after the presentation on that current day. He related that each year, the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Office submitted these reports to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for review, and that the County had received a Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting for the 40^th consecutive year and the Popular Annual Financial Reporting Award for the 11^th consecutive year. He commented that the County’s Office of Management and Budget received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, and that the receipt of these three awards in a single year was the triple crown of financial reporting. He said that he wanted to recognize the finance team that worked on the annual report as follows: Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; Ms. Mary Burns, Accounting Director; Mr. Kevin McDonald, Budget Director; Ms. Tracy Zeller; Ms. Julia Wilson; Ms. Cyndi Richardson; Ms. Connie Rodgers; Ms. Merrilyn DiVenanzo; Ms. Lisa Yanco; Ms. Bonnie Brown; and Ms. Kelly LaFollette, Information Outreach Manager, for her assistance in putting together these volumes. He mentioned that he would also like to acknowledge the work of Ms. Barker, Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, and their staff members for their budget award, noting that receiving the triple crown was an effort in partnership between the two staffs. He commented that his office was in the unusual position of submitting a separate budget to the GFOA each year for recognition, which was separate from the County’s overall budget, and that in this current year, thanks to Mr. McDonald and Ms. LaFollette, the office received its 30th consecutive award for budgeting. He then introduced Mr. William Blend, Shareholder with MSL, the County’s external auditors, who would be presenting the report.

Mr. Blend echoed Mr. Cooney’s sentiments towards the staff, and he mentioned that there were other County departments that they dealt with for budgets, grants, and utilities who were always cooperative, open, and responsive to the audit process, which he recognized was outside of their normal duties. He explained that in addition to going through the reports and some high level overview of the financial statements, he wanted to point out that the document that Mr. Cooney showed was the full book, which included the Constitutional Officers, many of whom were in attendance on the current day, noting that they were part of the overall audit process for the County and were included in the financial statements. He commented that the report was over 230 pages long, and that if anyone had any questions about it, they could reach out to the external audit firm, adding that if there were questions about the audit process that was not covered on that current day, they would answer those questions related to the financial statements. He related that the required communications covered their responsibility to perform their services in accordance with all the appropriate standards, which they did, and that management’s responsibility was to be open and honest with them and responsive to their inquiries, which they did. He explained that while they did evaluate internal controls, they did not issue a specific audit report, adding that they issued a report related to it. He clarified that they evaluated the internal controls for the purpose of identifying risk in their professional opinion, and that other than those disclosed in the financial statements, there were not any significant matters to discuss. He mentioned that management provided the appropriate management representation letter, and that Ms. Mullane was the main contact for the audit process as well as others. He relayed that for the audit schedule, they were able to issue the financial statement audit reports, and that they were there on that current day to present them. He commented that all those reports were clean or unmodified reports, which provided the highest level of assurance that could be received, noting that there were no material issues with the financial information as presented. He explained that the second report related to compliance, and that they did an audit of the federal and state programs based on a calculation issued by the State and the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), noting that they had no findings in auditing those programs. He said that the report on internal controls was required by the government audit standards issued by OMB in the uniform guidance, and that when they performed their audit, they had no findings there. He remarked that the management letter was a requirement in the State of Florida by the Auditor General, which was an issued formal management letter, and that they had no findings to report there. He mentioned that the independent accountant’s report was a requirement in the State of Florida for the County’s investment policy, and that they had no issues with that; furthermore, he concluded that they were all clean reports. He remarked that he would present the financial highlights, which included the government accounting standard’s attempt to do its best version of full accrual based accounting for a governmental entity. He pointed out the current ratio was 2.3 and 3.0 over the previous two years, and that the business-type activities had strong current ratios, noting that the general standard for a small or medium sized business was a one or above, which meant the bills could be paid. He elaborated that the main focus of most governments was the General Fund, and that there had been significant improvement due to a multitude of factors, such as additional funding stemming from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), increased property values, increased taxes, and good management. He commented that because of inflation, it was a good thing to have an improved percentage, opining that there would be difficult decisions to make going forward. He relayed that the business-type activities included the landfill and internal service funds, such as the LCSO internal service funds, and that they were steady and in a good position with no deterioration of the financial position. He mentioned that there were many numbers in that document, and that he could answer any questions.

Commr. Parks pointed out that the unassigned fund balance percentage of expenditures was about 17 percent, which was good, and he agreed that the County would feel the pressure with inflation and labor costs. He mentioned that it was important to be as efficient as possible and to make cuts where possible to offset that to keep those numbers going in the right direction.

Mr. Blend requested that the Board accept the report.

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept the County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021.

public hearing: school district ad valorem millage tax

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

AN ORDINANCE OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE LEVY OF AN ADDITIONAL THREE QUARTER MILL SCHOOL DISTRICT AD VALOREM MILLAGE TAX IN LAKE COUNTY FOR SCHOOL SAFETY, SECURITY AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE LEVY BY VOTERS IN A REFERENDUM; PROVIDING THAT THE IMPOSITION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE BEGINNING IN 2023 AND ENDING FOUR YEARS THEREAFTER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1011.71(9), FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR THE REFERENDUM TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022; PROVIDING BALLOT LANGUAGE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR NOTIFICATION TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR INFORMING THE PUBLIC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING A CONFLICT CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that included in the packet was a request from the Lake County School Board, noting that they did not have authority to set ballot language, and that this was an administerial function.

Commr. Parks noted that Ms. Diane Kornegay, Superintendent of Lake County Schools, was in attendance.

Commr. Smith inquired if this just needed a motion and a vote to be able to include this item on the ballot for the voters to vote on.

Ms. Marsh indicated that this was correct, and explained that it was setting the ballot language. She commented that the Supervisor of Elections had reviewed the ballot language, and that it met all the statutory requirements, adding that it would go on the ballot in November 2022.

Ms. Kornegay explained that this item was critical to the operations of the school district and their 43,000 students, and that these funds were critical to ensuring that they were able to comply with Florida Statutes that said they must have a school safety officer on every campus, which was an unfunded mandate. She commented that the cost was double of what they received from the State to ensure they were in compliance with that statute and to ensure the safety of all of the students. She related that it also paid for a school nurse on every campus, an in-school suspension program on every campus, social workers, and school psychologists, noting that they had increased the number of social workers and school psychologists. She elaborated that without approval of the referendum by the voters, these positions would cease to exist, which could put the students at risk.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, said that he supported the renewal of this tax, and that he was head of the internal audit committee for the School Board. He mentioned that their district auditor audited the spending for this last four years, and they found that they had used it according to all the promises that were made. He commented that a large component of this item was the social workers, noting that there were many disciplinary issues with kids in classes who would disrupt the learning of the other students, and that they could now send them to a central facility in the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills to be taught behavior modification by social workers. He opined that this was worth much of the tax, and he suggested that for that reason, this should go forward.

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

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items: Ordinance 2022-27 providing for the levy of an additional school district ad valorem millage tax in Lake County for School Safety, security, and mental health services effective 2023 and ending four years thereafter pursuant to Section 1011.71(9), Florida Statutes; the levy by voters in a referendum held on November 8, 2022; and to provide the ballot language for the general election.

commissioner’s boards and committees updATE

Commr. Shields reported on the Arts and Cultural Alliance meeting on the previous day, and he commented that they were working on rotating a series of art projects in the rotunda of the Lake County Administration Building, opining that it was good to see what some of the local artists were doing.

Commr. Parks commented that he hoped to see more of that, and that he would like to see this public space filled regularly when it was not being used for some other purpose.

Commr. Smith reported on the Children’s Services Council, and said that they reviewed the bylaws reminding everyone why they were there and how good the program was. He related that he had toured the Lake Sumter State College (LSSC) CareerSource facility, opining that they had a good facility and did good work; furthermore, if someone needed assistance with finding a job or with a resume, they could help. He mentioned that he had a Medical Examiner’s Board meeting on the following day and an Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting later in the month.

Commr. Blake inquired how the Medical Examiner’s Office was doing with the expansion, noting that having enough space had been an issue.

Commr. Smith replied that they did not have the funding as of the previous meeting, and he hoped to be able to attend the meeting on the following day.

Commr. Campione reported on the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Committee meeting and the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board’s (TDCB) Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) subcommittee evaluation over Zoom Webinar, adding that she had a Mount Plymouth-Sorrento Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Board meeting on that current evening. She commented that at the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Committee meeting, there were several important items to report on. She related that Florida Rush Soccer had partnered with the Lake County Soccer Club to expand their operations into north Lake County, Hickory Point, and East Lake Sports and Community Complex, noting that they were currently in the Cities of Kissimmee, Winter Garden, and Clermont. She said that they served over 2,800 families, and that this would present many opportunities for tournaments, overnight stays, and activities related to the use of those facilities, which could be a good economic generator as well as providing good opportunities for young people as they honed their skills. She mentioned that there was a presentation about the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook and Trailhead relating to the tower extension, and hoped that Tourist Development Tax (TDT) funding could be used, opining that it could become a focal point that people would want to go see when in Lake County. She commented that there had been a presentation by LSSC about a partnership opportunity to add four pickle ball courts at LSSC next to the tennis courts, opining that it was an ever increasing sport and a way for people to stay in shape and have a good time. She relayed that there had been a presentation by the Office of Facilities Management on Fire Station 39, which was by the East Lake Sports and Community Complex, the East Lake Library, and the Astor Library replacement. She remarked that there had been an update on the blueway or waterway trails, and that all the signage was being replaced and updated; additionally, they had completed the blueway trails in the north part of the county, and were working on the south part of the county. She mentioned that the South Lake Trail was in the process of being improved in a way that minimized impact to the ongoing use of the trail, and that there had been discussion about the segment of the Rivers to Hills Trail going from the City of Umatilla to the Altoona area, noting that the County had sufficient right of way to construct it. She hoped that it could be initiated while waiting for the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study on the segment going north to the Astor area, opining that the County could use ARPA funding to help facilitate the connection between the City of Umatilla and the Altoona area.

Commr. Blake reported on the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and mentioned that Mr. Jared Perdue, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 5 Secretary, was recently appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as Secretary of FDOT, opining that it would be helpful to have someone the County had personally worked with in the City of Tallahassee. He related that the MPO had changed their procedure on the top 20 list of priority projects, and that they now wanted an expanded list.

Commr. Parks reported on the Lake County Historical Society annual meeting, and said that there would be a continued emphasis to bring historically significant materials to the public spaces, such as the Lake County Administration Building. He related that they would continue the partnership with the Town of Montverde for a potential extension and a place to display materials in their new building, and he expressed appreciation for what they were doing. He commented that the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) would be having its last workshop on the long-range strategic plan for the expressways and toll roads in the Central Florida region on the following Thursday, and that they would also be discussing the budget. He hoped that he would be able to bring a presentation from CFX, and that it would include State Road (SR) 516, which was the Lake/Orange Expressway, opining that it would be worth having a 10 minute presentation on that similar to what was done recently at the South Lake Chamber of Commerce.

Commr. Campione inquired if the County had scheduled the School Board to give the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) an overview of what was happening with school capacity and proposed locations for new school sites.

Ms. Barker replied that she had reached out to Ms. Kornegay following the previous meeting, and she indicated that they would be able to attend the June 28, 2022 BCC meeting. She related that Ms. Kornegay would be doing a presentation from a list of topics that the Board would like to hear about.

Commr. Campione said that she had heard that the South Lake High School campuses were completely full, and that they were looking at a new site.

Commr. Parks opined that the site might have been chosen in the Wellness Way area.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Items 1 through 4, 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 Eustis Items

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 22-07, corresponding Future Land Use Ordinance 22-08, corresponding Design District Designation Ordinance 22-09 from the City of Eustis, and corresponding backup documents.

City of Mount Dora Ordinance 2022-04

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2022-04 from the City of Mount Dora.

SJRWMD Annual Comprehensive Financial Report

Notice is hereby provided of having received the St. Johns River Water Management District Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2020–2021.

citizen question and comment period

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, commented that she had attended the April 26, 2022 BCC meeting two weeks prior, and that the Board had discussed the economic development initiative proposal submitted by Lake Economic area Development (LEAD). She mentioned that the requested $150,000 was approved to support their proposal, and noted that if the results from LEAD were not as expected, there would be the option to sunset the partnership. She opined that some of the interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBAs) were not successful, and that some were negatively affecting the rural protection areas (RPAs) and transition zones. She hoped that if the Rural Conservation Subdivision Ordinance did not remedy the issues created by some of the ISBAs, that the County would sunset those ISBAs. She opined that the ISBAs should not have been 20 year agreements, and that they should be reviewed, noting that they were not a failsafe. She thanked Commissioner Shields for working with the Arts and Cultural Alliance, adding that she was the president for the Pastel Society of Central Florida, and that they displayed exhibits at the Leesburg Center for the Arts and other locations in Central Florida.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 11, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Request approval of Proclamation 2022-39 designating June 2022 as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Month in Lake County, per Commissioner Parks.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval of the Special Master settlement agreement with Troy Rentz allowing a property previously platted as “Tract A” to be a lot of record and allow construction of a single family home.

Recommend authorization for the County Manager or designee to execute a Partial Release of Final Judgment of Foreclosure.

COUNTY MANAGER

Request approval to cancel the June 7, 2022 BCC Planning & Zoning meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Recommend approval:

1. Of the purchase of equipment servers for the Lake County Clerk of Court at a total cost of $227,189; and

2. A budget transfer from General Fund Reserves for the purchase of the requested equipment.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $227,189 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Emergency Medical Services

Recommend approval to advertise a public hearing for the renewal of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Office of Emergency Medical Services. There is no fiscal impact.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-721 with El Faro Group, LLC dba Court Surfaces (Green Cove Springs, FL) for countywide court resurfacing for various County parks and trails.

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

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

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:15 a.m. for 10 minutes.

arpa update

Ms. Barker recalled that during the previous American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) update, two affordable housing projects were presented to the Board, and that $3 million was awarded to Find, Feed & Restore. She commented that the Board wanted to reprioritize other ARPA projects or find other funding for New Beginnings of Central Florida, which was asking for $1.2 million. She mentioned that if they could qualify for Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) ARPA funds, available through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the County would be able to allocate those funds to them.

Commr. Parks commented that there could be partnership opportunities with the Cities of Clermont and Groveland to address workforce housing through land dedication and permitting fee waivers. He expressed appreciation to those Cities for looking for opportunities which could go beyond a project involving Find, Feed & Restore, adding that it would be located in South Lake.

Rural Conservation Subdivision Ordinance

Commr. Parks pointed out that he had been looking forward to this workshop for a while, as this would begin the County’s subdivision design process and permitting structure, as well as a proposed new standard that could assist the County in how the built environment was addressed and the areas that would be developed in Lake County. He mentioned that Lake County had been rapidly growing, which would present both opportunities and challenges for them. He opined that this would be a challenging process as some people would believe these standards would be too much and too costly as there was already enough preserved land; additionally, some people would believe these standards were not enough, and that no more growth should occur in Lake County. He remarked that it would take hard work to find a balance that was representative of what most people in Lake County wanted, adding that staff had done a lot of work on this.

Ms. Barker agreed, stating that she appreciated staff’s hard work on getting this presentation ready. She also noted that Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, was participating virtually and would be available for any questions or clarifications.

Ms. Emily Johnson, Senior Planner with the Office of Planning and Zoning, gave a presentation on the rural conservation subdivision design standards and mentioned that at the end of the presentation there would be a summary of outstanding issues and concerns that had been raised by staff which could require additional discussion by the Board. She first gave some background of the design standards, noting that Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy I-7.4.2 required the adoption of design criteria and guidelines for the development of conservation subdivisions in the Rural Future Land Use (FLU) series, Wekiva River Protection Area, Wekiva Study Area, and the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, and that the services of Mr. Arendt had been engaged to develop the conservation subdivision design criteria. She indicated that the purpose of these regulations was to provide housing while preserving valuable resources which were at risk of becoming lost through conventional development and that the ordinance was intended to incorporate the preservation of permanent conservation lands while adding both economic and environmental value to the proposed development and the broader community. She related that the ordinance outlined several important objectives including policies for wildlife corridors, dark skies, landscaping, and water conservation with the highest objective being the conservation design element. She explained that conservation design would be achieved by the following: clustering the development in order to create large tracts of contiguous open space with the intention of protecting environmentally sensitive areas, aquifer recharge, and karst features; maximizing buffering to adjacent conservation land; and creating opportunities for passive recreation. She mentioned that the rural conservation design standards would apply wherever a conservation subdivision was required by the Comp Plan but may also be utilized as a framework to develop property which was not subject to the mandatory requirements. She then displayed a map showing the various areas where rural conservation design standards may require implementation. She discussed the open space requirements and showed the minimum open space requirement table that was included in the Comp Plan. She noted that the open space minimums varied based on the future land use category (FLUC), overlay district, and the intended development density. She stated that minimums could be increased in the Land Development Regulations (LDR); however, reducing the minimums would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. She indicated that the ordinance specified two types of protected open space which were primary conservation areas, such as wetlands, floodplains, and sinkholes, and secondary conservation areas, such as natural upland communities, farmlands, wildlife habitats and corridors, archeological and cultural sites, and scenic views. She pointed out that the ordinance specified that the open space would be located within undivided preserves and an interconnected network of greenway space or neighborhood greens; additionally, it also specified three options for the ownership of protected open space, such as fee simple conveyance, non-common open space, or dedication through permanent conservation easement. She explained that a conflict that had been identified was that the Comp Plan required ownership of open space to be within a homeowners association (HOA), and that easements would then be conveyed to non-profit conservation entities, land trusts, or state agencies with a conservation objective. She said that a text amendment to Comp Plan Policy I-1.4.6 would be required to keep the language that was currently presented in the ordinance, and a Comp Plan text amendment may be required in order to allow HOAs to receive and maintain conservation easements. She related that the ordinance required that natural features be maintained in their natural conditions, but it did allow permitted modifications if the appearance, function, or overall condition of the natural feature was improved. She then discussed the density and design standards, stating that the densities were consistent with those contained within the Comp Plan and would be based upon the assigned FLUC. She noted that the ordinance contained language for optional density bonuses which the Board could grant to encourage additional open space, public access, or affordable housing; however, a text amendment would be required. She explained that the ordinance outlined a four step design process for rural conservation subdivisions, and pointed out that the first step was to designate protected open space, the second step was to align the streets and trail network, the third step was to locate potential housing sites, and the fourth step was to draw out the lot lines. She said that the ordinance included dimensional standards for lot sizes and setback allowances, and noted that LDR Section 3.02.06 would need to be amended to state that the lot size could be smaller than the density requirements if subdivisions were to be developed without planned unit developments (PUD). She related that additional dimensional standards were included for frontage and garage door setbacks. She indicated that the ordinance contained evaluation criteria to help weigh the significance of natural resources and also outlined the review criteria to aid in the administrative review of applications; additionally, she said it highlighted and encouraged the use of alternative options to septic tanks based on prior discussions by the Board, and that this could become a requirement. She then discussed the procedures for the application and approval, and stated that the first requirement from an applicant was a conceptual sketch plan made up of the existing features and a site analysis map, which was intended to form the basis for the open space design process. She commented that the second requirement was an open space development conceptual sketch plan prepared according to the four step design process, adding that it could be used as an overlay sheet to the existing resources plan to aid in determining how well resources would be protected. She mentioned that the conceptual sketch plan process consisted of five steps with the first step being a mandatory pre-application conference, the second step required an on-site visit of the subject property with the County Manager or designee, the third step required a formal application submittal to the Office of Planning and Zoning, the fourth step required a community meeting with surrounding property owners, and the fifth step required a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board and the BCC. She elaborated that the BCC would then vote to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, adding that the conceptual sketch plan would be effective for 12 months if approved. She related that the applicant would have to apply for and have their preliminary plat approved within that timeframe. She remarked that staff indicated that the Board may want to have further discussion on whether to review and approve every plan or if an administrative review similar to the current preliminary plat application would be preferred; additionally, she said that the Board might also consider a unit threshold which would require a public hearing or Board approval. She explained that the management plan element would be submitted simultaneously with the conceptual sketch plan application and would have to allocate the responsibility, costs, and funding in regards to the maintenance and operation of protected open space. She indicated that a legal instrument for permanent protection of the open space would function as a permanent conservation easement. She then discussed the special design element requirements, and specified that one-way looping lanes must curve around a central green and must have a 12-foot paved width; however, staff identified that 20 feet may be required for adequate public safety access. She said that also required was the following: attached greens to border the lots so that homes faced the open space instead of a street; neighborhood greens and greens on open farmland for numerous footpath connections; greenway streets or mews so that alley-accessed homes directly fronted onto greens instead of paved streets; landscaped alleys for providing garage access as well as pedestrian circulation and informal recreation; rain gardens for rapid stormwater infiltration; and foreground meadows so that stormwater infiltration areas disappeared visually into the landscape. She concluded the presentation with a slide listing the outstanding issues and conflicts for Board discussion.

Mr. Arendt thanked staff for their overview as he thought it was very comprehensive. He then gave a brief presentation showing conservation design examples for unincorporated areas of Lake County. He displayed several slides showing greenway mapping at the county and city levels and pointed out the primary conservation and secondary conservation areas for developments in the following: Orange County, North Carolina; Columbia, Maryland; Central New Jersey; Chester County, Pennsylvania; Montgomery, Pennsylvania; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Waukesha County, Wisconsin. He indicated that Columbia, Maryland had been designed as a new town about 60 years ago and began their design process with the green space network, and that the Central New Jersey community outlined a greenway to preserve it from development but allowed for select development in areas that would not fundamentally affect the greenways. He related that the secondary conservation areas in Chester County, Pennsylvania contained upland communities and farmland, and that at least 50 percent would remain permanently preserved. He noted that pre-mapping was very helpful to developers as it gave them an easier way to move forward with the development. He displayed several slides showing site analysis maps and site walks for some of the developments, and stated that site walks were generally attended by municipality officials, the developer, the engineer, and the landscape architect in order to explore the conservation areas, discuss what was necessary to preserve, and to sketch out the conservation design. He then showed examples of how to creatively design the developments while keeping the tree lines and drainages, and said that it was easier to accommodate tree preservation as it added value to the developer’s product and added livability to the neighborhood; furthermore, he opined that the ordinance should require a landscape architect to do the conceptual subdivision design. He also showed examples of subdivisions that had on-lot and off-lot well and septic, and mentioned that off-lot septic could be individual or shared.

Commr. Parks mentioned that in regards to septic, most subdivisions built in the city would be on a sewer system, and that staff had discussed whether to make a distributed waste technology system a requirement.

Ms. Barker said that it was currently strongly encouraged; however, the Board could make that a requirement.

Commr. Campione asked if someone could request a waiver from the Board to that requirement if it was not economically feasible or attainable.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that it could be added.

Commr. Parks suggested making sure the waiver clearly designated that there was criteria that was needed to be met.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the language could be added stating that waivers for a variance would come to the Board instead of the Board of Adjustment (BOA).

Commr. Campione pointed out that even though some cities may agree to adopt this, there could be locations where it would be cost prohibitive to use their traditional central sewer; therefore, an OnSyte distributed wastewater system could help make the project work. She elaborated that it could be noted to help persuade the Cities that this was something they could do and make it work financially.

Commr. Shields asked if some Cities were hauling waste away to their package plant for some of the subdivisions.

Commr. Campione replied that solids were transported to a plant for the White Rose subdivision.

Commr. Parks mentioned that staff had asked for direction on the threshold and stated that he thought the threshold could be higher than the standard; additionally, he said that it could be as small as 10 units or as high as 200 units and that it was just a matter of comfort level for each of the Commissioners.

Commr. Shields asked if he meant the acreage and not the number of units.

Commr. Parks said that he believed staff referred to the number of proposed units, adding that there was a calculation for density going through this process.

Ms. Johnson clarified that the process evaluated it from a net density perspective; however, staff suggested a unit threshold of acreage.

Commr. Campione asked if staff had a particular number in mind.

Ms. Johnson answered that she believed the unit count was at 300; however, that was at the Board’s discretion.

Commr. Campione mentioned that this should be encouraged, and she wondered if the process could be administrative up to that point so it would be easier for a developer to go through this process rather than having to go through a public hearing.

Ms. Johnson explained that the intention was to remove the need for a PUD, and to no longer require some of the smaller projects to come to the Board; however, she said that the larger projects that had additional impacts would still be brought to the Board’s consideration.

Commr. Parks opined that in some ways, it could help the smaller, more local builders.

Commr. Campione presumed that if the development went over a certain number, it would come before the Commission; however, if the development met certain criteria, it would create some certainty for the developer, making it beneficial to choose this route. She opined that even if a project was relatively large, if there was more of a presumption that this would be acceptable, this could be in the Board’s best interest.

Commr. Smith asked on average, how long it would take for the average person to get through this process knowing there were five steps and how busy staff was.

Ms. Johnson answered that it would depend on whether there was a public hearing, the staffing levels, and the number of applications at the time.

Commr. Smith asked if it would be unreasonable to say 18 months.

Ms. Johnson replied that she did not think it would take that long as staff would generally reserve that amount of time for a large scale Comp Plan amendment. She then said that she could defer that question to Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning.

Commr. Smith asked if it would take longer to go through this process than the normal process that was currently used.

Mr. Howell explained that if the proper entitlements were in place such as Comp Plan designation and zoning, then it would take six to nine months to get through that process, which would include a site plan review and then platting.

Commr. Smith mentioned that site walks were not currently required; however, this new design would require site walks, and he asked if the County had the personnel to accomplish this.

Mr. Howell confirmed this, noting that there were 17 full time employees (FTEs).

Commr. Smith gave an example of building 100 homes on 200 acres of property, and asked if those homes would have to be built onto 34 foot wide lots, or if each home could be on two acres.

Mr. Arendt explained that the smaller lot sizes were at the discretion of the developer, and that homes could be built close together for certain markets, such as empty nesters, seniors, young couples without children, and single people, adding that there were a lot of people who wanted to live on small lots. He said that the developer could have larger lots and still meet the 50 percent open space requirement, and in Commissioner Smith’s example, 100 homes on 200 acres would be two acres per home; therefore, they could have one acre lots on 100 acres, which was 50 percent of a 200 acre parcel.

Commr. Smith expressed his concerns about this and commented that Rural Transition was already one unit per acre with 50 percent open space and that even though the LDR allowed 34 foot lot lines, he opined the minimum should be 60 feet.

Mr. Arendt opined that the size of the lots would be at the developer’s discretion according to the market, and that he did not believe the 34 foot wide lots would be used in rural areas of Lake County as he thought those would only happen in areas where the Cities annexed county land. He commented that this ordinance would allow a developer to provide larger lots and also allow the option of an urban kind of environment with smaller lots, such as the Celebration and Baldwin Park areas; additionally, the developer who wanted to provide 60 to 80 foot lots could easily do that under this ordinance.

Commr. Campione remarked that the 34 foot wide lots had to be alley-loaded in order to make it work, and that should be delineated.

Mr. Arendt opined that any lot less than 55 feet wide should be alley loaded, noting that if the house had a front-loaded garage, it would dominate the streetscape and be larger than the width of the house.

Commr. Campione indicated that if this was going to be an administrative type of review, the point should be made that if a lot was less than 50 feet wide, then it should be alley-loaded, and that the ideal scenario was to make this easier and shorter than going through a public hearing process.

Commr. Shields commented that this would also take some risk out for the developer.

Commr. Campione opined that site walking was something that should have been taking place all along, and that even though developers did it, they were looking at the land differently and not from a conservation or preservation standpoint.

Commr. Parks remarked that was a good point, and that this was part of the process he was looking forward to. He related that developing land was typically about maximizing and laying out the lots on a desktop without even going into the field, which was what their system currently allowed.

Commr. Shields opined that septic had been figured out for unincorporated Lake County, but he questioned if there was a minimum lot size for wells, opining that most of the developments would be on a well.

Commr. Parks answered that they would probably be on a community well.

Commr. Campione remarked that this would be dictated by the Lake County Health Department.

Ms. Marsh agreed, noting that the Comp Plan had a provision that required central water and utilities for properties of one unit per acre, which could be their own water system and a regional sewer system such as the distributed wastewater system; otherwise, if the property had more than one unit per acre they would have to come back to the Board for a waiver.

Commr. Campione commented that would be an issue for these projects being moved through the system administratively.

Commr. Smith asked if a developer could either opt in or opt out of this ordinance.

Commr. Campione commented that they could still use a PUD.

Commr. Parks replied that this had not been decided yet, and clarified that there were no decisions being made on that current day.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the Rural Transition category allowed for one unit per five acres or one unit per three acres without having to do rural conservation subdivision standards; however, if a developer wanted one unit per acre, the Comp Plan said they had to use the rural conservation standards, which the County did not have unless these standards were adopted. She related that if a developer did not want to adhere to rural conservation standards, then they could come in and request a PUD future land use and go through that process.

Commr. Campione remarked that it would require a Comp Plan amendment and would take longer, and Ms. Marsh agreed.

Commr. Smith commented that this would give an owner the option to choose between having to do rural conservation standards or a PUD.

Commr. Parks mentioned that there would most likely be an incentive to do this, and that the threshold number still needed to be decided.

Ms. Marsh reminded the Board that the language could change in the Comp Plan from requiring a conservation subdivision for one unit per acre in Rural Transition to requiring a conservation subdivision for PUD zoning with only a text amendment, and that the change could be made prior to anyone coming in under those provisions. She related that it could be left the same, and the developers would have to change their FLU.

Commr. Parks opined that there were a lot of changes that needed to be made on how to promote and encourage building subdivisions in the county; however, he thought it would be good if there was some certainty about the same questions that were repeated at the hearings with the PUDs. He suggested that the County raise the threshold enough to give more of an incentive for people to go through this process instead of going through the traditional PUD process with public hearings. He mentioned that he was a supporter of transfer of development rights (TDRs), and that there would be more answers about that as the work progressed with the Cities on a countywide effort; additionally, he said that there would be more information coming in the immediate future when the planning council was engaged with the countywide effort, noting that TDRs could provide more of an incentive for developers to go through this process.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Jochim commended the Board and Mr. Arendt for this design, opining that the design was good, and he wanted to encourage it. He pointed out that this design addressed many of the issues of having almost zero lot lines, opining that many people in Lake County wanted a rural lifestyle. He hoped that they could convince the Cities to adopt this design, noting that this only applied to certain defined areas within the county. He related that he had seen some of the aggressive methods of annexing properties, and hoped that they could find a way to reduce traffic, opining that it was getting worse. He opined that the high inflation rate and high gas prices would hurt a lot of people, and that they would not be able to qualify for the homes that had already been approved, which could solve some of the issues with traffic. He suggested that they reduce the high density development before the roads were expanded, opining that there could be a technique of using concurrency restriction.

Ms. Deborah Shelley, a resident of the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, thanked the Board for this initiative and thanked all those who worked on it as it was a big endeavor, and expressed her concern about how the ordinance would be addressed through the ISBA, opining that it would be important for the Cities agree on this. She mentioned that currently there were requests and approvals for 450 units on 150 acres in an RPA and for 184 units on 75 acres in the transition zoning in the Yalaha/Lake Apopka RPA, and that she was concerned about how the annexation laws would be affected by the ISBAs. She asked if the 33 percent maximum density increase for the discretionary bonus had been a subjective number, and if the pocket neighborhoods were addressed in the Comp Plan or the in LDRs, noting that she was concerned about them being appropriate in the RPAs unless there were work places nearby. She suggested creating a map showing the areas where the ordinance was applicable similar to the map of the ISBAs, and indicated that she liked the idea of outlining the potential primary and secondary conservation areas for the RPAs. She expressed her gratitude for how the Board was promoting and encouraging this type of balance as they moved forward with growth management in Lake County, and said that her formal comments would be forthcoming.

Commr. Parks said that he looked forward to her comments and that the map was a good idea, and that it could be provided at a future meeting. He mentioned that the County was trying to address pocket neighborhoods and attainable housing, noting that those would be in a much more urbanized area where it was more appropriate; additionally, he said that he hoped the Cities would partner with the County on those or do their own workforce housing projects. He related that impact fees and permitting fees could be waived, and that it could help decrease the costs and make them more affordable.

Commr. Shields asked if someone could address Ms. Shelley’s question about the purpose of the bonus.

Ms. Marsh clarified that there were three options for density bonuses on page 13 of the draft ordinance, and that the first bonus was to encourage additional open space by giving a developer two additional building lots for each additional acre. She indicated that the second bonus was to encourage public access by giving two dwelling units for each additional acre, and that the third bonus was to encourage affordable housing for 80 percent of the market rate and a maximum increase of 15 percent over the maximum number of units for each affordable housing unit provided. She noted that those were Mr. Arendt’s proposals, and that the Board could adjust those numbers or remove them completely.

Commr. Shields commented that the developer would have to either do a PUD or go this route, and he wondered which of the bonuses should be retained.

Commr. Parks agreed, stating that the number could change, but that this was a good starting point. He elaborated that the number was market driven, and that there was a certain limited number of density credits that should be made available; additionally, he said that it could also change after the countywide process was complete and had enough cities willing to do the TDRs.

Ms. Shelley commented that her question was in reference to page 13, line 31 of the proposed ordinance about discretionary bonuses allowing a 33 percent maximum increase in density. She inquired how they had arrived at that number, and if they would consider a lower number, such as 10 percent in the RPAs. She suggested that the Board consider having a more informal workshop with a question and answer period to review the proposed ordinance and criteria, and to have it at a time where many of the rural residents could attend.

Commr. Parks related that the County planned on having a workshop to receive public input and to hear from different stakeholders, adding that there would be two hearings to adopt this.

Mr. Bill Ray, a resident of Marion County, said that he was a professional planner and environmental consultant. He indicated that one of the issues they had seen nationwide was that density was a factor, and that they were trying to figure out how to preserve more viable open space while accommodating workforce and economically based development that justified the public services those units required. He expressed concern that there were two definitions for open space in the ordinance and one definition in the Comp Plan, and opined that those needed to be consolidated into one definition. He also opined that the definition of a cul-de-sac needed to be more specific, adding that they needed to define what was considered an equestrian use within an open space. He mentioned that floodplains would be taken off the availability of the net developable land, but that they were allowed to use floodplains under the current definition. He mentioned that if the County required more open space with the same amount of units on one piece of land, it would require smaller lots; additionally, they would have to be alley-loaded, opining that it was unrealistic because it would increase the price of the developed lots by about 30 percent, which would not address the workforce housing issue. He thought that this was a good process to start working through, and opined that much of the data they were looking for was already in the Comp Plan.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for his comments, and mentioned that his input would be appreciated as the ordinance moved through the next step of this process.

Commr. Campione commented that he had made a good point about floodplains, and opined that it could be addressed by saying that someone could transfer the development rights off of one’s own floodplains out of the floodplains.

Mr. Ray stated that they were working with the net density development issue that had been a point of contention since they wrote their first Comp Plan.

Commr. Campione opined that it had been that way because people could possibly manipulate the end result by having multiple definitions.

Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator, opined that the Yalaha/Lake Apopka RPA disproportionately affected the Town with 50 percent of the Town’s ISBA falling within this RPA, which effectively created a wall around the town to the west and south. He said that after reading the proposed ordinance he believed there were some unaddressed questions, such as how the incorporated areas would be affected, as the Town currently had some incorporated land that fell within the RPA. He also questioned how proposed annexed areas would be affected, as the Town had an annexation proposal in review in the current week that was located on both sides of the RPA. He indicated that the proposed ordinance required a minimum of 35 percent open space for the Yalaha/Lake Apopka RPA, which consisted of conservation and recreation uses, and he wanted to compare this to the Town’s current expectation of 15 percent non-residential space in the PUD. He questioned how developers would maximize their return on investment if they were creating smaller lot sizes to reach the 35 percent requirement for open spaces, opining that there would be an overall higher housing cost, which went against Lake County’s need to provide more affordable housing. He opined that this would result in the maximization of the value of the open spaces, such as creating a golf course, which could significantly affect the water consumption in these areas. He expressed that the Town was glad to be able to work with County staff and Commissioners to find optimal solutions to these challenges that faced all of them in planning responsible growth.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills being in attendance that day with their comments, and said that the Board could work with the Town and other Cities to answer their questions. He then stated that this ordinance would not apply to any Cities as this was what the County was proposing; however, he encouraged the Cities to adopt these same principles, especially in the outer portions of the cities, since those areas were not typically urbanized. He opined that a golf course would not count as an open space.

Commr. Shields opined that the workforce housing should be encouraged in the cities, as the cities had the water, sewer, and densities that the County could not provide, adding that the County was going to work with the Cities to figure out how to get that done.

Commr. Campione said that she would be in favor of removing the affordable housing part as she did not think that was the County’s goal, adding that she would prefer to see that in a more urbanized area where it made more sense. She related that a density bonus could be given for having more open space or protecting a certain feature.

Commr. Parks commented that he was not in favor of building attainable housing in the outer portions of the county, opining that even if someone could afford a house there, the transportation costs would make it unreasonable. He indicated that the County wanted to encourage the Cities to build attainable housing in the cities, which would lower the capital cost to build them, and house people within walking distance to their food sources and possibly their workplace; additionally, he said that the number of trips could be greatly reduced. He reiterated that their goal was not to build low cost housing in the outer parts of the county.

Commr. Campione said that there was a possibility of allowing wells on a one unit per acre property if the developer did not go over a certain threshold, if they were spread out over the property, and if they met the Lake County Health Department requirements. She also said that this could be allowed in certain zoning districts, such as Agriculture, Ranchette (RA), Rural Residential (R-1), and Agricultural Residential (AR), adding that if the project did not exceed the underlying density of the land use, it could help promote this process as opposed to going through a public hearing. She related that as staff got used to processing these, the timeframe would probably get easier to manage, and that some parameters could be set for an applicant. She commented that the Board could work with staff to come up with that number, and that it could be a way to encourage the developer to use this instead of the public hearing process. She also suggested having a minimum perimeter buffer to protect adjoining land owners from having all the density abutting their property, opining that a waiver could be offered if the developer could show they were meeting certain criteria.

Commr. Parks opined that the key was to craft something that gave staff flexibility to make a judgment call if it was clear enough with some performance criteria.

Commr. Campione hoped that the pocket neighborhoods would have a much shorter review process, opining that it would be a good way to accommodate and promote those types of layouts on smaller parcels, adding that those were compatible with what the County had been trying to achieve. She opined that offering a central water waiver could result in taking less time for a smaller property.

Commr. Parks asked Mr. Arendt to address the question about discretionary bonuses allowing a maximum of 33 percent increase in density.

Mr. Arendt explained that he did not recall putting the 33 percent in the ordinance, adding that the entire concept of a density bonus was discretionary, as a developer could earn it by promoting additional open space and public access to the open space. He opined that affordable housing was best located within the cities; therefore, that could easily be removed from the County’s rural area conservation design. He said that he agreed with the comments about the perimeter buffer; however, he would like to leave that up to staff’s discretion rather than having it as a requirement in the ordinance, opining that if there was a perimeter buffer around all four sides of a property, it would consume too much of the open space and make it unusable which would be self-defeating. He elaborated that the ordinance could require some form of buffering if there was a side that abutted larger properties, such as fast growing vegetation to provide a screen, and that it could include enhanced wording for buffer requirements around some edges of the property in those kinds of situations.

Commr. Campione agreed with that, stating that she thought it was a good way to handle that as long as there was some language that staff could work with, such as enhancing the actual screening as opposed to increasing the distance, which was what made people comfortable. She mentioned that she was in favor of giving developers the option of going through this process as opposed to going through the longer process of a public hearing and the uncertainty of being approved or not, opining that if the County could make this more compact, it would become the preferred route.

Commr. Parks opined that staff could interpret this and use best planning principles. He related that it could be incentivized by showing that this process would have certainty and would be much faster than the traditional PUD process, adding that the challenge would be to have the process take less than six months.

Mr. Arendt indicated that he was puzzled by the concern that conservation designs might add to the cost, and noted that in his experience, conservation designs did not require any extra costs as it actually allowed developers to reduce their costs by reducing the length of streets, utility runs, and the amount of site grading. He pointed out that the only way it would add to the cost was if the developer opted to do alleys; however, that was the reason he recommended the mews or green street approach where developers could do alley-loaded lots without building the street in front of the homes, and that it would actually be a financial benefit by doing it that way.

Commr. Parks opined that this was very important and needed to move in this direction sooner rather than later; additionally, he said that staff would have to address some points in making revisions to what was presented that day. He related that on the following BCC meeting there would be a presentation on Strong Towns, which was an overall countywide philosophy, and that on the BCC meeting following that, there could be another revision to the ordinance, noting that it could provide more time to individually meet with stakeholders and the Cities.

Ms. Barker mentioned that staff would be able to bring changes back at the June 14, 2022 BCC meeting.

Ms. Marsh asked if the Board wanted that meeting to be a workshop held later in the afternoon, or if the Board would meet with individual groups or have individual groups provide their comments to her.

Commr. Parks agreed that all comments should go to the County Attorney, and that she could notify the Commissioners on those comments.

Ms. Marsh requested that all comments be received by May 20, 2022, so that she and her staff had time to review them, adding that the agenda would need to be published by either June 3, 2022 or June 6, 2022.

Commr. Parks explained that there would be more discussion on June 14, 2022, adding that if something was decided on that day, there would be another BCC meeting to vote on a notice to advertise, and then there would be a public hearing at the following BCC meeting.

Ms. Marsh clarified that there would not be a final decision on June 14, 2022, and said that the timing depended on if there were Comp Plan amendments, adding that those would need to be done before the ordinance was adopted.

Commr. Parks commented that it would be helpful to have a part in the next presentation explaining the timing of everything, making it clear to the public.

Ms. Marsh said that she wanted to go through the changes. She then asked if the Board wanted to keep the minimum open space requirements in the Comp Plan, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this.

Ms. Marsh explained that developers had been encountering issues where non-profits or other state agencies wanted to take the current conservation easements that had been put over wetlands, and that there was a conflict in the Comp Plan stating that the easements could go to a non-profit conservation entity but not to a homeowners association (HOA). She asked if the Board wanted the County to take those easements, which had been discouraged before because staff would have to monitor them to make sure people were not building on them, or if the Board wanted to change the Comp Plan to state that those easements could go to an HOA as long as the HOA documents had approval by the County to do something else with the land. She pointed out that this had been done that in other areas, and that a Comp Plan amendment would be required if the Board wanted to allow the HOAs to have the easements.

Commr. Parks opined that it was fine to allow the HOAs to do that as long as it was according to a management plan.

Ms. Marsh reiterated that Commissioner Campione wanted to see this as an allowable use in the Agriculture, RA, AR, and R-1 zoning districts as long as it did not exceed the future land use; therefore, a Comp Plan amendment was not needed for that.

Commr. Shields said that he thought the underlying zoning was Urban Residential (R-6) in most places.

Ms. Marsh replied that most areas would have Agriculture, RA, AR, and R-1 zoning districts, especially in the Rural Transition and Green Swamp areas, and that the underlying land use would not allow R-6, adding that a developer would have to come in and do a PUD. She then noted that Commissioner Campione mentioned she would like for the developers to have the option of doing a PUD instead of a rural conservation subdivision.

Commr. Campione asked if the 50 percent open space could still be required if a developer wanted to do a PUD.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that one unit per acre required 50 percent open space, and that it would also require either the rural conservation subdivision or a PUD.

Commr. Smith mentioned that he was in favor of requiring developers to choose the rural conservation subdivision or to continue doing what they were currently doing.

Commr. Campione remarked that even though the County did not have the specific code provisions for a rural conservation subdivision, it was referenced in the language of the Comp Plan, and that the County had been crafting it as part of their PUD process. She elaborated that the goal had been to come up with a version of a rural conservation subdivision, and that currently, the Board reviewed the property through an aerial map during the hearing. She then asked if it was necessary to put language in the ordinance about requiring minimum open space.

Commr. Shields indicated that a PUD would come before the Board, and nothing would change.

Commr. Parks stated that the PUD criteria could be reviewed to see what was required of the applicant to determine if that should be changed.

Commr. Campione pointed out that additional criteria could be added to the PUD process or it could be crafted according to each case, noting that it was the risk the developer would take by going that route.

Commr. Blake opined that the decision to do a PUD should be optional for developers, adding that it was cost neutral and improved livability and marketability. He opined that pocket neighborhoods in rural areas made sense, as more people were working remotely now, and land typically cost less in rural areas. He opined that the commute argument was not as pertinent as it once was, and that rural areas could still provide some of the attainable housing goals in certain situations.

Commr. Parks commented that pocket neighborhoods could be built anywhere in the county if they were incentivized and crafted properly. He opined that some would argue that putting two units per acre in a typical subdivision in a rural area would keep the cost down, but he did not believe that was true.

Commr. Blake opined that removing obstacles, such as government controls, was the biggest way to keep housing prices down and to make this a more marketable or attainable option for families.

Commr. Shields remarked that there could be certain acreage that was infill that could be used for pocket neighborhoods.

Commr. Blake said that one idea behind pocket neighborhoods was to reduce the negative response from abutting landowners, and opined that residents would be more accepting of a pocket neighborhood concept, which limited the number of units and acreage, than they would be for a 600 unit development, adding that it was an approved use.

Commr. Parks opined that the County was sensitive to the overreach of government, and opined that there were some companies who believed that the bottom line was the only thing that mattered and others who were willing to work and be partners, adding that the County had to try to balance that out for the residents’ protection.

Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that the goal of this was conservation subdivisions; however, he said that 34 percent of Lake County was in permanent conservation, which did not include all of the acreage that was covered by the vast number of waterways, opining that was a high number when compared to other counties.

Ms. Marsh asked if the Board wanted to keep the 33 foot wide lot minimum for the townhome concept or if the lots should be a minimum of 50 feet or 60 feet.

Commr. Campione answered that lots could go below 50 feet if there was an alley.

Commr. Parks replied that it could be left the way it was.

Ms. Marsh noted that staff recommended 20 feet for the width of closes for safety purposes, and that change would be made if everyone was agreeable. She mentioned that Commissioner Parks indicated that he wanted to work on the TDRs, but since there was not enough information, it would not be included as part of this ordinance.

Commr. Parks remarked that he was unsure and to leave what was in there.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that the ordinance did not currently reference TDRs, and that it could be added later. She then mentioned that the affordable housing bonuses could be removed, and density bonuses would be given for additional open space or public access.

Commr. Campione opined that giving a bonus for allowing public access to the open space was a good thing, and that other people could use the trails.

Ms. Marsh inquired if in order to incentivize the use of this type of development, the conceptual sketch plan could be processed by staff as a preliminary plat versus coming to the Board for a public hearing. She elaborated that the hearing would be for public input on the design of the conservation subdivision and not on the density or the standards of the ordinance, noting that the Rural Transition category already allowed one unit per acre with 50 percent open space.

Commr. Parks asked if that would go to a development review committee.

Ms. Marsh replied that it would go through the normal staff process, which was used for preliminary plats or site plans, and explained that it would get circulated among the staff. She explained that staff would look at their various areas, provide comments, and then administratively approve it once all the County code requirements were met.

Commr. Shields remarked that the goal was to eliminate the public hearing, to streamline the process, and try to eliminate hurdles and costs to encourage this.

Commr. Parks agreed, asking if there should be public input on the concept plan at some point.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that there was still a requirement for a community meeting.

Commr. Parks said that would be sufficient.

Commr. Campione asked if the community meeting was to show the community the plan or to get input and modify the plan.

Ms. Marsh answered that the language could include that, adding that the community meeting would be similar to the community meeting for the White Rose development.

Commr. Campione opined that the developer accommodated the comments that were made at that community meeting only because they knew it was going to come to a public hearing in front of the Board.

Ms. Marsh indicated that she did not think the ordinance could make it mandatory to incorporate every comment made at a community meeting. She mentioned that it depended on the threshold of units, and she inquired if the Board wanted a certain number of units to come back to them.

Commr. Shields asked if the County could find out what the best practices were.

Ms. Marsh commented that Mr. Arendt could be asked that question, adding that he originally had it structured so that the BCC and the Planning and Zoning Board members could do site visits, and that it would be heard at a public hearing. She noted that she was unsure whether or not that had been changed in other jurisdictions, and that staff could follow up with him and bring something back at the following meeting.

Commr. Parks said to leave the threshold the way it was currently, and that it could be discussed at a later date.

Ms. Marsh said that staff would make changes, and that the public could provide their comments through her so she could bring something back on June 14, 2022.

commissioners reports

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

National Shrimp day and national clean your room day

Commr. Smith commented that the current day was National Shrimp Day and National Clean Your Room Day.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

Founder’s day citrus festival

Commr. Parks related that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had a Founder’s Day Citrus Festival on the previous week, and he thanked them for that event.

Green Mountain Scenic Overlook

Commr. Parks mentioned there was an opportunity to apply for a National Scenic Byways grant to extend the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook observation tower by 40 feet.

Ms. Barker explained that this was an email request, and that the grant deadline was on the following day.

Commr. Parks commented that Mr. Greg Gensheimer, President of Green Mountain Scenic Byway, Inc., would explain the application process.

Mr. Gensheimer related that this was the first time in 10 years that the National Scenic Byway program had offered any funds since 2012. He explained that the grant cycle started in March 2022, and that it was due on June 20, 2022; however, the grant had to be applied for by the State. He elaborated that he was told the previous week by the State with one day’s notice that the grant information would be due the following day, and that they also wanted confirmation of the funding on that day. He commented that he submitted his information to the State, and that they were waiting for a vote from the BCC to obtain a match for the funding. He said that he did not know if there would be another grant, and that $22 million would have to be spread out over 50 states, adding that the amount of funding was limited. He mentioned that they would get extra credit for grants that would be at least $500,000, and more credit if the match was above 20 percent. He hoped that since this was a very competitive grant, he could acquire a 50 percent match, which would make them more likely to receive the grant; additionally, if the Board approved the match, he would need a letter to send to the State. He displayed a picture of what the completed tower would look like, explaining that the new tower would be on the opposite side of the existing tower, and that they would have to have an elevator because of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. He elaborated that in 2019, they expected it to cost $500,000 with $100,000 for the elevator, but because of inflation and labor issues, it would now cost about $1.3 million. He mentioned that one of the benefits of this project was that they could build this without having to construct bathrooms, picnic pavilions, parking, or driveways because they were already there. He opined that since the continuation of the Florida Coast to Coast Trail through South Lake was not scheduled to be completed until 2030, the Lake Apopka Loop Trail would be an alternative trail for those traveling from the east coast going west, and that it would draw bicyclists and visitors, adding that this tower could generate more visits.

Commr. Blake asked how tall it was currently.

Mr. Gensheimer replied that it was about 45 feet, and commented that the trees had grown a great deal, and that the extra 40 feet of elevation would provide a better view, opining that it was a one of a kind tower that belonged to the County and its residents.

Commr. Shields expressed concern about the switchbacks and the unpaved trail around the bottom of the tower not being ADA compliant.

Mr. Gensheimer explained that the ADA compliant route went from the parking lot to the deck, and that it did not go down the switchbacks.

Commr. Parks clarified that it was currently ADA compliant; however the rendering for the new tower did not include the newest requirement for ADA, which was the elevator.

Mr. Gensheimer elaborated that the elevator would begin at the deck, not at the bottom.

Commr. Parks thought that the elevator would be more like a lift than an enclosed elevator.

Mr. Gensheimer indicated that was correct, and commented that there would be multiple levels of lookouts available from the stairs for people to look out over the Lake Apopka North Shore.

Commr. Smith opined that it was a good idea; however, there were many projects to finish in the Lake County trail system that he would rather see the $650,000 go towards. He opined that once the trails were finished and connected, then the County could focus on other things.

Commr. Blake commented that he agreed, and that it would be better if it was completely grant funded. He remarked that there were many needs for funds in Commission District 5 to complete projects that were underway, and to fund an addition to the height of the tower from the County’s budget, was something he could not approve.

Commr. Parks remarked that there could be funding sources available, such as TDT, and he inquired if it would be an eligible expense for TDT funding.

Commr. Campione opined that people would come for the experience, and that it was a trail that had the ability of linking with the Florida Coast to Coast Trail, adding that it was a unique situation that should be reviewed for capital funding from TDT.

Commr. Smith remarked that he would rather finish the trail system first, opining that more funds would be required to finish the network.

Commr. Parks said that the trail had been funded from the current overlook south.

Mr. Gensheimer relayed that the Hancock Trail received a $2 million legislative appropriation, and that it would be finished in a couple of years.

Commr. Parks asked if there was a commitment timeframe, and if the project would need $650,000 immediately.

Mr. Gensheimer replied that the match did not have to be 50 percent, and that it could be 21 percent. He clarified that the more that they could match, the better their chances of receiving the grant, adding that it was not guaranteed. He reiterated that it could be less if the Board did not want to spend the 50 percent, and he mentioned that if he did not receive the grant, the County would not have to provide any funds; however, he opined that there would not be another grant offered from the National Scenic Byways for many years. He commented that in 2018, his company had conducted an economic study, which showed that visitors were generating about $400,000 per year, noting that this figure did not include the bicycle races, the running races, or the bird watching. He said that this project could generate funds back into the County from the people visiting, opining that the tall tower would bring people from many places.

Commr. Parks asked if 21 percent was the minimum, and Mr. Gensheimer said that was correct. Commissioner Parks elaborated that it would be $252,000, and that it was a more reasonable amount, adding that it could come out of TDT.

Commr. Campione inquired what the deadline was to obtain the match, and if there was time to have the Tourist Development Council (TDC) discuss it.

Mr. Gensheimer answered that they would not make the deadline, and explained that even though the grant did not have to be submitted until June 20, 2022, the State guidelines said that it had to be approved by the Florida Governor and the FDOT, noting that he had a waiver until the following day.

Commr. Campione opined that the County could make a commitment and then decide if the funding could come from TDT later.

Commr. Parks remarked that the Board determined if the money would come from TDT.

Ms. Marsh clarified that TDT could be used for nature centers, which this would qualify as, and that the Board would have to make a finding that the expenditure of the funds would primarily serve the function of bringing tourists to Lake County.

Commr. Campione opined that there would be no issue with making that finding because if was near Sugarloaf Mountain, which was one of the highest places in the State of Florida, adding that it overlooked one of the largest lakes in the State of Florida. She opined that people would want to come see it, and that even though there was a chance that the grant would not be obtained, at least it was applied for.

Commr. Blake asked if the structure was engineered to be doubled in height.

Mr. Gensheimer answered that the extra tower would not be on top of the structure but next to it, and that they would use the existing engineering drawings to reproduce the new tower.

Commr. Shields mentioned that the County was having a record tourism year.

Commr. Campione recalled that when the original tower was built, the Board was very pleased with it, opining that an asset like that was something that could put Lake County on the map from a tourism standpoint. She opined that it would be something the residents would enjoy, and that visitors would also come to enjoy it, adding that she would be in favor of it.

Commr. Shields agreed, and commented that if this would bring in tourists, then he would be in favor of it.

Commr. Shields made a motion to approve to apply for a National Scenic Byways grant to extend the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook observation tower by 40 feet.

Commr. Campione seconded the motion.

Commr. Smith reiterated that even though it was a good idea, the County needed to finish the trails first, and then the County could come back and beautify everything, noting that there was already a tower there.

Ms. Marsh pointed out that the TDC funds could not be used for design, and that they could only be used for construction.

Mr. Gensheimer related that the budget allocated $75,000 for design.

Commr. Campione commented that it could not be used for that portion of it.

Mr. Gensheimer was unsure if they would need to specify that on the budget narrative, but that they would still need 21 percent as a minimum.

Ms. Mullane inquired if the motion was for 21 percent, and Commissioner Shields answered that it was for 50 percent.

Mr. Gensheimer mentioned that he would need a letter indicating the commitment, and that it would be due in 10 days.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to apply for a National Scenic Byways grant to extend the Green Mountain Scenic Overlook observation tower by 40 feet with a match of $650,000 out of TDT funds.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK