A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

May 24, 2022

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Sean Parks, Chairman; Kirby Smith, Vice Chairman; Douglas B. Shields; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Gary J. Cooney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

INVOCATION and pledge

Commr. Parks welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He said that the Invocation would be led by Pastor Jim Mory, with Union Congregational Church in the City of Tavares, and that the Pledge of Allegiance would be led by a veteran who was part of County staff.  He explained that Mr. Chuck Rossi was a Service Desk Administrator in the Information Technology (IT) Department, and that he served a total of 24 years in the United States (U.S.) Air Force, enlisting three times, until he retired in 2016 as a Technical Sergeant.  He elaborated that Mr. Rossi enlisted and served from 1976 to 1980 at Eglin Air Force Base in the 20th Surveillance Squadron, and again from 1980 to 1984 with the New York Air National Guard in the 105th Tactical Fighter Group, supporting computer operations during both enlistments.  He commented that Mr. Rossi’s final enlistment came after the 9/11 attacks when he served from 2001 to 2016 at the Stewart New York 105th Airlift Wing supporting C-5 Galaxy aircraft radar and radio systems; additionally, during this time, he was deployed overseas twice to Europe in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with the 494th Air Expeditionary Group.  He thanked Mr. Rossi for his service.

Pastor Mory gave the Invocation and Mr. Rossi led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commr. Parks commented that the Lake County historical fact of the day was that the City of Umatilla was incorporated in 1904, but was really founded in 1856 by Mr. Nathan Trowell.  He mentioned that the city was known as the gateway to the Ocala National Forest, and that the city’s name in Native American language meant “laughing waters.”

Commr. Smith said that it was National Scavenger Hunt Day.

virtual meeting instructions

Ms. Elizabeth Heine, Enterprise Support Manager for the 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.  She elaborated that anyone watching though the livestream who wished to participate could follow the directions currently being broadcast through the stream; furthermore, she 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.  She said that when it was time for public comment, she would read the person’s name or phone number, unmute the appropriate line, and the speaker would be asked to provide comments.  She 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.  She 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.  She stated that anyone wishing to provide written comments during the meeting could visit www.lakecountyfl.gov/commissionmeeting, noting that comments sent during this meeting would be shared with the Commission after the meeting was concluded.

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, said that an updated maintenance agreement with Magnolia Pointe was added to Tab 7 since the agenda was first published, and that staff also had a minor change to the resolution for Tab 7 to ensure that it was consistent with the requested action on the agenda item.  She added that staff was also requesting that the presentations for Tabs 25 and 27 be moved to earlier in the meeting.

Commr. Parks stated that they would address Tab 27 and Tab 25 after the citizen question and comment period, and then they would address proclamations.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of February 15, 2022 (Special Meeting), February 22, 2022 (Regular Meeting) and March 1, 2022 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, relayed that the City of Tavares Planning and Zoning Board recently had a hearing for a request to approve a 225 acre development on Woodlea Road with 625 homes. He said that the City did not allow people to speak during the first reading, and that they did not provide the detailed agenda items for the traffic analysis report and other items; rather, there were only minor summaries by staff in the published agenda online. He relayed his understanding that there were 17 homeowners on the waterfront who were upset about this item, and he opined that the City was not addressing traffic mitigation. He also opined that they would only be having cars come out on State Road (SR) 19 at a different place, and he expressed interest in anything that the County could do regarding reforms in law to develop a rule to prevent developers from building and overwhelming the road system without having any responsibility to address it.

A concerned citizen speaking over Zoom Webinar expressed concerns for traffic and speeding in the Shockley Hill community near the Ocala National Forest, noting that residents had submitted a petition to the County. He requested to have stop signs or speed bumps installed, and he also indicated concerns for the amount of time it took for law enforcement to respond there.

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, said that staff had spoken to them and were going to meet with them in the following week.  He added that staff was potentially considering some stop signs to address traffic in the area.

Commr. Campione asked if he could report back to the Board after the meeting with the community.  She expressed interest in getting the traffic to slow down or avoid using the area as a cut through.

presentation on strong towns

Commr. Parks commented that he read the book Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity over a year prior, and that he was looking forward to this presentation as they discussed concerns of how their community grew and faced challenges for growth in the cities and the county.  He opined that people had discussed not being like the City of Orlando or another large city or suburb; however, if Lake County kept doing the same things, then they could expect more of the same.  He opined that Strong Towns was a great philosophy to consider to think differently regarding how they moved forward.  He hoped that this was something that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) could be a leader in, working with the Cities and moving forward.

Ms. Amelia Swart, speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Housing and Economic Development in Lake County (CHED), said that CHED was formed about a year prior to address the need for workforce housing, noting that they were focused on solutions that would provide homeownership in the price range of $160,000 to $300,000.  She stated that they explored many options throughout their first year, but focused on finding solutions which did not require a subsidy and that created generational wealth through homeownership.  She believed that Strong Towns would provide long term solutions for workforce housing and the economic sustainability of their community, noting that the Strong Towns program was a philosophy and approach to urban planning and growth management; furthermore, they were advocating for this program because they believed that it addressed integration of various types of housing, including moderate density housing such as duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes.  She added that it advocated for an increase in density in appropriate locations while supporting conservation efforts and incorporating green space.  She explained that it was a grassroots approach that engaged the community to be actively involved, and supported smart growth based on their town or city’s unique characteristics and features; additionally, it did not rely on future growth and expansion to generate tax revenue to pay for existing infrastructure, instead relying on organic growth in accordance with free market demands.  She said that CHED had worked with the Strong Towns team to develop a custom program that they believed would help unite Lake County with a holistic approach to growth that complimented existing efforts and initiatives by implementing strategies that considered the economic sustainability of the community.  She mentioned that the program included a two day summit to inform community leaders, staff and the private sector supporters of the Strong Towns philosophies, and that after the summit, champions from each municipality would be invited to participate in monthly workshops to discuss topics and current challenges within their municipalities.  She elaborated that another benefit of the program was that the Strong Towns team would conduct town halls with the citizens and would take the lead on educating the community.  She expressed concerns that future generations would be affected by the scheme which required new growth and development for communities to achieve economic solvency, opining that they would eventually run out of land with no way to generate additional tax revenue to pay for old infrastructure debt.  She questioned if there would be enough businesses, industry and amenities to encourage people to stay and redevelop their community, or if people would move to the next suburban community.  She believed that the Strong Towns approach would address these concerns, and she asked the Board to use forethought that consider the generations to come. 

Mr. Chuck Marohn, the author of Strong Towns and speaking via Zoom Webinar, said that Strong Towns came about because of his experiences in a fast growing community.  He explained that he was from the small town of Brainerd, Minnesota, and that in the 1990s and the early 2000s, he did engineering, city planning, and related development advising for Cities around the State of Minnesota.  He stated that he discovered that they could work on projects that created growth and could grow quickly, and that it gave off the impression of success; however, he would recognize that every fast growing city he worked in was seeing their taxes and debt increase, along with seeing their long term liabilities increase.  He remarked that he joined with people who did economic analysis for Cities, noting that an analysis could be done when cities grew, addressed a new subdivision, or when they made a public investment in infrastructure to understand how much liability they were taking on and what properties would be like many years into the future.  He questioned which kind of revenue stream it would create for the City, and he said that he started doing this in the mid-2000s on developments that he was working on; furthermore, over the course of a development, they would initially see a good cash flow, but from a long term standpoint they were taking on five to 20 times the amount of liability for infrastructure maintenance and associated costs as they were going to bring in as revenue.  He said that in 2008 as the economy was crashing, he started to write a blog which he shared with his colleagues, and he started to receive calls from around the country and was invited to speak at different places.  He stated that currently, individuals at Strong Towns spent their time writing, podcasting, and sharing insights and ideas.  He added that they also traveled to conduct events, public presentations and training sessions to help others understand the tradeoff they made.  He commented that his organization had grown up around the idea that if they could get more people to understand what was going on, it would help them not follow the same path of growing themselves into decline.  He said that he had been interested in the BCC’s challenges because their type of community was in many ways the most challenged, noting that growth was happening around them.  He added that it was also the time where they could make a different choice, ask different questions, influence the development pattern in a different way, have a more sophisticated and thorough understanding of the long term implications of their decisions, and chart a path.  He stated that a group from the Lake County community had approached him and said that they were interested in these ideas, and they asked how to do this everywhere in the county.  He elaborated that they met and asked the following three questions: how could they raise awareness throughout the region about tradeoffs of this growth pattern; how could they advise decision makers and provide them with a new set of tools and understandings; and how could they have this dialogue continue, rather than be a onetime sharing of information.  He stated that Strong Towns developed this proposal and that it took everything they did and combined it into an overall package.  He said that he was excited at the possibility of meeting the Board over the following year, and he relayed that there were currently 14 individuals who worked with Strong Towns who were excited at taking what they did nationally and focusing it geographically on one area.  He opined that Lake County currently faced many challenges, and they had an opportunity to affect how it grew.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Jochim said that one issue was the effect on traffic, along with outlying developments being subsidized by homeowners in central areas.  He mentioned a YouTube vlog called “Not Just Bikes,” which had a seven video series on this topic, and he opined that it gave a good overview of issues.  He mentioned the funding scheme of Cities and how they kept raising debt, and he relayed that there was another firm that created heat maps, noting that they could generate the cost for services to individual parcels.  He elaborated that they showed that because downtown areas were more efficient, compact and had infrastructure, they generated revenue for the City, whereas outlying areas were costing the taxpayers.  He thought that it was a good approach to dealing with traffic.

Mr. Banks Helfrich, a resident of the City of Clermont, asked if Mr. Marohn was alluding to making small changes to make large changes for the growth issue.

Mr. Marohn confirmed this and relayed that a core part of his organization’s discussion was that the best way to evolve a system was to change it incrementally over time.

Mr. Helfrich inquired how this was done, where they could begin, and if it would start with a seminar in Lake County.

Mr. Marohn confirmed that it would start with a seminar in Lake County.

Commr. Parks mentioned that the Commissioners had a proposal and that he could address this.

Mr. Helfrich said that he liked Mr. Marohn’s concept of connecting cities with bike trails, and he asked about instituting golf cart trails.

Mr. Marohn clarified that he did not have a prescriptive approach, and that the challenge would be identifying the issues they were dealing with, the issues they were creating, and the approach they could take so that they did not cascade the issues.  He thought that trails were a good idea, but that trails unto themselves were not really a good; however, they were good if they were part of a system that took traffic off the road and made it more affordable to maintain the road system.  He added that it was also a good if it helped connect people to where they shopped, noting that it was easier to build and maintain a golf cart path when compared to a highway. 

Mr. Kent Adcock, a member of CHED and Mayor of Umatilla, stated that the community was considering some of these choices, and said that their process for growth had been etched in decades of behavior and was presenting challenges.  He mentioned that in the City of Umatilla, the City Council was learning of entitlement decisions made 20 years prior that were now coming to fruition, and communities had changed dramatically in those 20 years.  He stated that there was an interesting way that Strong Towns helped to change culture and the paradigm of how they considered this.  He felt that they needed to recognize that there was a better way of looking at growth and development, and he applauded Strong Towns and the opportunity it brought.  He hoped that the Board would approve it.

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

Commr. Campione mentioned the Strong Town strength test as a way to assess where they were at currently.  She opined that the only way to make this work countywide would be to have buy in from all of the Cities and work collaboratively.  She reviewed some questions presented in the strength test, and said that one was “Take a photo of your main street at midday. Does your picture show more people than cars?”  She commented that in many of the cities in the county, they had many people downtown, and that Cities were doing a good job at focusing on their downtown districts.  She also mentioned the question “If there was a revolution in your town, would people instinctively know where to gather to participate?”  She said that most cities had a town square, or people could travel to the Lake County Historic Courthouse.  She then relayed the question “Imagine your favorite street in town if it did not exist.  Could it be built today if the construction had to follow your local rules?”  She opined that it likely could not, mentioning the City of Mount Dora and how challenging it could be to renovate a building.  She thought the following question applied to the county and all of the cities: “Is an owner of a single family home able to get permission to add a small rental unit on their property without any real hassle?”  She noted that the County had been working on accessory dwelling units (ADUs).  She then relayed the question “Is it safe for children to walk or bike to school and many of their other activities without adult supervision?”  She opined that this was a significant issue, and said that they had been trying to address this with grants from the State to help with sidewalks; however, there were many sidewalks in the county that stopped, and it was challenging to walk to Eustis Middle School.  She expressed support for discussing these issues and coming up with solutions, and she relayed her support for this effort.

Commr. Blake asked if Mr. Marohn’s comments were the presentation.  He also commented that there was a presentation with slides, but they were not presented, and he added that the presentation that the Board was emailed was not addressed.

Commr. Parks clarified that the current day was introductory and stated that the Board was currently in this discussion, noting that in the email was a proposal for the Board to go through the Strong Towns philosophy.

Commr. Blake inquired if there would be a presentation before the Board made this decision and spent almost $120,000.  He commented that he wanted to know what it was before spending this kind of funding.  He said that he read through the presentation that the Board was emailed, and it mentioned the City of Groveland in everything.

Commr. Parks said that the Board could come back for a formal decision.  He also thought the City of Groveland was mentioned because they were going through this already.

Commr. Blake mentioned that “top leadership” and “key leaders” were used throughout the document, and that he did not see property owners mentioned.  He asked if this item was just a marketing contract with a few meetings.

Commr. Parks explained that marketing could be part of it to explain the philosophy, but it was also a series of meetings and that any stakeholder would be invited to participate. 

Commr. Blake asked what the philosophy was, and Commissioner Parks replied that it was thinking about fiscal decisions regarding growth.

Ms. Swart stated that the proposal included participation of the public and private sector, and they also hosted different town halls and events to engage the public.  She added that it was intended to be engaging for the entire community at a grassroots level.

Commr. Blake commented that historically, the way Western civilization worked was that property owners were the most important piece, and the person who decided the highest and best use for a piece of property was the person who owned that property, noting that this decision was guided by the free market.  He stated that he wanted to make sure that property owners decided this, and he mentioned that the post-World War II pattern of development was private market decisions, recalling that he had previously provided the Board with an article about how the war on urban sprawl was largely responsible for the housing crisis.  He said that he wanted to understand the practical outcome of this proposal.

Commr. Parks agreed, but opined that there were lessons learned from development patterns after World War II through the 1950s and 1960s, noting that part of this was not to make some of the same mistakes.

Commr. Shields opined that there were issues in Four Corners because there was no government or planning, and they had to figure out how to address it.

Mr. Marohn said that he was a conservative, free market person; however, projects that he had previously worked on would not have been possible if local government had not been there to take on the liability, debt and long term responsibility for ongoing maintenance.  He commented that bringing nuance to the government conversation was part of what they did at Strong Towns, and that much of what they did well was the conversation outside of town halls using digital media tools.  He relayed that wanted to have a series of public conservations around the county and augment them with an ongoing conversation in the digital space so that people interacting online could be exposed to these ideas and engage with them.  He added that it would not work if it was a leadership-only engagement; rather, it had to be a broad public conversation.

Commr. Campione asked that if the Board went forward with this, would each City have to address this themselves, or would the County be making it available to any of the Cities that wanted to participate and collaborate with the County.

Ms. Swart responded that the reason why there were so many community action champions written into the program was to allow representation from each municipality in the county.  She felt that connected planning was the smartest approach, and she expressed interest in seeing the County take the lead on this.

Commr. Campione opined that the largest challenge they faced currently was how they could pay for it and make it sustainable for future generations.  She elaborated that much of this hinged on redevelopment versus sprawl, noting that the County was facing cities growing into more rural and suburban areas, noting that the County had no way to address the added transportation burdens on roads that were not designed to have that level of traffic.  She said that she liked to think, from a property rights standpoint, that the beneficiary was the property owner and the community, opining that property values and quality of life could be enhanced.  She thought that in the past, property owners had typically followed a template, though she opined that the template was arguably flawed.  She also thought that a large part of this was getting people to rethink it and consider if this was the best way to be doing it.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for private side or property owner investment coming into their community, and commented that Strong Towns also considered the associated liabilities that the County assumed.  He noted that if a development came in or if there was a new growth pattern, then there was a long term liability that went with it.  He mentioned that this fit in with what the County was trying to do with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), noting that there could be many opportunities for people to participate.  He opined that this item would work well with the ECFRPC and the countywide effort with all of the Cities to develop joint planning agreements (JPAs), noting that the current item would be the philosophy, and the countywide effort would be more detailed.  He also mentioned that the current item was the idea of many people in attendance on the current day, and that he was supportive of it.

Commr. Shields expressed support for reading the book, noting that it discussed how they got into this situation after World War II by letting everyone live in the suburbs.

Commr. Parks asked to confirm that a proposal was under consideration.

Ms. Barker said this was correct, and if the Board gave staff direction to move forward, they would like to have Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, bring back an agreement to solidify the partnership.  She added that the proposal was received late and may not have been attached to the agenda during the publishing; therefore, they would have to bring it back.

Commr. Parks inquired if it would be brought back for the Board to consider, and if there would be an agreement that they could execute at that point.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and explained that the Board could give staff direction on the current day to move forward and negotiate it; furthermore, it would come back at one of the next available agendas for approval.

Ms. Barker said that staff could place it on the first BCC meeting agenda in June 2022.

Commr. Blake inquired about the outcome for the $116,000 expenditure, and he expressed concerns for the economy.  He opined that $116,000 for an extra digital marketing contract seemed excessive to him.

Commr. Campione opined that if the County could figure out a way to pay for their infrastructure and ensure that they were building things that were sustainable for future generations, this this would be worth the investment.

Commr. Blake asked if it would be focusing additional growth in urban areas and prohibiting suburban development, and what the goal of the Board was.

Commr. Parks replied that he would have some meetings and that there would be a process to follow, noting that paving the roads could be part of it.  He stated that a process would come out of it regarding the fiscal impact from making development decisions. 

Commr. Blake inquired what the practical change had been from an entity that had subscribed to this, and if the practical result would be denials of planned unit developments (PUDs).  He opined that it was too vague.

Commr. Shields said that they might decide that it was more cost effective to redevelop the interior of an area instead of sprawl, adding that they would consider the financial model before doing anything.

Commr. Campione remarked that the County already had a comprehensive land use plan which was dictated by the State of Florida and that had been in place for 20 or 30 years and that they updated every five to 10 years.  She said that this item was to consider what they were already doing, noting that they possibly needed another layer which was a true financial analysis of how to pay for things that the County had on the growth map.  She clarified that it did not mean that they could not have some items, but before they approved them, they would have principles and guidelines.  She commented that a project in one suburban area could make sense because the roads there were already capable of handling the extra traffic, but in another area they were possibly not capable.  She said that if a developer wanted to develop in the other area, then part of the analysis could regard how they would put a mechanism in place to pay for those roads, along if it was viable.  She added that if it was not viable, then it would not be the right location for the project.  She said that this potentially had the ability of being the missing piece that the County did not have before, which was looking at the quality resulting from projects, as well as the financial sustainability.  She opined that it was worth the investment if they ended up with a more financially feasible way of doing land development in the county.

Mr. Bret Jones, a land use attorney, said that this item was not a consulting agreement; rather, it was an engagement agreement, and whatever would be designed would be customized to Lake County.  He added that the Board and the City Councils could consider these items for adoption into land development regulations (LDR), and he clarified that the proposal was not centralized density.  He commented that it would create a language for individuals to speak so that they could make choices appropriate for the county and the cities. 

Commr. Blake inquired that at the end of the subscription, if the entity received a list of suggested Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendments.

Mr. Jones replied that it was a movement and was creating knowledge, and that a large part was the education component.  He commented that Cities and the County had good professional staff that worked for them, noting that this could include unlearning some items and opening up other options.  He added that it was to give staff permission to consider alternative strategies, and that the County would not be paying for a consulting plan.  He said that it could help address both opposition from residents, as well as lawyers with proposals, if the County had this engagement process and was able to adopt the relevant portions.

Commr. Campione opined that this was a great point, noting that Lake County had a pendulum swing between growth versus no growth.  She also opined that the answer was not to disallow growth, and that this could give the County someplace else to go other than saying no; furthermore; she noted that costs could increase, that property rights could be decreased, and it could ultimately add cost and make a community unaffordable.  She said that the County was trying to find another mechanism that they could use that would make everyone feel more comfortable with the fact that the county was growing to grow, opining that they could figure out a better way to do this.

Commr. Shields added that the County could possibly transfer some property rights.

Commr. Parks stated that the transfer of development rights (TDRs) could be part of the countywide process, along with hopefully doing JPAs with all of the Cities and Towns.  He mentioned that the Strong Towns mechanism could be included in the JPAs.

Mr. Jones said that this could give everyone a way to look at things through a similar lens, along with the same language to discuss it. 

Commr. Smith commented that he would be interested in what a proposal looked like when it came back to the Board.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that there was consensus to move forward, and noted that it would be on the first BCC meeting of June 2022. 

2022 legislative session update

Mr. Chris Carmody, with GrayRobinson, said that his organization worked on the County’s behalf in the City of Tallahassee on the legislative and executive level.  He commented that the special session occurred on the previous day to address homeowner property insurance, relaying that it looked like it would be a good product which could bring some relief to Lake County constituents.  He then discussed the 2022 regular session wrap up, commenting that they were constitutionally required to do the budget and redistricting.  He remarked that the Florida House of Representatives and Senate maps were approved, and that they were also approved by the Florida Supreme Court.  He stated that the Voting Rights Act was a federal law that required the states to honor minority access districts, and that the State of Florida Constitution indicated that districts had to be compact and honor geographic borders.  He elaborated that the Governor took the position that the minority access maps were not compact and did not honor the State Constitution, and that the maps were then passed in a special session; furthermore, the Governor signed it and it had gone through the legal challenge.  He displayed the House of Representatives map and said that there would still be three members from Lake County, and that Representative Keith Truenow would represent most of the North Lake area, noting that there would be a seat in South Lake which would have a new member, and that Representative Anthony Sabatini would be running for Congress.  He showed the Senate map and stated that all of Lake County would be in one Senate territory, noting that Senator Dennis Baxley would be running for that seat.  He mentioned that the seat in South Lake was now moved into Polk County, and that in Congress, Congressman Daniel Webster’s seat was moving east to include Lake County.  He mentioned that Lake County’s number of members decreased because they had more population, and he commented that the Florida Legislature was also constitutionally required to do the budget.  He explained that in the current year, it was a $112 billion budget; however, this was before the vetoes.  He specified that it included $8.9 billion in reserves, and 43.7 percent of this was general revenue, with the rest being trust funds or federal funding.  He said that in almost 10 years, the State’s budget had nearly doubled and had grown about $30 billion in five years, noting that much of this was top line revenue from taxes for growth and the tourism industry.  He displayed a breakdown of the budget, mentioning that health and human services was the largest portion at $48.9 billion, followed by education at $25.7 billion, transportation and economic development at $16.5 billion, agriculture and natural resources $9.3 billion, criminal and civil justice at $6.9 billion, and a $1 billion inflation fund.  He mentioned the tax package and said that the school sales tax holiday would begin on July 25, 2022, and that the disaster preparedness sales tax holiday would begin on May 28, 2022.  He added that Freedom Week would begin on July 1, 2022, noting that hunting, camping and outdoor gear and events would be tax free, along with a skill trades tax holiday for tools beginning on September 3, 2022.  He commented that there was a yearlong sales tax exemption on children’s clothing, shoes and diapers, and that there would be a motor fuels sales tax holiday beginning October 1, 2022.  He also relayed that there would be a sales tax exemption for Formula 1, the World Cup, and the Daytona 500.  He then mentioned the following local project appropriations: Agricultural Education and Expo Center for $2 million; Lake County Fire Rescue Station 109 expansion at $1.3 million; Lake County Fire Rescue Station 71 replacement at $2.2 million; County Road (CR) 42 flood zone crossing improvements at $500,000; and the Lincoln Park Community and Vocational Center at $152,600.  He said that one reason that an agriculture and expo center could possibly be vetoed was if it did not go through the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) process to be eligible, noting that Lake County’s did not; however, he had given the Governor’s office a significant amount of information regarding why this project was different than others.  He added that if the Governor vetoed this project, his organization would begin working through the FDACS process if the County wanted to bring it forward in the following year.  He stated that some of the budget size was because the State was using Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, and that there had been large increases in sales tax collections, noting that many people were visiting the state.  He relayed the following information about local government issues: there were some preemption bills, noting that a bill for business compensation had passed, which could possibly be vetoed; a bill for business impact statements had not passed; support for sovereign immunity reform was building in the state, but it was defeated in the current year and would be back in the following year; local government financial disclosure did not pass, but would also be back; tree trimming was a cleanup of language; for public notices, as long as requirements were met for online publications, the County would not be required to publish in their local daily newspaper; Cities and Counties could ban smoking in public places, except for cigars; and starting in October 2022, any local tax referendums would have to be on the general election ballot.  He related that affordable housing was fully funded and that about $209 million was for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program, and roughly $153 million was for the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, with $100 million of this going to the Hometown Heroes program which was down payment assistance to first time homebuyers who were police, firefighters, 911 operators, teachers, paramedics, healthcare workers and home health aides.  He said that House Bill (HB) 1105 was awaiting the Florida Governor’s signature, and that it would convert the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) to a dependent special district to Lake County, replacing the LCWA Governing Board with five new members appointed by the County, and restricted authority to operate passive parks.  He relayed that he expected the Governor to sign this, and he displayed future legislative session dates.  He did not think that there would be another special session before November 2022, noting that the election would be on November 8, 2022.  He commented that the organizational session would likely be on November 14, 2022, and the committee weeks would be December 2022 through February 2023; furthermore, regular session would be on March 7, 2023, and the end of the session would be on May 5, 2023.  He encouraged the Board to begin on issues sooner rather than later because they could still have meetings with the people they expected to be their representatives and senators, noting that the Florida Legislature would not start anything in earnest until after the elections. 

Commr. Smith thanked Mr. Carmody for doing a good job in the current year.

Mr. Carmody mentioned wildlife corridors and other areas, noting that $300 million had been included in a bill toward this where the Florida Department Environmental Protection (FDEP), in partnership with the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS), could provide funds to help local governments partner with the State, noting that this was to acquire land to allow for easements or purchase of property to enhance Florida’s wildlife corridors in public places.  He added that there was also a county transportation projects line item for $50,000, along with other items, and that his team would work with County staff to ensure that they had this information.

proclamation 2022-56 race amity day

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2022-56 declaring the second Sunday in June as Race Amity Day.

Commr. Shields read and presented Proclamation 2022-56 to Pastor Michael Watkins, with Friendship CME Church in the City of Tavares.

Pastor Watkins thanked the Board and said that this item was brought to him a few years prior.  He indicated that they would be sending out a flyer indicating that on the second Sunday in June, they would meet in front of the Lake County Historic Courthouse, pray about issues, and consider things going on in the world.  He mentioned that it would include all religions and all ethnic groups, and that they were joining other states and counties that were doing this.  He expressed interest in building bridges and breaking down barriers.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake 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 7, 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.

Estates at Cherry Lake CDD Proposed Budget for FY 2022/2023

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Estates at Cherry Lake Community Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 2022/2023 in accordance with Section 190.008(b), Florida Statutes, for purposes of disclosure and information only.

City of Minneola Ordinance 2021-20

Notice is hereby provided of having received Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance 2021-20 from the City of Minneola.

Town of Lady Lake Items

Notice is hereby provided of having received the following from the Town of Lady Lake: Ordinance 2021-10; Ordinance 2021-13; Ordinance 2021-14; Ordinance 2021-15; Ordinance 2021-17; Ordinance 2021-18; Ordinance 2021-20; Ordinance 2021-21; Ordinance 2021-22; Ordinance 2021-27; Ordinance 2021-28; Ordinance 2021-29; Resolution 2021-107; Resolution 2021-109; Resolution 2022-101; Resolution 2022-102; Resolution 2022-111; Resolution 2022-112.

City of Fruitland Park Ordinance 2022-008

Notice is hereby provided of having received Annexation Ordinance 2022-008 from the City of Fruitland Park.

Financial Reports from City of Mascotte and Mascotte CRA

Notice is hereby provided of having received the Financial Reports, year ended September 30, 2021, from the City of Mascotte and the City of Mascotte Community Redevelopment Agency.

Lands Available List

Notice is hereby provided of having received a list of property placed on the Lands Available List.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Smith requested to pull Tab 10.

Commr. Parks assured everyone that Tab 16 was ready to begin for the speed limit reduction if it was approved.  He expressed appreciation for Mr. Earhart and Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, for having meetings with the Town of Montverde.

Commr. Blake thanked staff for working with him on Tab 14, noting that there had been accidents at that intersection and that some residents had requested a four-way stop.

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 4 through 20, pulling Tab 10 to the regular agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend approval of Proclamation 2022-59 designating June 2022 as Tobacco-Free Parks Month in Lake County.

Recommend approval for the Liberty Tree Proclamation 2022-57, per Commissioner Parks.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval regarding the following County-Owned properties:

1. Declare the portion of County-Owned property encumbering Alternate Key 3882432 as surplus for the purpose of disposal and accept an Offer to Purchase the County’s interest.

2. Accept an Offer to Purchase on Alternate Key 3499654; and

3. Authorize the Chairman to execute any necessary closing documents.

The fiscal impact is $2,186.55 (revenue). Commission Districts 4 & 5.

Recommend approval of:

1) Settlement Agreement between Magnolia Pointe Master Homeowners' Association, Inc., Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, PKY Clermont Owner, LLC, CRA-MAR Groves, Inc., John's Lake, LLC and John's Lake Property Owners Association, Inc.;

2) Release as to Lake County;

3) Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed from Magnolia Pointe Master Homeowners' Association effective upon recordation in the public records;

3) Resolution 2022-60 accepting a portion of Magnolia Pointe Boulevard into Lake County's Road Maintenance System effective upon recordation of the Quitclaim Deed in the public records;

4) Maintenance Agreement between Lake County and Magnolia Pointe Homeowners' Association, Inc. effective upon recordation of the Quitclaim Deed in the public records;

5) Authorize the County Manager and County Attorney to make modifications to the final documents; and

6) Authorize the Chairman to execute any documents necessary for the settlement.

The fiscal impact is $1,342.69 for the County's portion of mediator services.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Procurement Services

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

HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Recommend approval of Contract 22-532 for temporary labor services to Abacus Corporation (Baltimore, MD); AP Recruiters & Associates (West Palm Beach, FL); and BuzzClan, LLC (Dallas, TX); and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated fiscal impact is dependent on usage and may be up to $650,000 (expenditure), which is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year Budget.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Public Safety Support

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-402 with Magellan Advisors, LLC (Denver, CO) for a countywide broadband feasibility study; and

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

The fiscal impact is $144,000 (expenditure) and it is within the ARPA project allocation for last mile broadband projects.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Parks and Trails

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contracts 22-726 for Park Amenities and Equipment as needed with the following pool of vendors: Bliss Products and Services, Inc. (Lithia Springs, GA), Kompan, Inc. (Austin, TX), Lanier Plans, Inc. dba Korkat (Carollton, GA), Playmore West, Inc (Fort Myers, FL), Swartz Associates, Inc (Naples, FL), William Medley Construction, Inc. dba Medley Sports Construction (Sorrento, FL).

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

The estimated fiscal impact is $200,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year Budget.

Public Works

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-61 to reduce the speed limit from 45 MPH to 35 MPH on County Road (CR) 455, from Old CR 50 (north side of turnpike) south to State Road 50, in the Clermont area.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $400 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-62 to install stop signs and all way plaques on Lake Ella Road at Micro Racetrack Road, on Lake Ella Road at Rolling Acres Road, and on Lake Griffin Road at Grays Airport Road in the Lady Lake area.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $500 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 5.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-63 to advertise a public hearing to vacate a platted right of way lying east of Hancock Road between Johns Lake Road and Sunburst Lane. The closest municipality is the City of Clermont.

The fiscal impact is $2,295 (revenue-vacation application fee) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend adoption of Resolution 2022-64 to install stop signs and all way plaques on County Road (CR) 455 at Fosgate Road and Resolution 2022-65 reduce the speed limit on CR 455 from 1035 feet west of Fosgate Road to 7th Street, on CR 455 from 348 feet south of Academy Lane to 1,060 feet south of Bolsena Drive, and on Ridgewood Avenue from Fosgate Road to Elderberry Drive from 45/35 MPH to 30 MPH in the Montverde area.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $700 (expenditure - sign materials) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. Commission District 2.

Recommend approval of Contract 22-533 for Portable Color Variable Message Boards to ProLogics ITS, LLC (Acworth, Georgia); and to authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated fiscal impact is $121,684.20 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

Recommend approval:

1. Of the purchase of four John Deere frontend loaders at end of lease for a total cost of $827,000; and

2. A budget transfer from Road Operations Operating Expenditures and Gas Tax Reserves for the purchase of the requested equipment.

The fiscal impact is estimated at $827,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

Transit Services

Recommend approval:

1. To apply for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and Equipment Grant for FY 2022-2023; and

2. To adopt related Resolution 2022-66; and

3. To accept the agreement when awarded and authorize the County Manager to execute the agreement and any other associated documents required to receive the grant funds.

The fiscal impact is $914,197 (revenue/expenditure - $822,766 in grant funding and $91,431 of County in-kind match). If approved, the match will be budgeted for in Fiscal Year 2023.

Recommend approval:

1. Of Contract 22-723 with Garage Gadgets, Inc. (Clermont, FL) for Wheel Alignment Equipment and Installation for the Office of Transit Services.

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

The fiscal impact is $84,604 (expenditure) and is within the Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.

TAB 10: east central FL regional planning council CONTRACT

Commr. Smith said that he pulled this tab because it seemed to him that the County would be using funding from reserves to fund this, and Ms. Barker confirmed this.  Commissioner Smith then expressed that he was very protective of reserves and felt that it was there for emergency reasons.  He opined that this item did not seem like an emergency, and he proposed possibly holding off and placing it in the budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. 

Commr. Parks explained that this item was the effort with the ECFRPC, and that the request was to develop a joint planning initiative between the County and the Cities.  He elaborated that this was the implementation of everything they discussed on February 7, 2022, and that this was why he was supportive of it.  He inquired about the total request for this item.

Ms. Barker replied that it was not to exceed $350,000, and that the ECFRPC had indicated that they applied for several grants; furthermore, if they were awarded those grants, then it would reduce the cost of the effort. 

Commr. Parks indicated that this was a maximum number and that one grant had been awarded for $70,000 which would be applied to that.  He mentioned that there was another grant that the ECFRPC thought they would receive, and that there would be a request to the Cities to assist in sharing.  He stated that this item was to move forward in the essence of time, noting that they discussed this in February 2022.  He also commented that a different consultant could possibly cost more money and have their own agenda, and noted that the County kept receiving questions about when this effort would be started.

Commr. Blake inquired if the ECFRPC was giving the County a discount since they already paid dues to the organization.

Ms. Barker said that this was the cost of the effort, and that the ECFRPC would be using the services of Stetson University and the University of Florida (UF) as part of the effort.

Commr. Campione asked about if a City had no interest in being a participant in this process, and if it could affect the overall cost.

Commr. Parks said that this could be true and that the County likely would not know this for six to eight months, assuming they approved this item.  He reiterated that this was a maximum number and that some Cities could help reduce the cost.  He relayed his understanding that the City of Clermont was interested.

Commr. Campione inquired if this would take the place of the County’s JPA with the City of Clermont.

Commr. Parks confirmed this, noting that this was the effort to do countywide JPAs, change them all, and address interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBAs) at the same time. 

Commr. Campione recalled that she had a challenging time with the idea that there would be something to be one size fits all, noting that each city would be unique and that only some of them had ISBAs. 

Commr. Parks stated that the idea would be that a JPA with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills could be different than a JPA with another City.  He asked about the County’s current JPAs.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the County currently had active JPAs with the Cities of Clermont, Eustis and Mount Dora. 

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the City of Mount Dora JPA was primarily for the County and City to share plans with each other, and that it could be terminated within a short period of time.  She opined that the City of Eustis JPA had always been questionable, and she asked how this item broke down each of the JPAs.  She also wondered that if it was done on a universal basis, could they possibly lose the ability to refine some of the JPAs they already had.

Commr. Parks clarified that there would not be much time spent on a universal JPA that would fit everyone; rather, the goal was to get a JPA with every City and have some shared standards.  He mentioned that the JPA with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills could be different than the JPA with the City of Leesburg, and he opined that County staff could not do this without hiring additional personnel or having someone lead them through this process.

Ms. Barker added that the ECFRPC indicated that they planned on dividing the county into regions and meeting with Cities within a specific region due to different needs in those areas.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for the chronology and how they could continue to work on things that were in existence already.  She mentioned the Strong Towns initiative and the initiative with Mr. Randall Arendt, a landscape planner, opining that there would be a large project they were trying to undertake; furthermore, she questioned what they would do in between with issues they had to address currently.

Commr. Parks thought that they could move forward with new agreements, reiterating that staff could not address something this large on a countywide effort.  He said that the ECFPC could initiate and help with this, and that they had to address both the short, intermediate, and long term items.

Commr. Shields inquired if the County could have another joint meeting with the Cities and ask about this.

Commr. Parks replied that there was a joint meeting planned, but it took three months to schedule the previous meeting. 

Commr. Campione commented that previously when doing countywide initiatives, the Board had met with a few Cities at a time to make it more manageable. 

Commr. Parks was unsure how the County could do what they discussed on February 7, 2022, noting that it could possibly take a few years to do on their own. 

Commr. Smith mentioned that the City of Tavares was having workshops every other month regarding growth, and he thought that the County’s February 7, 2022 meeting had positive impact on certain Cities.  He indicated concerns for removing $350,000 from reserves, noting that grants were not guaranteed.

Commr. Smith made a motion to deny this item, and Commissioner Blake seconded the motion.

Commr. Parks stated that all of the Cities had discussed supporting this effort in February 2022.

Commr. Campione said that she did not hear all 14 Cities say that this was what they wanted to do.  She thought that a better approach was to reach out to each City, and if there was agreement that they wanted to move forward with a JPA, then there could be a contract before the Board using the ECFRPC to work with them on each City.  She expressed concerns for spending a large amount of funding and not having anything substantive at the end.

Commr. Smith remarked that the County could take the lead by having these meetings with the Cities and starting the process.

Commr. Parks said that the proposed contract asked for the ECFRPC to meet with each City so that staff was not spending all their time doing this.

Commr. Campione opined that the narrative was that the Board wanted to accomplish revised or new JPAs, and if a City was willing, then the Board could work with them.  She added that if each City wanted to do this, then the Board could consider the cost of addressing all 14 Cities, noting that the Cities could possibly assist with the cost.

Commr. Shields asked if the County could do a pilot.

Commr. Parks commented that this was already occurring with the City of Groveland and that this could happen.  He urged the Board to consider this item, noting that they could still deny it a few weeks later.  He reiterated that he was unsure how what they discussed on February 7, 2022 would get done.

Commr. Smith opined that they needed to budget this item in their regular budget cycle.

Commr. Parks stated that some Commissioners had previously said that something came up and that they had to adjust the budget for it.  He opined that this would not be out of the ordinary.

Commr. Campione commented that she would like to see the contract broken down so that they bifurcated each of the tasks.  She noted that they could also possibly save a significant amount of funding.

Commr. Parks urged the Board to at least table this item for two weeks to answer questions.

Commr. Shields opined that the Board knew they had to get this done and figured out with the Cities.

Commr. Campione said that she did not oppose joint planning, but she thought that they had to address each entity and that this was a better approach.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board denied a contract with the ECFRPC to develop a joint planning initiative between the County and Cities, and a budget transfer from General Fund Reserves to fund the agreement.

Commr. Shields and Commr. Parks voted no.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 11:05 a.m. for five minutes.

fiscal year 2022 fire assessment study

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide the Board with the results of the 2022 fire assessment study.  She relayed the following overview for this item: the fire assessment is used to fund fire protection services and first response medical services, or basic life support (BLS); it could not fund advanced life support (ALS) services; the fire assessment study was performed annually and examined the utilization of fire services in seven land use categories; and the assessment rates were calculated annually based on the allocation of resources and the assessable portion of the proposed budget.

Ms. Nilgun Kamp, with Benesch, commented that this presentation was to provide the Board with the interim annual update, noting that the previous update included incidents for the past 10 years and the previous year’s budget; furthermore, the current presentation used the same methodology that the current adopted rates were based on.  She added that they also incorporated the portion of the requested budget which was assessable.  She relayed that the full requested budget was about $38 million, noting that approximately $26 million was assessable, which was about a seven percent increase over the previous year’s assessable budget, and that the rates would increase by roughly seven percent.  She relayed the following information: the non-ALS portion was reduced, noting that they were seeing more ALS incidents; there was a slight increase in the budget; there were changes in the resource and incident distribution; property units were mostly stable; and the calculated maximum rates would be shown.  She explained that the calculation components began with reviewing all of the incidents and the portion that was assessable, which was everything except ALS; additionally, they also reviewed them by land use.  She commented that they determined the assessable budget, updated the property units, and calculated the rates.  She displayed a table with a summary of the key changes, and provided the following information: the ALS portion of the incidents increased by about 12 percent, which reduced the non-ALS portion; for assessment rate changes, there were some shifts from hotel/motel/recreational vehicle (RV) park, vacant land and agricultural to residential and institutional land uses; property units were mostly stable; and these changes resulted in an assessment rate increase of about 7.5 percent for the residential land use rate, about three percent for hotel/motel/RV park and vacant land, and an increase ranging from approximately one percent to 12 percent for non-residential.  She commented that they reviewed the frequency of incidents and the total resources used, noting that ALS had been increasing and that the non-ALS portion of the resources decreased from roughly 73 percent to 69 percent.  She elaborated that they considered the non-ALS resource total distribution by land use, and that residential, commercial and industrial remained stable; however, there was a decrease in hotel/motel/RV park and vacant land, along with an increase in institutional and agricultural, noting that agricultural land was exempt from assessments.  She said that they then took the assessable budget and distributed it by land use to determine each land use’s portion of the budget, and she showed a chart with the impact of the budget increase and the shift in resources; additionally, the largest increases were in institutional and residential, followed by commercial.  She related that the units remained stable, and said that there was a decrease in vacant land as properties were developed.  She relayed the following information about the overall rates: the rates were increasing for residential from $201 to $216, or about 7.5 percent; hotel/motel/RV park was increasing by about $2; the largest increase was in institutional for about 12 percent; vacant land was increasing approximately $2, or three percent; and the County buys down the institutional rates.

Ms. Teslia stated that for this year, staff was recommending no changes to the current rates, and that the Fire Rescue Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) funded ALS services provided by the fire department and other costs incurred by the Office of Fire Rescue that could not be funded by the fire assessment.  She relayed the following next steps: on the current day, the Board was having consideration of the interim fire assessment study prepared by Benesch; on July 12, 2022, they would have the initial fire assessment resolution with updated assessment rates; September 13, 2022 would be the first public hearing; and September 27, 2022 would be the final public hearing.  She read the requested action to accept the fire assessment study prepared by Benesch.

Commr. Shields asked why staff was recommending not to increase the rates.

Ms. Barker replied that currently, they had enough funding to fund the upcoming year and the next few years, noting that they anticipated a property value increase on the MSTU that would fund the next couple of years; therefore, they saw the opportunity to leave it as status quo for the upcoming fiscal year.

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2022 Fire Assessment Study.

wireless antennas, towers and equipment facilities

Mr. Greg Holcomb, Director for the Office of Public Safety Support, said that the purpose of this presentation was to provide an overview of the Lake County wireless antennas, towers, and equipment facilities pertaining to tower placement and appearance.  He provided the following background information: the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act was one of the first acts that started the expansion of broadband and towers in rural areas; in 2019, there was the American Broadband Initiative (ABI) to remove barriers to broadband towers in rural areas; current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiatives included combatting digital discrimination, rural broadband accountability, homework gap and connectivity divide, and broadband data collection; there was broadband funding from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA); Lake County wireless antennas, towers, and equipment facilities code had not been updated since 2013; historically, Lake County averaged about two or three new tower requests annually; some citizens had expressed interest in tower growth to the Board; and on February 1, 2022, there was a presentation to the Board discussing legislation and what the County could and could not do based on federal regulations.  He explained that tower types included large macrocells, small cells, and smaller femtocells.  He displayed images of cellular towers, noting that they were seen on interstates, in utility areas, and in rural areas.  He then showed images of small cells and commented that they looked like telephone poles and were generally in areas like apartment complexes and schools which needed density for internet and broadband access; additionally, a small device in a home office was considered a tower, and connected through the internet to the carrier’s network to provide service for cell phones inside a building.  He displayed images of commercial towers, pointing out microwave dishes and a different type of antenna, and he said that these systems could also be placed on a water tower to utilize existing infrastructure.  He mentioned that the County’s code encouraged co-location, and he showed images of multiple panel antennas on the same tower.  He commented that the code also had a section about disguised antennas, displaying an image of a large flagpole with disguised antennas, along with a church cross, a bell tower, and a disguised pine tree that was actually a tower.  He discussed setbacks and said that Section 3.13.09 of the Lake County Code indicated that towers should be centered within the boundaries of the parent parcel, set back at a minimum of 100 feet measured using global positioning system (GPS) coordinates from the base of the tower.  He showed the requirements for setbacks, pointing out setbacks for a lattice tower, guywire tower, monopole tower and a camouflage tower in the Urban Low, Medium and High future land uses (FLUs); additionally, they had specific requirements in Sorrento and the Green Swamp, along with other specifics.  He added that setbacks from single family and duplex units were generally the same, though was different for monopole towers.  He displayed comparisons to surrounding counties and commented that Orange County broke this out more on the zoning side, noting that they were more specific on monopole towers.  He relayed that the City of Orlando was similar to Lake County and did not break down the footage, and that it mostly regarded tower heights; furthermore, the City’s zonings was just multifamily and residential with all other zonings having to meet those requirements.  He related that Seminole County was similar to the City of Orlando and that they only had two uses and their separation distance, and he stated that Marion County basically went off tower height entirely; therefore, their separation from neighboring parcels was 100 percent of the height of the tower, and this was increased to 150 percent for residential.  He said that Sumter County’s setback was one half of the tower’s height from a parcel’s boundary, and they had the ability to reduce this up to 20 percent per director approval; additionally, towers must meet the setbacks for the applicable zoning district, and they had a ham radio specification as well.  He showed a table with Lake County separation between types of towers, noting that they broke out monopoles above and below 150 feet, pointing out that camouflaged towers and amateur radio station operators were exempt from these separations.  He stated that Orange County, City of Orlando and Seminole County tower separations were similar to Lake County, and that for Marion County, unless otherwise approved by the Board, towers shall be separated from each other a minimum distance equal to the fall radius.  He commented that the tower separation in Sumter County was 200 feet, or one-half mile from another existing or approved single use tower of over 200 feet in height, noting that one-half mile would equate to 2,640 feet for all tower types.  He then relayed the following exemptions: Lake County exempted camouflaged towers and amateur radio operators; Orange County exempted commercial and industrial zoning, noting that there were no separation or height requirements for this; the City of Orlando exempted government-owned communication towers for the use of fire, public safety, emergency management and medical services; and Volusia County had a height limitation exemption for everything except those regulated by special exemption, which would be things like government public safety towers.  He said that findings for Lake County’s code compared to their neighbors included that Lake County’s setbacks and separations were in alignment and in some cases were more stringent than surrounding counties, and Lake County’s code was the only code that identified “center of property.”  He then provided the following considerations: add percentages of tower heights to distances; some adjustments could be made to monopole height categories; zoning types could be expanded; microcell towers could be added, as they did not exist in any ordinance researched; consider exempting communication towers for public safety purposes; and conditional use permit (CUP) considerations.  He mentioned that an amplitude modulation (AM) radio array was normally a guywired tower of 1,000 feet or more, noting that it usually required two or three towers to do an AM radio signal transmission, and they usually covered 10 to 12 acres.  He said that there was only one array in Lake County, but this may be something that they could include in their code.  He remarked that Lake County encouraged co-location, and that some of the codes required this or required identifying to the Board why they would not co-locate.  He said that the County could consider reducing the height for amateur radio from 100 feet in all zones and 200 feet in rural zones to 50 feet in the neighborhood so that they would not encounter issues with neighbors in those communities.

public hearing: ordinance 2022-28 use of public rights of way

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

AN ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING ARTICLE XII, CHAPTER 3, LAKE COUNTY CODE, TO BE ENTITLED DANGEROUS USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDING FOR THE PROHIBITION OF STOPPING OR STANDING BY PEDESTRIANS IN A MEDIAN; PROVIDING FOR THE PROHIBITION OF PHYSICAL INTERACTION BETWEEN A PEDESTRIAN AND AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS NOT LEGALLY PARKED; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Smith, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2022-28 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.

public hearing: certificate of public convenience & necessity

Mr. Jerry Smith, Director for the Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), said that this public hearing had been properly noticed to citizens in all Lake County municipalities.  He explained that the purpose of this hearing was to comply with the County ordinance to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for EMS and ambulance transport in Lake County.  He stated that this was an administrative action which was required every two years as they went to renew their ALS license with the State of Florida.

Commr. Parks expressed appreciation for what his team did.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

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

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Smith and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Office of Emergency Medical Services through June 18, 2024.

OTHER BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS, RECREATION & TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to reappoint City of Fruitland Park Commissioner Chris Bell as the League of Cities Representative to the Parks, Recreation and Trails Advisory Board.

reports

county manager

county waste haulers

Ms. Barker recalled that a few of the County’s waste haulers had requested an increase for extraordinary events.  She elaborated that the Board had directed staff to check with their third hauler, Waste Connections, to see if they had the capacity to provide additional routes if needed, and that the third hauler had indicated that they did have the capacity; however, there were some details that the County had to address with them. She concluded that staff would bring something back for the Board’s consideration.

DWTS PARTNERSHIP WITH TOWN OF HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS

Ms. Barker recalled that at the March 22, 2022 BCC meeting, the Board approved a partnership with the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills to move forward with a distributed wastewater treatment system (DWTS).  She added that the agreement went to the Town Council on May 9, 2022, but the Council did not approve the agreement.  She said that staff needed new direction from the Board for this item, and that the Town would be requesting for their grant to be reallocated for traditional wastewater enhancements.  She explained that option one was to identify another host municipality to partner with the County and have access to the County’s FDEP grant for $1 million, and that they would contract with OnSyte to perform the installation and operation of the systems.  She added that they would also work with the County to set a uniform rate, and that they would provide the billing services.  She mentioned that option two was for the County to create a new utility district via an ordinance, and that OnSyte would contract with the new utility district to install the units; furthermore, the utility district would also contract for the operation and maintenance of the system, and would be responsible for setting the rates and the billing.  She remarked that option three was that the County could request FDEP to reallocate their $1 million grant for DWTS to advanced treatment units (ATUs), noting that the cost was $25,000 to install and $400 for an annual maintenance contract. She added that the property owner would be responsible for the system.

Commr. Parks asked why the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills did not want to enter into the agreement.

Mr. Sean O’Keefe, Howey-in-the-Hills Town Administrator, relayed that the Town Council decided not to pursue any project or process with OnSyte, noting that it was viewed as a conflict of focus where the council felt that a focus on installing sewer was more preferable than trying to install Onsyte DWTS in the town area and dividing the effort of the staff.

Commr. Campione inquired about the likelihood that FDEP would let the Town take the $400,000 and put it toward central sewer.

Mr. O’Keefe responded that the Town’s grant was more broadly described and included getting residents off septic, noting that it looked like they could use it for expanding existing sewer lines within the town. 

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the town already had a central sewer plant.

Mr. O’Keefe clarified that they worked with a community development district (CDD).

Commr. Smith expressed that he liked the option of seeing if any other municipality would be willing to participate, and he mentioned the possibility of the Town of Astatula and the City of Tavares.

Commr. Campione indicated support for creating a utility district, noting that they did not have to use the entire district and make it function as a countywide district; however, by setting it up, they could use it in instances where they had an opportunity to take people off septic tanks and put them on the system.  She also added that they could contract with utility companies to address billing and logistics.  She thought that there could be a conflict of interest with a City, and that it could be smarter for the County to be autonomous and have this as an option, such as where they were trying to address septic systems on lakes. 

Commr. Shields agreed, and Commissioner Parks commented that this would be option two.

Commr. Smith asked if Commissioner Campione was discussing growing the government and adding another department.

Commr. Campione clarified that the vision was to protect their lakes, and said that she did not view the establishment of a utility district as growing the government, noting that they could contract with an entity to run the district; additionally, it would be funded by the users, and would facilitate getting people off septic systems and promoting water quality. 

Commr. Smith stated that he liked the OnSyte concept, and he was trying to determine the difference between the County running it versus a municipality.  He asked if Commissioner Campione was proposing for the County to create a district and have a private organization address the billing and logistics.

Commr. Campione said that the County could contract with them to address the logistics, and that the County could possibly request proposals for this.

Commr. Smith commented that he would not mind seeing this proposal.

Commr. Parks concluded that the Board would go with option two.

OFFICE CLOSURE FOR MEMORIAL DAY

Ms. Barker mentioned that the County Offices would be closed on May 30, 2022 in observance of Memorial Day.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – district 1

EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Shields said that he had attended an ECFRPC meeting in the previous week, noting that there were some presentations regarding the return on investment (ROI) for using solar power.  He mentioned that the County may want to go out for bid to see if they could save the taxpayers money.

VISIT TO CITY OF LEESBURG

Commr. Shields stated that he had visited the City of Leesburg and mentioned that they had some questions about the Tourist Development Council (TDC).  He indicated that they were having a visioning meeting.

MEETING IN FOUR CORNERS

Commr. Shields commented that he had a meeting in Four Corners with constituents, and he thanked Mr. Earhart for attending.

commissioner smith – vice chairman and district 3

CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Smith said that he had a Children’s Services Council meeting.

ELDER AFFAIRS COORDINATING COUNCIL MEETING

Commr. Smith relayed that he would have an Elder Affairs Coordinating Council meeting later in the current week.

VISIT TO HAWTHORNE COMMUNITY

Commr. Smith said that he visited the Hawthorne community and had spoken to them.

MEETING WITH CITY OF TAVARES

Commr. Smith stated that he had a meeting with the City of Tavares in the previous week.

CONSTITUENT MEETINGS

Commr. Smith remarked that he also had constituent meetings mostly regarding roads and water impacts in the southern part of his district, Commission District 3.

commissioner campione –district 4

DISCUSSION REGARDING ECFRPC CONTRACT

Commr. Campione said that she wanted to revisit the ECFRPC discussion from Tab 10, stating that when she looked at the proposal, it seemed to be focused on the conservation corridors, wildlife corridors and mapping.

Commr. Parks said that this was part of it, but it also included JPAs.

Commr. Campione mentioned that it was described as a model JPA, and she expressed interest in honing in on the particulars that they would want such as addressing infrastructure, roads, etc.  She opined that these items would be critical in an effective JPA, and that the land use items could go together with the road issues.  She said that she liked the idea of a model agreement, but opined that it seemed unworkable.

Commr. Parks related that the model could be a starting point and they could customize all of the JPAs based off the model, similar to what the City of Groveland was doing.

Commr. Campione opined that the City of Groveland was doing a great job, but that Cities liked to influence their own destiny.

Commr. Parks remarked that this process could let them influence it together with the County.

Commr. Campione inquired if the model could be tailored to what each City wanted, and Commissioner Parks confirmed this.  Commissioner Campione then stated that for the strategic corridors, she was under the impression that they were trying to create greenways throughout the county where they mapped out the population centers and opportunities with existing environmental features, and this could be part of the overall discussion with the Cities.  She wondered if they could do TDRs where they were trying to link greenways.

Commr. Parks said that TDRs took a large amount of effort to set up on a countywide basis, and he opined that it was beyond the scope of County staff to do this by themselves currently, noting that this was why the ECFRPC could help with this.

Commr. Campione felt that it could make more sense to do corridors and mapping on its own, and issues such as infrastructure should possibly be separated.  She also mentioned the possibility of seeing if a City would agree to be a pilot so that the County could see how it would actually work.  She expressed support for bringing all of the discussed items together, but she could not see how they could include all of this in an agreement.  She also recalled there was support for getting the ISBAs in place to coordinate fire rescue and first responders, and then they ended up with a product that had she opined was not good. 

Commr. Parks relayed that the ISBAs were done internally with staff, and some were done to determine who would be providing services when growth occurred; additionally, they did not take into account joint planning standards.  He was unsure how to get everyone to do JPAs on a countywide scale, and questioned who would organize this.  He mentioned that the City of Groveland was possibly a pilot community, and that the City was expecting to go through the countywide process.  He said that Commissioner Campione could come back with a different proposal. 

Commr. Campione mentioned that it could cost $350,000, and she was unsure if they would be able to eliminate certain ISBAs, opining that it would be worth the money if they could do this and come up with a better system. 

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that they would be receiving a good product from this because they currently had nothing.  He commented that parts of a model JPA were standard and any City or County could have them.  He gave the possible example of for the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills, the model part that was applicable throughout the county was that when development applications were received within a geographically defined area, there would physical meetings on a staff level, which was not often done anywhere in the county at the current time.  He said that they could go development by development to ensure that the Town staff was coordinating with County staff on development issues, and that the Town may possibly accept the County’s conservation standards, but this did not mean that the City of Leesburg also had also accept them.  He mentioned that the base part could be a process so that they could be in a different situation where a city council approves a development but were not aware that there were people in the county that were opposed because road issues were not being addressed.  He clarified that the intent of going through this process was to set this up, and he thought that the cost would be worth it, opining that the current process was flawed. 

Commr. Campione asked if he was envisioning a situation under a model JPA where they would have a joint hearing in which both the City and County were collaborating and taking public input.

Commr. Parks said that this could possibly be done if they agreed to that part of the JPA.  He also opined that staff to staff dialogue had to happen more frequently.

Commr. Campione thought that the wildlife corridor mapping was a good thing, and she could see the cities and the county benefitting from being able to see the big picture.  She relayed that her experience with negotiating a JPA with Cities was that there was give and take, and that everyone tended to consider their own particular interest.  She did not think that this would happen on a countywide basis, but that it could happen on an individual basis.  She also did not think that any of the Commissioners were opposed to trying to work and together and coordinate, though she questioned the vehicle to do this.  She mentioned that this item could come up in the next budget cycle and possibly be adopted.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

UF/IFAS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

Commr. Blake mentioned that he had a great University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (UF/IFAS) Advisory Board meeting on the previous Friday. He also said that Ms. Megan Brew, Director for the Office of Extension Services, had started to take them on tours to various parts of the County. He recalled that they had started at the Eustis Recreation Center where they had an afterschool garden in conjunction with 4-H, and that they then traveled to Umatilla Elementary School where there was a classroom in the back of the campus with a garden. He thought that it was a good idea for the advisory board to see the different things that were occurring.

commissioner parks – Chairman and district 2

upcoming budget workshop

Commr. Parks reported that the BCC would have a budget workshop on the following day.

liberty tree dedication

Commr. Parks commented that the Liberty Tree dedication would be on June 3, 2022.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:11 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

SEAN PARKS, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK