A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

February 6, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special joint session with the Lake County Water Authority on Monday, February 6, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. at the Lake County Emergency Communications and Operations Center, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Lake County Water Authority Board members present at the meeting were: Marty Proctor, Chairman; Trampis Bonjorn; Kristan Zenishek; Robert Hendrick; and Richard Donohue. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the Lake County Water Authority; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.

welcome and pledge

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting and led the Pledge of Allegiance. He indicated that they would allow the public to comment after the discussion.

LAKE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBER COMPENSATION

Mr. Ben Garcia, Executive Director for the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), commented that this item had been discussed during the budget process and that it was approved by both Boards to be part of the budget. He said that the LCWA had adopted the policy, and that the LCWA Board created a job description which would detail the functions of the board and responsibilities, noting that this had been provided to the BCC. He said that the process was to bring it before the BCC, that an ordinance would have to be created and approved, and that a public hearing would have to take place to change the code.

Commr. Smith relayed that he had received this from the County Manager on the current afternoon, and that he did not have time to thoroughly review it.

Commr. Parks opined that the issue was the compensation, and he relayed his understanding that the LCWA was asking for direction on the proposed amount, which was $2,083.33 per month. He opined that the Board’s duties and responsibilities seemed straightforward.

Mr. Marty Proctor stated that it was a fluid document, and added that the concept was that as new people came on board, they would have an understanding of what they would be expected to do. He commented that since the LCWA Board was previously elected, they had an orientation period and it was done in a more formal manner. He explained that with the election going away, the LCWA Board members felt that it was compelling to create this document; additionally, it was only an advisory document. He relayed his understanding that the compensation was the only item which was ordinance based.

Commr. Campione inquired about the dollar amount for compensation before this policy was proposed, and Mr. Proctor stated that it was $25 per meeting.

Mr. Robert Hendrick opined that it was not well worded because it said $25 per day, and he questioned what this meant. He indicated an understanding that it was basically $25 per month since he had been on the LCWA Board.

Mr. Richard Donohue added that the LCWA Board received compensation for workshops and any type of meeting.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, attorney for the LCWA Board, explained that the way it was written currently, in Section 24-8 it said that each member of the Board shall receive $25 per day as compensation for his or her services when performing his or her duties. He questioned if one phone call with a constituent was enough, or if it had to be a meeting or site visit.

Commr. Campione indicated an understanding that no one had pushed the limits of this in the past, and that the policy that had pretty much been established was based upon the days when they were meeting.

Mr. Crawford added that he had seen it be utilized for more official duties outside of meetings if they went to a preserve visit or something similar.

Commr. Campione asked what applications they would find if they went back to the budget one or two years prior.

Mr. Garcia stated that there had been some LCWA Board members who had provided the required information for attending an event, and that they had requested to be paid for that event.

Commr. Smith inquired when the $25 per meeting or per day was established.

Mr. Crawford relayed that it was before 1970 and that the $25 had not been raised in a long time.

Mr. Hendrick indicated an understanding that it had been established in 1953.

Commr. Blake inquired about the budget for this for the whole LCWA Board.

Mr. Garcia commented that it had been about $3,500 in the previous year.

Commr. Blake asked if this was typically the same each year, and Mr. Garcia confirmed this. Commissioner Blake then inquired about the origin for this proposal.

Mr. Garcia recalled that it had been discussed as proposed on the budget and that it went through the budget process. He added that it had been a proposal from a member of the LCWA Board.

Mr. Proctor recalled that it had been discussed at their regular July 2022 meeting.

Mr. Hendrick indicated that he had spoken about it earlier, opining that it was time to do something; however, they would have had to go through legislation to do this, and that the other LCWA Board members had not wanted to do anything. He opined that when the LCWA came under the BCC, it was a good time to do it.

Commr. Smith indicated concerns about the amount. He opined that it was slightly high because they would be getting paid more than City councilmembers.

Commr. Campione mentioned that a typical city council in a middle or upper tier city was overseeing budgets between $40 million to $60 million per year, and were receiving from $4,500 to $6,500 per month. She also said that she had heard questions from some individuals if the County was going to compensate the Planning and Zoning Board and Board of Adjustment. She explained that she had drawn the distinction between the two being that those were advisory boards and did not oversee budgets, nor did they have a director and employees. She thought that a City council was attending at least two meetings per month and numerous events, noting that they were also elected.

Commr. Smith opined that if one was going to receive this much compensation, then they needed to eliminate the expense part or lower the compensation. He added that the BCC did not charge for their expenses.

Mr. Donohue indicated that this had been included if the LCWA Board had to attend a meeting in the Florida Panhandle, and that they were not looking at expenses within Lake County.

Commr. Shields relayed that it was a large county with many miles; additionally, he opined that a County representative would have to cover more territory than a City representative.

Commr. Campione added that gas had recently become more of an issue.

Mr. Proctor commented that the way it had been was that if there was a three day event he was planning to attend in the following year which required an overnight stay, then he was not keen on $25 per meeting and incurring a $300 hotel bill. He reiterated that there was a cost associated with attending that meeting, and that he did not visualize this for lunches or mileage around Lake County.

Commr. Parks thought that there should be compensation and that it needed to be changed, and he commented that with the new legislation, the BCC was asking the LCWA Board to be an advisory board for possibly the most important issue for the county, which was water resources. He relayed that the expectation was that the LCWA Board was going to be spending a significant amount of time with details that the BCC may not necessarily always be able to explore. He thought that there could be a clear policy on the trips that the LCWA Board would possibly have to take once per year, and that there could be a travel policy. He relayed that the BCC was trying to keep them engaged, and that he would propose $1,000 per month as a starting point.

Mr. Hendrick said that the LCWA Board had added some responsibilities, and that they had agreed that they would attend two different agency meetings and become a non-voting liaison to report back and provide information.

Mr. Proctor asked if the travel policy was a separate policy, and Mr. Garcia clarified that they had made this to just be one policy.

Commr. Smith commented that it indicated that “Expenses shall not be paid unless approved by the Board.” He said that he was amicable with this, and he opined that number three was vague, noting that it said “Expenses may be incurred for Board members when there is a valid public purpose such as working meals during a Board meeting or workshop.”

Mr. Crawford agreed that it was unclear language, noting that they were trying to make it clearer.

Commr. Smith opined that the citizens needed to understand what was allowable. He added that he was amicable with compensation of $1,000 per month, relaying that the LCWA Board did significantly more than just attending meetings.

Ms. Kristan Zenishek commented that if the $25 per day was adjusted for inflation and if it was $50 per day, and if the language was left as it was or cleared up so that it was “performing a LCWA duty,” then she would opine that it was put it into the budget the way it was currently; furthermore, both Boards had approved it and they tried to get the ordinance changed, though this did not happen. She relayed her understanding that they were in an unprecedented situation in which the LCWA was now falling under the County, and that the level and amount of duties that the LCWA Board was doing far exceeded any other board because they were working more closely with staff, the public and the BCC to reorganize the LCWA. She thought that this had been included as a reflection of how much work this was taking, and would be revisited each budget year because in the future, they may be back in a more advisory and less hands on role as a LCWA Board member. She commented that with $50 per day, and if she was performing a duty 30 days per month, then this would be $1,500 per month, which did not include expenses. She did not think that this was a request to set a precedent for the future; rather, it was more of a reflection of what the LCWA Board was having to do during this unprecedented time of transition. She said that it could possibly scale back in the following year, and that the ordinance could possibly change to reflect something more permanent.

Commr. Blake expressed a concern that they were having this conversation because the Florida Legislature chose to intervene and remove some authority from the LCWA. He wondered if they did this thinking that the County would raise annual compensation from $700 to something like $12,000, and he opined that it seemed counterintuitive to choose the current time as the time to do this.

Mr. Hendrick opined that the LCWA Board had saved millions of dollars because they were active and involved, and he thought it was good to be appointed versus elected because it would not be someone with their own agenda. He thought that compensation at a decent rate would accomplish this by making them responsible for what they did, and he commented that there was more work after the first year of transition. He said that the LCWA Board had planned on keeping a log of what they did each day, and if the BCC did not think that the LCWA Board had earned or deserved it, then they could address it as part of the next budget.

Commr. Blake clarified that he was agnostic on the policy change, and he mentioned that everyone on the LCWA Board had applied knowing the compensation. He reiterated his question for if the Florida Legislature had taken this action thinking that the County would do a large percentage increase in compensation on the edge of a recession.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that their thought process was regarding efficiencies. He then asked if this would be a vote and how the BCC could move forward, and he relayed that he had some issues with the vagueness of number three on the policy.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, explained that since it was a joint meeting, they could vote on compensation. She added that she would ultimately have to go back and amend the ordinance, and that it was not something that the BCC could do administratively since it was in the code. She thought it had been suggested previously to change the $25 per day to “as budgeted,” and then the BCC would have influence over it when the LCWA’s budget came to them. She commented that the BCC could vote to direct her to make this change and move it forward, or they could choose to do something else.

Commr. Smith noted that the LCWA would have to include the original compensation in their budget, which the BCC would approve; therefore, the BCC would either have to accept or change it.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, adding that the LCWA Board was not currently getting paid this amount.

Commr. Campione asked if they had budgeted for $25,000 per member.

Ms. Marsh replied that this was correct, but because it was in the County code, they could only receive the $25 per day.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that if the BCC changed the language to “as budgeted,” then they were basically saying that they were approving what was budgeted.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and added that if she brought back an ordinance to change this language, they would have to add a separate provision for it to be retroactive back to October 1, 2022 or for it to be going forward.

Ms. Zenishek recalled that the LCWA had approved this in their budget, and that the BCC had approved it; however, this only came to light when the ordinance change was proposed, which had to occur for the LCWA’s budget to stand. She expressed concerns for changing it for the current budget cycle.

Commr. Smith indicated that the BCC had received the LCWA’s budget so late in the process that they did not really have time to review it; furthermore, they would be receiving their following budget in July 2023 and it would go through a review.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that because of the timing and the transition, this would not be normal regarding how much review was given to budget. She indicated that she would not say that approval of the budget was de facto approval of the compensation package; additionally, when this was done, the Board could not change what the charter and the law said. She stated that she was trying to determine numbers which were fair and justifiable to the LCWA Board and their organization. She thought that they had to consider many factors and the public’s confidence in this decision making process; furthermore, she was unsure if she was ready to vote on the current day.

Mr. Crawford commented that the amount of compensation in the amendment to number 24-8 was an ordinance that only the BCC could make, noting that the other two items were the duties and responsibilities, and the policy for expenses. He added that these items were not part of the ordinance and were only passed by the LCWA Board; however, they wanted to bring them to the BCC for comments.

Commr. Campione opined that LCWA shirts should be an expense of the organization up to a certain number, and she thought that the language needed some work to be a good policy; additionally, she also thought that they needed to address their travel expenses and determine what types of events were legitimate.

Commr. Smith asked if they could revamp number three.

Mr. Crawford indicated that they could discuss this internally, and that his advice would be to delete number three, opining that it was almost duplicative of number two.

Mr. Proctor expressed that he was not comfortable with removing authority, noting that the LCWA had the same responsibilities that they had previously. He commented that this was changing as they had to have items approved by the BCC.

Mr. Hendrick stated that the only items he noticed in the authority part were the millage and budget. He opined that the LCWA Board had planned on lowering the millage, noting that everyone on the LCWA Board had worked hard to do different things rather than stamp the items that staff presented. He thought that the authority part was based on millage and budget, and being appointed versus elected.

Commr. Blake thought that the LCWA Board added value to this, and he reiterated that when they applied or ran for election, they knew what the compensation was. He expressed concerns for doing a large percentage increase with the general economic environment.

Commr. Parks asked if the course of action would be to change the ordinance to “as budgeted.”

Commr. Campione did not think that they should use that language, because they would be approving the $25,000.

Commr. Parks inquired when the BCC and LCWA Board would be meeting again, and Ms. Barker replied that it would be in April 2023.

Ms. Marsh mentioned that she could change the language in the ordinance quickly, though there would have to be approval to advertise and a public hearing. She said that if the BCC wanted to change it to “as budgeted” in the same ordinance, then they could set an amount for the current year and possibly apply it retroactively. She added that going forward, it would be as the BCC approved their budget, and the LCWA’s budgeted amount would be their salary.

Mr. Crawford inquired if this would be addressed with a budget amendment.

Ms. Barker clarified that they would not necessarily have to do a budget amendment until the end of the year, noting that they could move it according to where the actuals were.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for everything the LCWA did, noting that they were appointed for the special aspects they brought to the board.

Commr. Shields said that he would like to do something temporarily to keep the LCWA Board from spending their own money to help the county.

Mr. Garcia indicated that the LCWA currently had a travel policy and that it could be changed.

Commr. Parks asked if the BCC could proceed to amend the ordinance for compensation as budgeted, but at the same time change the policy for current compensation of $1,000 per month, noting that the LCWA would bring back a travel policy that the BCC would approve at a future meeting.

Ms. Marsh confirmed that she could do this with an ordinance.

Commr. Parks made this motion, and Commissioner Shields seconded the motion.

Commr. Campione reiterated her example that a City elected official was at $6,500 per year or roughly $541 per month. She noted that this would be considerably more.

Commr. Shields pointed out that the LCWA was in a transition and going from elected officials to becoming appointed, in addition to trying to ensure that the County did not lose their talent. He also opined that running for City office was different than ensuring water quality.

Commr. Parks added that this could be changed each year.

Commr. Smith commented that traveling in the City of Tavares was different than traveling in Lake County, and that it could be an hour and a half from Astor to Four Corners. He mentioned that the LCWA Board traveled a significant amount, and that it appeared that they could not include gas in their expenses.

Commr. Campione thought that a stopgap was smart, and she said that she was interested in the LCWA Board attending other board meetings. She also thought that it could be beneficial to create a list of potential groups that they could be involved in.

Mr. Hendrick confirmed that the LCWA Board had done this.

Commr. Campione requested for the list to be sent to the BCC. She relayed that Commissioner Parks’ motion was not what the LCWA Board had requested, though it was considerably more than an organization overseeing a much larger budget would receive. She expressed support for Commissioner Parks’ motion.

Commr. Parks asked if the travel policy was for travel outside the county.

Mr. Hendrick proposed compensation of $1,250 per month and eliminating the travel policy.

Ms. Marsh asked if the motion was retroactive to October 1, 2022 or as of the effective date of the ordinance.

Commr. Parks clarified that he would make it retroactive.

Commr. Campione noted that someone would have to keep up with the information for mileage and travel expenses, and she opined that Mr. Hendrick’s suggestion could possibly be a good idea.

Commr. Shields thought that the BCC had the same policy for travel outside the county, though he did not believe that most of them utilized this other than for a hotel room.

Mr. Proctor thought that they still needed the overnight travel approved, noting that it also had to be BCC approved.

Commr. Campione stated that their conference charge and hotel expense would be covered in the policy; however, mileage and food would not.

Commr. Shields thought that the BCC could proceed with the current motion, and that they could revisit this item. He expressed concerns for writing travel policies in real time.

Commr. Campione asked if the travel policy could include this recommendation of adding $250 monthly and not allowing certain items when it was brought back.

Commr. Smith confirmed this.

Ms. Barker reiterated that the next workshop between the BCC and the LCWA would be in April 2023.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved to proceed to amend the ordinance for compensation as budgeted, but also change the policy for current compensation of $1,000 per month, retroactive to October 1, 2022; furthermore, the LCWA would bring back a travel policy that the BCC would approve at a future BCC meeting.

Commr. Blake voted no.

PROPOSED STAFF SERVICES SUPPORT

Ms. Barker presented the proposed LCWA staff service support. She recalled that at the previous joint meeting, they had discussed proposing support services that the BCC could provide to the LCWA, noting that they could realize savings through efficiencies or enhance the services. She commented that she and Mr. Garcia had met with several departments within the BCC organization to identify areas where they could provide services, and that the following departments were discussed: the Information Technology (IT) Department; the Office of Communications; the Office of Human Resources (HR) and Risk Management; the Office of Procurement Services; and the Office of Management and Budget. She explained that for IT, the County was proposing to provide full IT support for all LCWA employees, including IT Security enhancements, centralized geographic information systems (GIS), and access to files and applications when remote. She stated that currently, the LCWA did not have dedicated IT support, and that they would receive have full IT support from the County including general computer help, application support, telephone support, network, security, and mapping through GIS. She added that they would have a dedicated service desk that they can call and enter a work order ticket with, and that they would have proactive and reactive support. She relayed that security improvements included the following: improved account security; a security team; improved security monitoring; security awareness training; and phishing tests. She then stated that communications would include website management, noting that the Office of Communications would address the following: migration of the existing website; hosting and domain management; and website maintenance and content updates. She added that they also had graphic artists to work on branding and similar items.

Mr. Proctor asked if she had mentioned public relations (PR).

Ms. Barker explained that the Office of Communications did several things, noting that there were public information officers (PIOs) that did all of the County’s Facebook posting and press releases; however, at the current time, Mr. Garcia had indicated that all the LCWA was looking for was website management.

Ms. Zenishek inquired if the LCWA could receive more information about the PIOs.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, and said that Mr. Garcia could meet with herself and Mr. Levar Cooper, Director for the Office of Communications. She continued her presentation, commenting that the Office of HR and Risk Management provided two separate functions, noting that they did the County’s HR policies and procedures, along with handling their recruiting and health benefits. She added that the risk management side regarded property, casualty and liability insurance, as well as claims for workers’ compensation. She opined that all employees would benefit from the consistency of the policies and procedures, and she asked for the LCWA to review the current policies manual; furthermore, if there were items to address specific positions within the LCWA, then the County could consider this. She said that the benefit of providing HR and risk management also included dedicated professionals for recruitment.

Mr. Proctor asked if this generally excluded executive positions.

Ms. Barker clarified that it included all positions outside of elected officials. She continued her presentation and explained that the County’s risk management program included workers’ compensation and the property and liability coverage; additionally, they would have the benefit of the economy of scale if they were added to the County’s insurance program. She remarked that their Office of HR and Risk Management offered pre-employment and random drug and alcohol tests, and that the following services would be available to all LCWA employees: recruitment/retention; on-boarding process; wage and salary administration; accrued leave and benefit administration; and personnel records management. She then listed the following services from the Office of Procurement Services: procurement support and procedure manual access; solicitation and contract procedure consistency; access to existing contracts and greater buying power; access to all registered vendors; access to p-card program; and access to virtual card payment program. She said that they would also receive the following compliance improvements: procurement manual; p-card manual; virtual card payment system; formal and informal solicitation processes, including access to publish both on the website and to receive automatic vendor notifications; and access to an award winning procurement office. She stated that if the LCWA was to procure management and budget services from the County, they would have the following: a designated budget analyst; budget support for LCWA employees; budget monitoring and analysis; budget processes and procedures in alignment with the County; and truth in millage (TRIM) compliance and oversight. She said that the County had asked each department director to allocate a portion of one person’s salary in that department for the amount of time they thought that would have to be dedicated to the LCWA, and she relayed the costs for the following departments: about $20,000 annually for the IT Department, with actual costs for equipment replacement of about $30,000 for year one, and approximately $10,000 to $20,000 every five years based on the replacement schedule; roughly $10,000 annually for the Office of Communications; about $5,000 annually for the Office of HR and Risk Management; approximately $20,000 annually for the Office of Procurement Services; and about $20,000 annually for the Office of Management and Budget, for a total estimated administrative cost of about $75,000 annually, plus the actual costs for technology equipment replacement.

Mr. Donohue mentioned that the LCWA had some engineering companies on their approved list, and he asked if they could still work with them.

Ms. Barker replied that they could use them as long as they were under contract currently; however, if they went out for a new bid, then they could go through the County’s process.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that their engineering firms could qualify for the County’s procurement.

Mr. Crawford inquired if these changes would be proposed to start with the new budget year, or as soon as they could start them.

Ms. Barker replied that it could be started within a few months, or they could wait until a new budget year.

Commr. Shields asked if they could be done piecemeal, and Ms. Barker confirmed that they could phase it in or just start with a single department.

Commr. Smith opined that IT, communications and HR were significant issues, and said that he liked them all.

Commr. Parks agreed, and he mentioned that there was an efficiency to be achieved.

Ms. Zenishek inquired about the typical turnaround time on an IT ticket, and Ms. Barker responded that they would likely receive a call from the IT Department within a few hours, depending on what the issue was.

Mr. Proctor asked if risk management included liability insurance.

Ms. Barker commented that the HR amount was the administrative fee, and that if the LCWA joined the County’s insurance policy, property liability and workers’ compensation, then they would pay what any department would pay. She added that the number would depend on the risk associated with their positions.

Mr. Proctor relayed that the LCWA had an analysis done, and that the County’s self-insured aspect was significantly higher than the LCWA’s current insurance.

Mr. Donohue expressed a concern for what would happen if they had a claim.

Ms. Barker said that it would be paid out of the risk fund if the LCWA contributed to it; however, with property and liability, there was a deductible that the County charged its departments.

Mr. Proctor noted that the LCWA had personnel changes which were going to occur, and he thought that they needed to do this to be efficient and continue operating. He opined that it was important for them to have these capabilities going forward, noting that they did not necessarily have expertise in contract management and procurement. He indicated that he did not like the idea of waiting until the next fiscal year due to the imminent timing, and he said that the LCWA had a great staff; however, he thought that it was time to transition to this.

Commr. Smith asked if this item could be voted on.

Ms. Barker confirmed this and said that the Boards would have to vote regarding if the BCC wanted to provide this service, and if the LCWA would like the service to be provided.

Commr. Smith indicated that he would like to hear the LCWA Board’s vote first.

Mr. Hendrick mentioned the insurance claims and deductibles, and he expressed concerns for an issue with a $1 million piece of equipment eliminating any savings that they would have done, versus what they would have to pay with their deductible.

Ms. Zenishek asked if this included insurance.

Ms. Barker responded that the County did not have a way to estimate the rates; therefore, they would have to come back and identify this.

Mr. Proctor mentioned that they were both contractually bound to their current suppliers, and that this did not have to be done on the current day.

Ms. Barker relayed that they could remove risk at the current time and reevaluate it.

Ms. Zenishek inquired about procurement with the LCWA’s current vendors.

Mr. Hendrick relayed his understanding that the vendors would be on board.

Ms. Barker asked if they would like to remove both risk management and workers’ compensation. She relayed her understanding that the LCWA wanted to focus on recruitment, HR and benefit management, and she said that risk management was $1,000 of the $5,000 for HR and risk management; therefore, it would only be a $4,000 annual cost for just the HR portion.

Mr. Proctor reiterated that it would be revisited at the end of the fiscal year.

Ms. Barker added that if they wanted to do this immediately, then the County would propose a prorated amount based on the number of months within the fiscal year.

Ms. Zenishek inquired if they could remove HR at the current time and vote on it at the next meeting.

Mr. Proctor relayed his understanding that they could split HR from risk management.

Ms. Barker summarized that the LCWA would receive the following HR items: recruitment/retention; on-boarding process; wage and salary administration; accrued leave and benefit administration; and personnel records management. She said that they would eliminate the risk management, which would be workers’ compensation and property and liability insurance portion.

On a motion by Ms. Zenishek, seconded by Mr. Hendrick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the LCWA Board voted to allow the LCWA to use the County’s services, as listed in the presentation, less the risk portion of human resources.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to accept the LCWA Board’s recommendation.

Public comment

No one wished to address the Board at this time.

other business

Mr. Proctor inquired if the background check request was universal throughout the County and where it came from. He also asked if this still applied now that he was appointed.

Ms. Marsh did not recall sending this email to the LCWA Board.

Mr. Garcia said that the LCWA Board was required to submit a background check when they were elected, and he questioned if this needed to be done moving forward.

Ms. Marsh explained that the BCC had passed an ordinance to require advisory boards and committees to do background checks, and to bring back an amendment to exclude elected officials, law enforcement, military, and the Public Safety Coordinating Council. She asked if the BCC wanted to exclude the LCWA Board, noting that it was intended to be County-created committees; therefore, she had not contemplated the LCWA Board as being part of this.

Commr. Parks remarked that the LCWA Board, with the exception of one member, was elected, and that when they were elected, he assumed that they had to confirm that they had not been convicted of a felony.

Ms. Marsh inquired if the BCC wanted to exclude the LCWA Board in the ordinance moving forward.

Commr. Campione opined that they had to be consistent, expressing concerns for appointing someone to the LCWA Board and finding out that they had a background issue.

Ms. Marsh stated that in this case, the LCWA Board would need to comply with the ordinance; however, she had not sent anything to them about this.

Commr. Campione recalled the question about risk management, and she asked if a presentation or discussion could be done at a LCWA meeting.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, and added that Mr. Jim Kovacs, Director for the Office of HR and Risk Management, could be made available.

Mr. Proctor indicated interest in receiving more information, noting that it could possibly be added to their agenda for March 2023.

Commr. Smith thanked everyone for attending, and he thought that this meeting was productive.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

_________________________________

KIRBY SMITH, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK