A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

march 28, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., in the County Commission Chambers, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; 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. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He said that they were meeting in person, via Zoom, and online. 

Pastor Winston Simpson, with Hope International Church in the City of Groveland, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

virtual meeting instructions

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

Agenda update

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, listed the following updates: staff attached a signed agreement to Tab 9 after the agenda was first published; for Tab 10, the verbiage was revised in the recommended action; and for Tab 23, staff added additional supporting documentation.

Minutes approval

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of February 7, 2023 (Regular Meeting) and February 14, 2023 (Regular Meeting) as presented.

citizen question and comment period

Mr. John Curry, a resident of Paisley, relayed that his tenant, Ms. Tina Lynn Johnson, had lost her job when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had occurred, and that there had been an application for COVID-19 assistance.  He recalled that Ms. Johnson had an issue around Halloween 2022, and that he had helped her.  He relayed that this $5,000 claim was denied even though he was informed that everything was correct, and he commented that it was because he did not have a Sunbiz number; furthermore, he then had paid for a Sunbiz number and received the check.  He said that he was told that his bank would not cash the check because they did not have a business account, and he asked if a check could be written that they could cash.

Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, said that she could meet with the Office of Housing and Community Services and see which program this came through, noting that many of those requirements were federal requirements.  She stated that she could get back with Mr. Curry and that she could not provide an answer at the current time.

Mr. Banks Helfrich, a candidate for the State of Florida House of Representatives for District 25, relayed that sustainability was to continue something in perpetuity, and he commented that he had a seven acre sustainable farm on Sams Lake Road in the City of Clermont, which was open to the public for free on the second Saturday of every month at 9:00 a.m.  He commented that it included a tour, tasting the items that were in season, and teaching how to grow one’s own food and be sustainable, and that he would provide clippings of trees that one could take and grow themselves.

Ms. Deirdre Griffin, a resident of the City of Leesburg, relayed her understanding that there were two interlocal service boundary agreements (ISBAs) between the County and the City of Leesburg, noting that one was from October 7, 2013, and that there was an amended version from October 22, 2014.  She said that she was finding that her community had many questions about this, and she asked if there could be a possible third amended ISBA.  She opined that it did not address any rural protection areas (RPAs) and that they were not delineated in the ISBA; furthermore, she opined that when it referenced enclaves, it did not address voluntary annexations.  She indicated an understanding that Chapter 171.044, Florida Statutes, stated that land shall not be annexed through voluntary annexation when such annexation results in the creation of enclaves.  She relayed that she and her community would like to see this addressed, and she asked how they could amend this ISBA or if there could be a growth management plan with the City of Leesburg. 

Ms. Marsh explained that the ISBAs were between the County and a City, noting that the City of Leesburg was part of the South Lake ISBA, which was a multi-city agreement; additionally, the City of Leesburg also had their own agreement from 2014.  She clarified that the County could not unilaterally amend it, and that both parties had to agree to amend it; otherwise, it was basically a 20 year document.  She relayed that in the past the Board had discussions with various individuals at the City of Leesburg about different types of amendments and changes, and she relayed her understanding that the City had not been agreeable to amending that document.  She mentioned that the Board could initiate discussions with them, and that there was currently a countywide planning initiative where the County was working with all the Cities on new joint planning agreements (JPAs).

Commr. Smith remarked that he and the County Manager had a meeting with the City of Leesburg Mayor and City Manager two weeks prior to discuss growth and how to address some of the issues.

Ms. Griffin asked if it would hold value if a significant number of residents in the ISBA came forward and stated that they were asking for this.

Commr. Smith mentioned that there was value in the voice of the people, and he said that they could possibly voice their concerns to the Leesburg City Commission or the BCC.  He said that the County was trying to work with the City of Leesburg, and that they were working on a plan for all 14 municipalities within the county, which included protecting their RPAs.

Commr. Campione said that Ms. Griffin could reach out to City of Leesburg residents, opining that they would have the most impact and voice with the City elected officials.

Ms. Griffin stated that she had noticed concerns from Lake County residents and those who lived within the municipality.

Commr. Campione opined that this could potentially be the best use of their time, noting that the County could not unilaterally amend the ISBA, and that this could possibly bring the City of Leesburg to the table.

Ms. Brittany Lerch, a resident of Yalaha, expressed concerns about the proposed annexation of 160 noncontiguous acres into the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills for the Cedar Creek development.  She indicated concerns about a sewage treatment plan that the developer and the Town planned to build, and she recalled that the developer had previously presented a plan for 171 homes and had stated that the land was not connected to any public utilities; therefore, a sewage treatment plant would have to be built.  She displayed an image of the proposed location of the plant, noting that it was on 40 acres in the RPA, and that half of the 40 acres was covered in wetlands, with more being in a flood zone.  She added that the wetlands were across the property and also flowed into neighboring properties, and she opined that building a sewage treatment plant would be a hazard to the livestock, wildlife and families that lived on those properties.   She also indicated an understanding that the plant would be located on the western portion of the property, which would make it impossible to reach without disturbing the wetlands and clearing the woods there.  She questioned why they would build a sewage treatment plant for only 171 homes, especially when the Mission Inn wastewater treatment plant was nearby.  She opined that over a month before the public was made aware of this development, the Town had already listed the sewage treatment plant in their five year estimated schedule of capital improvements; however, this information had not been mentioned in the public planning and zoning meeting, nor any of the documents attached to that meeting.  She also opined that it was not publicly discussed at any other meeting, according to published meeting minutes and agendas.  She opined that the full plan was not being presented, and that the Town was not being transparent about what they had in mind for this property and the RPA.  She asked for the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to protect the land in the RPA and to stop this sewage treatment from being placed in the middle of an established rural community that it would not service or benefit.  She also invited the Board to tour the community.

Commr. Smith believed that this annexation request was coming before the BCC on April 11, 2023, and that the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills had to come before the BCC and request annexation.  He added that there were rules in their ISBA that they had to follow, including that it had to be urban in design and had to have an urban feel.  He also mentioned that this development was off Number 2 Road.

proclamations 2023-21 and 2023-25

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Proclamation 2023-21 designating April 9 through 15, 2023, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week, and Proclamation 2023-25 recognizing East Ridge High School’s Boys Varsity Soccer Team for winning the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) Class 7A Boys Soccer State Championship.

Commr. Parks read and presented Proclamation 2023-21 to members of the wireless communications and public safety team, and mentioned that these were the people that one talked to in their most dire situation.  He thanked them for what they were doing.

Commr. Parks then read and presented Proclamation 2023-25 to the East Ridge High School’s Boys Varsity Soccer Team. 

Mr. John Quirk, Coach for the East Ridge High School’s Boys Varsity Soccer Team, thanked everyone for the proclamation and for inviting them.  He noted that they were graduating 13 seniors on this team, and he believed that all of them were going to college to continue their academic and athletic careers.  He stated that he was proud of the hard work they put in over this season, and that they hoped to continue this success moving forward.

CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Consent Agenda, Item 1, 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.

COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Smith requested to pull Tab 8 to the regular agenda.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 5 through 16, pulling Tab 8 to the regular agenda, as follows:

PROCLAMATIONS

Recommend approval of Proclamation 2023-11 designating April 23-29, 2023, as National Library Week in Lake County.

COUNTY ATTORNEY

Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Section 2-81, Lake County Code, entitled Criminal History Checks. There is no fiscal impact.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Procurement Services

Recommend approval of revisions to County Policy LCC-39 Purchasing Policy and Contract Administration. The update adds definitions and clarifies custodial duties.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Housing and Community Services

Recommend approval of the Agreement between the Office of Housing and Community Services and Mid Florida Homeless Coalition; and to authorize the Chairman to execute the supporting documents. There is no fiscal impact.

Recommend approval for the Office of Housing & Community Services to submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 HOME-ARP Allocation Plan; and approval for the Housing & Community Services Director to execute the documents required by HUD and corresponding authorization Resolution 2023-34.

Library Services

Recommend approval: 1. Of Contract 23-419 with Faronics Technologies (U.S.A.) Inc. for Deep Freeze Software; and 2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.

The estimated annual fiscal impact is $66,975 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Future years fiscal impact will be based on the number of units. Annual expenditures will not exceed available funding in the Fiscal Year budget.

Public Works

Recommend approval:

1. Of First Amendment to Contract 22-736 for the lease and maintenance of two additional motor graders with Dobb's Equipment, LLC (Riverview, FL); and

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

The total estimated fiscal impact is $471,936 (expenditure) for the length of the 48-month lease term, estimated at $117,984 annually, which will be included in the Fiscal Year budget.

Recommend approval of an amendment to the existing development agreement with The Villages for road improvements on CR 470 in the City of Leesburg. The amendment is to allow landscaping to be placed within the right-of-way.

There is no fiscal impact. Commission District 2.

Recommend approval of Subordination of Easement Agreement between Lake County and Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.. Commission District 1.

Recommend approval to accept the final plat for Windsor Cay Resort Phase 1 and all areas dedicated to the public as shown on the Windsor Cay Resort Phase 1 final plat. The fiscal impact is $1,551 (revenue - final plat application fee). Commission District 1.

Transit Services

Recommend approval of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Innovative Service Development Grant application and supporting Resolution 2023-35 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The estimated fiscal impact is $202,245 with a local match of $20,225. The grant matching requirement is expected to be funded from existing General Funds budgeted for the department. An agenda item will be presented to the Board with the fiscal impact and exact grant match requirements at a later date, should the grant be awarded.

tab 8: partnership with lake technical college for vehicles

Commr. Smith said that he pulled this tab so that the County could let the citizens know how they operated and the things they did to try to save as much taxpayer funding as possible.

Mr. Fred Schneider, Assistant County Manager, explained that Mr. Joe Blackwell, Director for the Office of Fleet Management, had worked with Lake Technical College (Lake Tech) to develop a program where students could work on some damaged County vehicles through the Lake Tech paint and body shop, noting that they could learn how to repair and paint vehicles.  He mentioned that it gave them real world experience, and that it gave the County the ability to have some of this work done by the students.  He stated that there was a cost savings for the County, and that the students would learn a lot.

Commr. Smith commented that this was another collaboration between Lake County and Lake Tech, noting that when the County normally sent a vehicle out for repair, it cost about $160 per hour; however, it was only $10 per hour at Lake Tech.  He thanked staff for reaching out to Lake Tech and having this savings.

Commr. Blake relayed that his internship day for Leadership Lake County in 2011 was at the Lake Tech body shop, opining that they did a great job there and that it was a great program.  He opined that this was a good way to save money and provide useful practice for those students.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved for the Office of Fleet Management to partner with Lake Technical College to send county maintained vehicles from the Office of Fleet Management to Lake Technical College for automotive collision repairs, refinishing, and paint work to provide hands-on educational experience for students.

presentation for temporary closing of scrub jay lane

Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, said that Florida’s Turnpike was investing over $800 million over the next several years to widen the turnpike.

Ms. Yasir Mercado, Community Outreach Specialist for Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, provided the details of a proposed closure of the Scrub Jay Lane bridge over Florida’s Turnpike for the bridge’s reconstruction.  She mentioned that the work was part of the Florida’s Turnpike widening project from the City of Minneola and Hancock Road to north of O’Brien Road.  She explained that the project was widening the roadway from two to four lanes in each direction for a total of eight lanes, and that Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise was replacing the Scrub Jay Lane bridge over Florida’s Turnpike, the turnpike bridge over County Road (CR) 561, the turnpike bridge over State Road (SR) 19, and the United States (U.S.) Highway 27/SR 19 south bridge.  She added that the project also included the installation of new electronic tolling sites, as well as new drainage facilities, retaining walls, signage, lighting, pavement markings and intelligent transportation systems.  She stated that to expedite construction of the Scrub Jay Lane bridge over Florida’s Turnpike, their contractor was proposing a modification to the original traffic plan, noting that the original plan would have the bridge remain open until the tie-ins on both sides of the bridge were built, and the roadway would have alternate one-way access across the existing bridge until the tie-ins were complete; furthermore, the current bridge would then be demolished.  She said that with the proposed plan, the existing Scrub Jay Lane bridge would be closed, and traffic would be detoured as the bridge was demolished and then reconstructed; additionally, this full closure would continue for approximately one year.  She relayed that closing the existing bridge would accelerate the bridge’s reconstruction, open additional areas for construction, and expedite the construction and opening of additional capacity on the northbound turnpike mainline.  She stated that there were impacts to residents, though she opined that the impacts were minimal, noting that it was specifically to the wastewater treatment facility on Scrub Jay Lane.  She remarked that closure would allow for complete equipment access during demolition and reconstruction, and would expedite construction by six to nine months.  She also stated that closing the bridge would enhance safety by separating the construction zone from drivers, and would eliminate the one-way traffic flagging operation on the bridge during its reconstruction.  She showed a map of the bridge detour, noting that they would be detouring northbound Scrub Jay Lane traffic to Citrus Grove Road, southeast to North Hancock Road, north to CR 561A, and west to Scrub Jay Lane.  She added that southbound traffic would be detoured to CR 561A, east to North Hancock Road, south to Citrus Grove Road, and northwest to Scrub Jay Lane.  She commented that her organization hosted a public information meeting at the City of Minneola on March 2, 2023, to present the proposed closure of the bridge to residents; furthermore, the community did not express any concerns about the bridge closure.  She also indicated that they met with businesses and residents nearest to the bridge, and that none had expressed concerns; additionally, on March 21, 2023, they had presented this plan to the Minneola City Council, who did not have any objections.  She said that they would continue to execute a number of community outreach strategies, including distributing door to door updates, construction alerts via email, posting construction updates on Florida’s Turnpike’s website and social media platforms, and holding stakeholder meetings to inform the community about the construction activities. 

Mr. Earhart stated that since this was originally shown as not closing the bridge during the project development and environment (PD&E) study, staff wanted to bring it back to the Board for consensus or a vote that the County was amicable with closing the bridge.  He mentioned that the Minneola City Manager had sent him an email indicating that the City was not going to express an opinion on whether to close it or not, noting that the operators of the nearby utility building and a nearby business were not in objection.  He relayed that closing the bridge would save Florida’s Turnpike about six months total for construction on the mainline, but that it would not save any time on the closure of Scrub Jay Lane, noting that it would be closed for about a year.

Commr. Parks expressed concerns for closing bridges, but he complimented Florida’s Turnpike and their contractors, noting that they had been good at communication throughout the process.  He mentioned that they had been ahead of schedule on a roundabout, and that they could possibly be ahead of schedule for this project as well.  He thought that the County had to move forward with supporting this.

Ms. Mercado confirmed that their aim was to move ahead as quickly as possible.

affordable housing presentation

Ms. Maria Abdoulkarim, Director for the Office of Housing and Community Services, stated that she and Ms. Kate Molinaro, with M&L Consulting, would be presenting recommendations related to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and HOME-ARP funding.  She said that ARPA delivered $350 billion to State, local, and tribal governments across the country to support their response to and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this was an opportunity to invest this funding to increase the supply of affordable housing; furthermore, Lake County had set aside $3 million to invest in affordable housing.  She added that HOME-ARP, which was the Homelessness Assistance and Supportive Services Program, provided $5 billion of supplemental HOME funds targeted to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness; additionally, Lake County would receive over $2 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Ms. Molinaro displayed a side by side comparison for ARPA and HOME-ARP, and she said that ARPA funds were more flexible and were tied closely to the entitlement HOME program, the housing choice voucher program, the project based rental assistance program, other low income housing tax credits, and HUD-supported multifamily housing programs.  She remarked that if the households they served were at or below 65 percent of the area median income (AMI) for the county, some of the funding opportunities could go up to 80 percent.  She commented that for HOME-ARP, the program guidelines established specific eligible activities, including the production of affordable rental housing.  She explained that this funding was targeted to households experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and that funds could also be used for the creation of shelter opportunities, supportive services and tenant-based rental assistance.  She reiterated that ARPA funding could be used for the development, repair or operation of affordable housing, and to support services or other programming to provide housing stability and long term housing security.  She related that HOME-ARP funding was targeted to specific eligible activities including the following: production or preservation of affordable rental housing; tenant-based rental assistance; supportive services including homeless prevention, housing stabilization and housing counseling; the purchase and development of a non-congregate shelter; and nonprofit operating and capacity building.  She mentioned that the HOME-ARP program identified specific qualifying populations, noting that these were individuals experiencing homelessness, who were at risk of losing housing that they currently occupied, or who were experiencing housing instability.  She added that individuals fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking were also eligible as a HOME-ARP qualifying population, and that other households experiencing housing instability who were not included in the prior at risk definition would also be eligible; furthermore, this would include households paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing.  She said that to access HOME-ARP funding, the County was required to develop an allocation plan, which required the County to meet with a specific group of stakeholders and analyze specific datasets to develop a needs assessment and gap analysis.  She commented that they had several focus group sessions with the continuum of care (CoC), shelter providers, service providers, veterans groups, and fair housing and disability advocates, noting that they looked at homeless management information system data, point in time data, emergency rental assistance, and other internal data sources; additionally, they also used the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition survey and roadmap to help form the allocation plan.  She relayed that they found that annual income was not enough to afford the fair markets rents in the county, specifying that fair market rent for two bedrooms was $1,190; however, in order for a household to afford this without being considered cost burdened, they would need an annual income of $47,590.  She added that the income for a household of three in Lake County at 30 percent AMI was only $22,400, and she relayed that they heard from their focus groups that rents were too high.  She also said that they identified a housing gap for households at 30 percent AMI of 4,555 units.  She remarked that they also looked at Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data, and that they found that about half the population that exited the homeless service system in 2022 exited to a permanent housing destination; furthermore, this meant that about half exited to a temporary or unknown destination, which put those households at risk of returning to the homeless system.  She said that with the point in time count, they had noted a high number of people who were experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and that 72 percent of the homeless adults identified during the 2022 point in time count were unsheltered.  She mentioned that data and anecdotal qualitative information provided from their stakeholder focus group sessions identified the chronically homeless as a subpopulation that was in greater need.  She then listed the following other identified needs from their focus group sessions: affordable housing inventory; additional emergency shelter resources; permanent supportive housing; rapid rehousing; rental assistance; and supportive services once households were placed in housing.  She also listed the following challenges and unmet needs: lack of affordable inventory; challenges in providing immediate resources to people in crisis, including seniors and the disabled; providing stabilization efforts to those who were currently housed and at risk of homelessness, noting that it was challenging to do this without adequate resources; determining the availability of services and what each individual household’s barriers were to access those services; identifying needs for and proximity to essential services and healthcare; and the response system within the county could be improved to better meet the needs of the most vulnerable, noting that there were available resources to do this.  She recommended to use ARPA funding to incentivize the creation of new affordable units for households with higher income levels between 65 and 80 percent of the AMI, noting that this funding could be used to expedite the acquisition, rehabilitation or new construction of affordable rental housing, as well as homeownership for eligible populations; furthermore, she recommended utilizing other outside resources for services and rental assistance. 

Ms. Abdoulkarim recalled that in 2022, the Board approved $3 million in affordable housing projects under the ARPA funding, and that the Office of Procurement Services issued a formal solicitation to secure affordable housing projects, which closed in December 2022.  She commented that there were three ARPA compliant responses from the following organizations: Find, Feed and Restore; Habitat for Humanity of Lake-Sumter; and New Beginnings of Central Florida; additionally, evaluations were conducted via formal selection committee procedures.  She provided the following information for Find, Feed and Restore: their focus was workforce housing for tenants and buyers with income too high to qualify for standard affordable housing subsidies; their project location was 835 East Myers Boulevard in the City of Mascotte; their current funding was grants and partnerships; the project was to develop nine units comprised of two three-bedroom units and seven two-bedroom units; to qualify, one would have to be a Lake County resident for 18 months; 30 percent of units would be set aside for police officers, educators and first responders; would require enrollment in hosted financial literacy and homeownership mentoring programs; the rent range would be $1,050 to $1,250 per month compared to the average area rent of $1,345; and the total project cost was $1.2 million.  She then provided the following information about Habitat for Humanity of Lake-Sumter: their focus was three pocket neighborhoods for homeownership opportunities for local qualifying residents; the locations included in the City of Eustis, as well as Shepard’s Village and Rolling Acres Road; the current funding included cash from home sales, donations, and grants; the project was for development of acres of property in the City of Eustis for infrastructure and six to eight fee simple homes, in Shepard’s Village to develop infrastructure using ARPA funds; and in Rolling Acres to develop infrastructure and pocket neighborhoods of that would yield 50 to 60 homeownership opportunities as a potential mixed-income community; the total project costs were $500,000 for the City of Eustis, $6.8 million for Shepard’s Village; and $14.5 million for Rolling Acres.  She also provided the following information for New Beginnings of Central Florida: their focus was transitional housing, which was temporary housing with supportive services for the unhoused or underserved; their location was in the City of Clermont; their current funding included faith-based organizations and grants; the project was continued development of two acres located in the City of Clermont, building six two-bedroom apartments for transitional housing; they would provide on-site caseworkers to aid residents in plan development for self-sufficiency, job trainers to enhance residents’ work skills while in the program, and volunteers to teach the necessary classes to prepare each person to live independently; and the total project cost was $1.4 million.  She said that the requested action for the ARPA funding included the following: award $1,200,000 to Find, Feed & Restore; award $400,000 to Habitat for Humanity; award $1,400,000 to New Beginnings of Central Florida; and authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.  She also indicated that their general recommendation for the use of HOME-ARP funding was to create housing for their aging populations for households at or below 50 percent AMI that were experiencing homelessness, to create permanent supportive housing for households at or below 50 percent AMI, and to bridge the gap from crisis to permanent housing by creating transitional housing that enables short-term temporary housing while working directly with the continuum of care.  She then relayed the following timeline information for HOME-ARP: Lake County received over $2 million from HUD; the County had the draft HOME-ARP allocation plan which was on public display through the middle of March 2023, as was required; currently, the Office of Housing and Community Services was accepting applications for this funding through March 31, 2023; and the approved HOME-ARP Allocation Plan must be executed and submitted to HUD by the March 31, 2023 deadline.  She stated that the requested action for HOME-ARP funding was to authorize the approval and execution of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan for submission by the March 31, 2023 deadline, to HUD.

Commr. Campione asked to confirm that what the County was submitting to HUD for HOME-ARP did not include the decision for who the County awarded the funding to, and Ms. Abdoulkarim said this was correct.  Commissioner Campione thought that the County might possibly need to do an extension.

Ms. Abdoulkarim relayed that the County had not received any applications to date, but that they had three organizations who mentioned that they would be submitting by the deadline.

Commr. Campione questioned that if the County was to do something on the old animal shelter property, such as park models for transitional housing, and work with the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition, The Salvation Army, or another organization, then could they do this without going through the request for proposal (RFP) process.  She also asked that if the County purchased park models, placed them on the property, hired a company to do their utilities, etc., then would they have to go through the RFP process, or could they do this using their current contracts for services.

Ms. Marsh explained that the County did not have to go through the RFP process to use the funds granted to them, and that they only used RFPs when they were going to give those funds to other entities.  She said that the County would have to review whether they would have to do an RFP for a company to operate it, and she did not believe that this was required statutorily; however, their procurement policies may require this.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the County could go ahead and get the units in place, and Ms. Marsh confirmed this.  Commissioner Campione thought that this was a viable option, noting that they would not be locked into it indefinitely.  She added that if they used something like park models, they could be moved and there could be other available sites.

Ms. Barker summarized that staff was requesting approval of both the allocation of the ARPA funds as presented to the three responders to the RFP, and also a separate vote for the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan to be submitted at the end of the current week.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the following items for ARPA funding: award $1,200,000 to Find, Feed & Restore; award $400,000 to Habitat for Humanity; award $1,400,000 to New Beginnings of Central Florida; and authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation. 

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the execution of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan for submission by the March 31, 2023 deadline, to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

recess and reassembly

The Chairman called a recess at 10:18 a.m. for 10 minutes.

public hearing: ordinance 2023-18 res judicata

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION 14.00.09, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ENTITLED RES JUDICATA; TO ALLOW A DENIED ZONING APPLICATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE ONE-YEAR THRESHOLD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND PROVIDING FOR 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.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that this ordinance would allow for someone in a prevailing party on the BCC to bring something back.

Commr. Campione clarified that a Commissioner who voted against an application could ask that it be brought back for consideration before the one year time period that one had to wait to reapply, so long as there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting the reconsideration. 

Commr. Parks asked what the difference was between this and denying a case without prejudice.

            Ms. Marsh responded that the Board could deny it without prejudice at the time they first heard it, and that if something changed between the time they denied it and the one year requirement, then the Board could have the option of bringing it back.  She added that the Board may not have known this at the time they originally denied it.

Commr. Parks was unsure if this was for a particular case, and he questioned if it was a policy change worth making. 

Commr. Campione said that if circumstances were changed and some of the concerns had been addressed, one would still have to wait a year to bring it back.  She opined that it felt arbitrary that no one was paying attention to the facts of the situation if this was the rule, and that the proposed ordinance promoted good transparent government if one could indicate that circumstances had changed and could ask to have it reconsidered.  She thought that it was fairer and customer friendly, and she opined that it would not be able to be used in a frivolous manner because it had a requirement that there be changed circumstances.  She mentioned that individuals who attended the public hearing who thought that they would not have to go back at least for another year were a consideration; however, she opined that if the facts were different or if there was a concern that could then be addressed, then it seemed like a good policy to make those decisions based on the facts.

Commr. Parks expressed a concern that the Board’s judgment of what was significant could vary, and that an item could potentially be back on the agenda after a slight change even though it had previously been denied. 

Commr. Shields indicated an understanding that the case would have to be brought forward by a Board member who had previously voted no.

Commr. Blake added that there would still be another vote, and that it would just be an additional hearing.

Commr. Parks asked if there would be a vote on whether a case met res judicata.

Ms. Marsh explained that if a Commissioner wanted to bring it back, it had to go on the agenda and be approved by a majority of the BCC; furthermore, it would then be scheduled for another hearing.  She said that the Board could add to the proposed ordinance that it had to be advertised, or that the County would have to notify anyone who attended the original public hearing.

Commr. Campione inquired if this would be for the hearing on the determination of whether to bring back the case for a public hearing.

Commr. Parks stated that this would probably address his concern.

Ms. Marsh summarized that it would be to add language that the discussion of whether to bring it back would be advertised, and then notice would be provided to the individuals who attended the original hearing, assuming that the County had their contact information.

Commr. Parks proposed possibly making it clear at zoning hearings that if one wanted information from the County about upcoming applications and hearings, then they could provide their email address. 

Ms. Marsh commented that this was why the County asked them to fill out a comment card, and that they could include contact information so that if a subsequent issue came up, the County would be able to retrieve that information. 

Commr. Shields asked if the yellow signs would be posted again.

Ms. Marsh responded that this would not occur for the discussion of whether to bring the item back; however, if the Board approved by majority vote to bring it back, then it would be advertised again as a rezoning.  She added that it would only be coming back to the BCC, and that it would not be going back to the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that it would essentially have to go through three full votes, with one vote to bring it back, another vote to move it forward, and another vote to approve or deny it.

Ms. Marsh clarified that it would be one vote to reschedule it for a new public hearing, and then the vote on the public hearing.

Commr. Campione indicated her understanding that the public hearing was when the yellow signs would be posted, and that they would treat it like any other zoning case.

Commr. Parks said that as long as the County was willing to provide notification about the first vote to anyone who was involved with the case the first time, who wanted to be notified, that the case was going to come back again, then this would address his concern.

Ms. Marsh said that staff could retrieve the comment cards from the first rezoning hearing and notice whoever they had proper address information for.

Commr. Campione opined that the County could point out to individuals that even if one was not going to speak at a hearing, they could fill out a card so that the County would have a record.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-18 amending Section 14.00.09, Lake County Code, Land Development Regulations, entitled Res Judicata, with the modification that the County would notify anyone they had a record of from the first hearing that they were having a discussion on whether to bring the case back.

public hearing: vacate easements north of wolf branch road

Mr. Schneider presented vacation petition #1277.  He said that the applicants were Ms. Caitlin Wood, the owner of lots 210 and 211 in the plat of Dora Pines, and Ms. Naresh Balkaran, owner of lots 208 and 209.  He stated that the proposed vacation was in the City of Mount Dora area within Commission District 4, and he displayed the location map.  He pointed out the plat of Dora Pines, and commented that the area proposed for vacation was north of Wolf Branch Road and near Sunrise Boulevard; furthermore, it was at the end of the County maintained pavement on Sunrise Boulevard.  He mentioned that the owners had unity of title, and that they would like to vacate the rights of way and easements internal to the lots and be able to build on them.  He mentioned that there were no letters of opposition, nor utility issues; additionally, staff saw no public purpose to keep these rights of way.  He recommended approval of this item.

Commr. Smith asked the Board to disclose ex parte communications, but there were none.

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Ms. Monica VanBerkum, a resident on Greenbriar Trail, said that she was seeing homes behind her property, and she expressed concerns for trees missing.  She relayed her understanding that trees had been cut down on her property as well, and that the subject area could be encroaching on her property.  She also indicated concerns for wildlife, and she questioned if it would utilize septic systems. 

Commr. Campione thought that the circle on the map was just to draw attention to where the vacation was, and that it did not encompass anyone else’s land.  She indicated her understanding that Ms. VanBerkum was in the Country Club of Mount Dora.

Mr. Schneider clarified that the circle was showing the area of the vacation, and that it did not have anything to do with Ms. VanBerkum’s lot.

Ms. VanBerkum relayed her understanding that the applicant basically just wanted a pathway to get into their properties, and she said that she wanted to understand what was occurring here.

Commr. Campione responded that the applicant could not remove any trees on her land, and that the applicants would only be able to receive tree removal permits to build on their land.

Ms. VanBerkum relayed concerns for many trees having been removed from her property for electrical lines, and she indicated concerns for there being homes behind her property.

Ms. Albania Rodriguez, a concerned citizen, mentioned that she wanted to protect the wildlife behind Ms. VanBerkum’s property.  She expressed concerns that building in this area could endanger the wildlife, and she also indicated concerns for the clearing of trees.

Commr. Smith said that Mr. Schneider could provide them more information after the current meeting.

Ms. Gladys Rojas, a resident who owned property in Dora Pines, mentioned that some of the tree clearing was for utilities, and that the people who lived there had the right, once they received permission, to clear the land for the purpose of living there.  She opined that the plat had clear lines for where the boundaries were, and said that Dora Pines unit one was not part of the Country Club of Mount Dora.  She relayed her understanding that units ten and eleven intended to close this out so they could build in the front and back of the property, noting that if they owned both the front and back, then they could ask for this; otherwise, if they did not own the back portion of that lot, then there was a platted easement driveway that they needed to respect so that an individual could access the back of the lot. 

Commr. Campione thought that this explanation was helpful to explain why if one wanted to vacate an easement on property that they owned both parcels on, noting that it was not needed because they had unified their property.  She asked for Mr. Schneider to connect with residents of the Country Club of Mount Dora to ensure that any issues about utility easements and the extent to which the subject property owners could remove vegetation on their property did not impact the adjoining land.

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

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-36 to vacate platted driveway, walkway and cul-de-sac easements lying north of Wolf Branch Road and west of Sunrise Boulevard in the Mount Dora area.

regular agenda

advertising ordinances establishing new impact fee rates

Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, said that the purpose of this presentation was to request approval to advertise for a public hearing to update ordinances regarding County impact fees.  She recalled that in February 2023, the Board was presented with an overview of all the impact fee studies and information for a phased approach to adopt the impact fees, and that the Board had directed staff to move forward with creating the west transportation impact fee district and the phased approach options to establish new rates for the library, parks, fire rescue and transportation impact fees.  She displayed the transportation impact fee rates for the south, northeast/Wekiva, central and north/central benefit districts, noting that it showed the current fees, along with 95 percent of the calculation and the phased increase.  She also showed a breakdown of transportation impact fees for the proposed west benefit district, noting that it was showing 26 percent of the full calculated rate, also phased over four years.  She then showed the impact fee rate comparison for the parks and recreation impact fees using 95 percent of the fully calculated rate phased over four years.  She displayed the fire rescue and library impact fees, noting that they applied to all districts and were using 95 percent of the calculated rate phased over four years.  She concluded that the requested action was approval to advertise ordinances establishing new rates for library, parks, fire rescue and transportation impact fees, and an ordinance creating a new impact fee district to be known as the west transportation benefit district.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Lisa Templin-Rayborn, with the Home Builders Association of Lake Sumter (HBA-LS), asked what had changed, recalling that when this item was last discussed, it was going to go to the Attorney General’s (AG) office for review.  She asked about the economic impact of this item on workforce housing and the housing market overall.  She opined that impact fees were paid by the homebuyer, and that the increase directly affected pricing of existing housing as well.  She opined that a $20,000 increase in impact fees was a $46,000 addition to every person’s mortgage for an average home, and she said that HBA-LS requested that the Board not increase impact fees to the extraordinary circumstances because of the negative effects on housing affordability.  She opined that builders and developers were often being vilified by government, yet everyone benefited from the work of this industry.  She opined that these fees translated into real dollars to homeowners, and added more government fees to their mortgages; additionally, she opined that Lake County had a housing crisis and that the need was great.  She opined that the surrounding counties would provide workforce housing and great developments, and that Lake County would just become the transportation connector without helping their own citizens.

Commr. Smith clarified that this item was just to have this advertised to come back to the Board for another vote.

Ms. Barker added that at the previous Board meeting, the Board directed staff to offer the phased approach at 95 percent of the full calculation for all the fees to become effective on October 1, 2023; furthermore, the fees would increase each year in October.

Commr. Campione inquired about the date for the AG opinion request.

Ms. Marsh relayed that it took time to draft these requests, and that it would be sent after the current BCC meeting.  She added that the AG could typically take three or four months, or longer, before they would respond.  She hoped that the County would have something back before this item went into effect in October 2023, assuming the Board approved it when it came back for a public hearing.  She said that public hearings would likely be set toward the end of April 2023.

Ms. Barker clarified that it should be the April 25, 2023 BCC meeting.

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

Commr. Blake thought that the draft AG request looked good, and he opined that his district, Commission District 5, was most heavily affected because it had lower transportation impact fees.  He asked that since it was not going into effect until October 2023, why could the BCC not wait to hear whether this item was legal before advertising it, out of respect to the industry that was a significant employer in the county.  He mentioned all of the subcontractors and the different individuals that would be affected in the industry, and he thought that the Board should wait to hear back from the AG before approving this item to be advertised.

Commr. Smith asked if Commissioner Blake would like to table this item until they received a response back from the AG.

Commr. Blake made a motion to table this item, but the motion failed due to the lack of a second.

Commr. Campione thought that the presumption on the Board’s part was that they believed it was legal and that it was a reasonable approach to getting the fees to where they needed to be in order to address the transportation impacts.  She opined that the county had exponential growth, even with the downturn and fear of greater issues in the economy, noting that permits continued to be applied for and issued, and homes continued to be built.  She opined that there were many changes in pricing and that some things were moving in favor of the building industry, and she did not think that homebuilding would come to a stop as a result of the Board trying to put some fees in place that could help them keep up with the turn lanes, traffic signals and additional capacity as new residents moved to the area.  She relayed that the Board was trying to find a balanced and reasonable approach, and she did not think that anyone who voted for this believed that they were doing something that was not meritorious and legal. 

Commr. Blake opined that given how the clear the legislation was, for the Board to advertise this, which would require a supermajority, and then declare an emergency that they needed the funding immediately, but then spread it out over a number of years defeated that argument.  He opined that it was trying to get around the legislative intent because there was a process within House Bill (HB) 377 to have a tiered setup, noting that it did not include the 95 percent calculation.

Commr. Smith did not think that Commissioner Blake’s request was unreasonable.

Commr. Parks thought that it was reasonable to wait until October 1, 2023, opining that there would be time for preparation.  He also thought that the Board was being considerate.

Commr. Blake questioned what they thought they were solving by not waiting to hear back from the AG, noting that one of the largest employers in the County was opposed to this item.

Commr. Campione opined that they were always opposed to impact fees.

Commr. Blake asked if this would make housing more affordable and if this was good for the industry or homeowners.

Commr. Parks thought that this was a significant concern, but that the statutes had changed to give the County tools to support affordable housing by waiving fees.  He said that he felt for the custom homebuilder who built a few homes per year; however, he questioned if they should make the rest of the citizens pay for a road that would continue to have increased trip generation per household.

Commr. Blake questioned why the Board did not wait to hear back to find out whether this item was legal before advertising it.

Commr. Campione expressed concerns for the extraordinary circumstances, relaying that many homes were being built quickly on County Road (CR) 44.  She said that when calculating this versus the funding they needed to add capacity, it added up quickly.

Commr. Blake relayed that they had already determined that the fiscal difference to the County was $11 million, and he opined that this bought almost nothing when spread across the county in capacity projects.  He did not think that the AG would take so long to respond to the County that it would affect their intended schedule.

Commr. Parks commented that they would be advertising it to start on October 1, 2023, and that it could possibly be delayed even further.

Commr. Blake opined that it seemed like plenty of time.  He thought that as a concession to individuals who paid many taxes and who employed many taxpayers, the Board could find out if it was legal before advertising it. 

Commr. Shields stated that impact fees were designed by the State so that the County could put infrastructure in place when people moved there, and that this was the tool.  He opined that previous Boards lowered the numbers to below what it was supposed to be, and he relayed that residents were asking the Board to address the roads.  He said that it looked like they had to do this through impact fees, and that either the current residents were going to pay, or the new ones were going to pay.  He did not think that a $300,000 house was affordable when one made $45,000 per year, which was the average salary in Lake County.  He thought that this was a separate subject and that the County had other tools to address it.

Commr. Parks thought the challenge was that if one did not like impact fees, then how should those roads be constructed.

Commr. Blake clarified that he was only bringing up the legality of this action, and he opined that it could make the Board look good to verify the legality of the action before advertising it.

Commr. Parks opined that the heart of this was the opposition outright to impact fees.  He suggested that when the Board had this discussion again, they could possibly include how the roads paid for themselves.

Commr. Blake asked if the average citizen would notice the $11 million difference for capacity projects if they went to 95 percent of the full calculation.  He opined that this did not solve the issue.

Commr. Campione thought that the public noticed when a traffic signal was added on Britt Road and the County needed $250,000 to pay for it, or if a turn lane was needed to alleviate a safety situation.  She stated that many of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) projects required matching funds, and that the only way they would receive the funds for a larger projects was to put up a certain amount of matching funds.  She remarked that the $11 million could be utilized for more transportation funding that the County would possibly not have access to otherwise.

Commr. Blake opined that taxpayers would notice the increase in homelessness that staff had indicated would occur when housing prices increased.  He also opined that this would be an aggravating factor with the homelessness issue.

Commr. Parks opined that Hancock Road connecting to Florida’s Turnpike would not have been possible without impact fees, and he mentioned the economic gain which had occurred with that interchange.  He added that the BCC had made this decision and that it made the difference of whether that project occurred or not. 

Commr. Blake opined that this was a bad time and way to raise impact fees.

Commr. Smith reiterated that he did not think that Commissioner Blake’s request was unreasonable.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to advertise ordinances establishing new rates for the Library, Parks, Fire Rescue and Transportation Impact Fees, and an ordinance creating a new Impact Fee District to be known as the West Transportation Benefit District. Pursuant to Section 163.31801(4)(d), Florida Statutes, new or increased impact fees may not apply to current or pending permit applications submitted before the effective date of a new or increased impact fee.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

local road paving program

Mr. Schneider said that the purpose of this presentation was to discuss the process and procedure of the special assessment road paving program, and the creation of a funding mechanism for internal residential subdivision roads.  He recalled that recently, a special assessment came before the Board, and that the Board had requested for staff to address some of the requirements of special assessments.  He relayed that the standard method was foot frontage along the road, and that the method adopted by the Board a few years prior was to do a municipal service benefit unit (MSBU) over an area.  He added that previous conversations with the Board regarded funding local roads within subdivisions, and that an MSBU was one of the options which was requested to be brought forward to the Board for discussion.  He provided the following background information: the BCC had requested an update on the special assessment program for road paving projects; special assessment projects were used to improve publicly dedicated roads that were not currently in the County’s road maintenance system; and this type of paving project was typically used for sand roads or poor condition paved roads, noting that if it was a County maintained clay road, then the County had previously sought right of way from residents and paved it at the County’s expense.  He clarified that the County had not used a special assessment where they charged users a share on a County maintained road; rather, this was for roads that had not been County maintained, and over the years people move onto them and the road did not function any longer because there were too many vehicles.  He provided the following information about the special assessment program: the program was the adopted method by which a non-maintained road was improved and accepted into the County’s road maintenance system; it originated in 1982 with the establishment of the Lake County Road Policies; the program was updated in 2017 to allow an MSBU program, which was an area wide special assessment to pave a main road; and the County had done 104 of these projects, with 325 roads having been paid using the special assessment process and were now County maintained.  He explained that the traditional method was that one lived on a linear sand road, and more people moved there and wanted to have it paved, and that a percentage of residents owned property along the street, noting that an amount of front footage along the road would be required; furthermore, 55 percent of the property owners would be required.  He added that the County would pay a third of the cost, and each side of the street would pay a third; however, it would be a 50/50 split for a major street.  He stated that for an MSBU, the method of assessment was implemented to assist in paving roads in areas with large lots and low density, noting that different lot sizes would pay for different lengths of the road and that homeowners sometimes could not do this.  He elaborated that if those roads managed to take in an area and if there were many other users using it, then this was the purpose of having an MSBU established.  He relayed the following information for the traditional and MSBU program: the process was started when a property owner made a request for the paving of a non-maintained road; the road must have public right of way of a minimum width of 50 feet, and if it did not, then the County could help them acquire this; an initial estimate was provided, and if 55 percent of the owners representing 55 percent of the front footage indicated approval to move forward, with an MSBU just being 55 percent of the owners, then the County typically began surveying or design work without cost to the homeowners.  He added that it would then go forward to a public hearing before the Board whether to award the project to the lowest and most responsible bidder, and that the County’s cost share was 50 percent on neighborhood collector roads and 33 percent on dead end or cul-de-sac roads.  He stated that once the road was completed and accepted, then the property owners were notified that assessments were due within 30 days, and if this was not paid, then it was placed on the tax bill as a non-ad valorem assessment with an interest rate of prime plus two percent, payable in annual installments for a period of 10 years.  He remarked that the traditional special assessment program was owner-driven, with a current threshold of 55 percent of residents within the area for an MSBU, and 55 percent of the property owners who had 55 percent of the front footage along the road for the traditional process. He said that the proposed threshold would require 80 percent of property owners for a petition, and 80 percent of front footage for the traditional process.  He mentioned that the current cost shares were 50 percent for a neighborhood collector, 33 percent for a local road, and 33 percent for existing paved roads; and that the proposed cost shares were 50 percent for a neighborhood collector road, and 33 percent for a local road.  He recalled that the Board had previously directed staff to develop the residential MSBU program for purposes of providing a funding mechanism to maintain internal subdivision roads, which may include pavement, street lighting, traffic signals, signage and landscaping within the publicly dedicated areas; additionally, under this program, road maintenance for internal subdivision roads would be paid for 100 percent by the residents of the community.  He added that for the previous year and a half, new planned unit developments (PUDs) had been notified that they may be brought into this MSBU program, should it be approved by the BCC.  He relayed the following information for the residential subdivision MSBU program: a petition was not required to implement this funding mechanism; an MSBU would automatically be implemented for each new subdivision once infrastructure improvements were completed and accepted by the County; and a per lot fee would be determined and levied on the property owner’s tax bill each year to fund ongoing residential maintenance.  He specified there were currently about four or five of these in the county, and that it was a pass through which came through the County and went back to the subdivision.  He added that the subdivision currently notified the County of what their expected costs were, but if this item went forward, the County would be working with the homeowners on this to establish what would be in the MSBU.  He mentioned that the traditional special assessment program considerations were to increase the percentage needed to proceed with an owner-driven improvement project, and to adjust the cost share categories.  He also requested approval to advertise two ordinances related to the Residential Subdivision MSBU Subdivision program to amend the code and the Land Development Regulations (LDR).

Commr. Blake thought that the second item made sense and created something that took care of itself going forward.  He expressed appreciation for looking into raising the thresholds on the percent for the traditional special assessment.

Commr. Campione said that it was rare that these special assessments came to fruition, and that she would be in favor of a 50/50 split instead of the County only paying 33 percent, opining that this was a hindrance to getting them done.  She wondered if there was a way that the County could include a notification on building permits that they were building on a non-maintained road and that there was not an expectation that the County would pave it; furthermore, if it did become paved, it would require 80 percent of the people on the road who wanted to participate in the cost.  She opined that it would cost less money if the road was paved in the long run, and that the County should encourage it if a neighborhood could meet this threshold.  She proposed to move the cost share to 50 percent, but 80 percent of the community would have to be in favor, as well as coming up with a mechanism for notice.

On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to advertise two ordinances related to the Residential Subdivision Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Subdivision program to amend the Code and the Land Development Regulations, with an amendment for a 50 percent match and an 80 percent threshold for residents in favor.

commissioners

ordinance for temporary moratorium or pud rezoning

Commr. Campione recalled that this item came about because the County eliminated its 50 lot requirement in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), noting that one would have to have a PUD if they were going to rezone to something that was more than 50 lots; additionally, the County was putting in design guidelines so that there would be uniformity.  She added that the County was essentially taking what was in their PUDs and putting it into the code to the extent that they were able to.  She said that they had a gap, and that there was an idea about having a moratorium on straight zoning platting in this time period but not on building permit issuance, conservation subdivision ordinances, plats already in the pipeline, or PUDs.  She commented that there had been significant concern, and she said that the County did not want to send a negative message economically.  She clarified that this was only to close this gap while the County got its ordinance in place, and that as an alternative, she thought that the appropriate thing to do would be to go back to the 50 lot rule and that a PUD had to be done otherwise, noting that this could be eliminated once the County got its design requirements in place.  She stated that with PUDs as opposed to straight zoning, the Board could consider what was surrounding the property and the specific circumstances of the transportation network.  She expressed support for PUDs as opposed to straight zoning, opining that it allowed for a better process of looking at the site specific terms that would help make the development better and help it blend with the surrounding community.  She asked for the Board’s approval to go this route as opposed to the moratorium.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Pete Chichetto, with D.R. Horton, agreed with not going with a moratorium.  He said that he had met with Commissioner Shields and that affordability was discussed, and he relayed that for a 50 foot lot his company was paying between $80,000 and $90,000 in the Cities of Leesburg, Tavares and Fruitland Park; furthermore, it cost $120,000 or $140,000 for a finished 50 foot lot in the Cities of Clermont and Minneola.  He opined that to make things affordable, it started on the land side with development costs, and that they could not build an affordable house under $300,000 when they were paying $80,000 to $90,000 for a finished lot throughout Lake County.  He opined that impact fees were a pass through to the consumer, and that Polk County had previously passed a one cent gas tax due to growth.  He mentioned that everyone paid the gas tax and that it went strictly for roads, and that other taxes had been done to support tourism and other items with sunset provisions.  He opined that these were options instead of impact fees, and that Lake County’s impact fees were fairly low.

Ms. Templin-Rayborn opined that homebuilders and the construction industry did not want to hear about a moratorium.  She said that Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) was focused on bringing good businesses with good jobs to Lake County, and that they wanted to have good houses, neighborhoods and schools.  She expressed concerns for the implementation of impact fees over transfer taxes, opining that this was causing an issue for the entire state.  She opined that housing costs had increased, and she said that the county had an influx of residents.  She opined that each tax and fee went onto every mortgage being applied for unless homes could be purchased for cash.  She said that HBA-LS had requested to be included in the conversations and bring the experts to the table regarding the design standards and layouts.  She relayed that her organization was a stakeholder, and that they wanted to have collaboration; furthermore, she requested to discuss this ahead of time before things were implemented and became the standard. 

Commr. Smith believed that there was an upcoming public meeting concerning this.

Ms. Templin-Rayborn thought that it was only an hour and a half, and she opined that it could not be done in this amount of time.  She expressed interest in having meaningful expertise to discuss items such as lift stations, retention ponds and architectural design standards.  She opined that capitalism and the market would always work if they let them work, noting that developers were trying to compete because they wanted to have a development that attracted someone buying a home. 

Mr. Ray Hayden, a resident on Dennis Road near the City of Leesburg, recalled that Commissioner Campione had brought up a moratorium in regard to Lake County’s approving of plats of less than 200 units would not require one to submit a PUD.  He agreed with previous discussions that the approval of such created an unintended scenario where projects between 50 and 199 dwelling units could move forward without the published design standards in place as guidance.  He relayed his understanding that there was concern regarding a moratorium and that the Board could not prevent development, and he recalled that there was a video of a BCC meeting with the City of Leesburg in December 2022; furthermore, he encouraged the public to watch this video to see where and why development was occurring.  He indicated his understanding that there were design standards where one could have the same density with a 200 or 300 foot setback, and he opined that a number of these developments looked good.  He expressed concerns for homes not having curb appeal, and he agreed with discussions to get the design standards into an acceptable format for everyone.

Mr. Gary Custer, a resident on East Treasure Island Avenue in the City of Leesburg, said that he had been attending meetings regarding CR 44 and SR 44 since the 1990s, and he opined that nothing had been done.  He relayed his understanding that there was a 2003 study done by Lake County for CR 44 and that it was supposed to be completed by 2022.  He displayed an image of the project, and he indicated an understanding that individuals wanted to put in 1,400 homes in the area between U.S. Highway 441 and Haines Creek.  He opined that this equated to more traffic, relaying that it was a two lane road and that there were traffic accidents.  He opined that the County could build rails to trails and make a bypass, and he expressed concerns that the City of Leesburg developments were coming up to the power poles, opining that there was no room for expanding the road.  He opined that the City of Leesburg had an ordinance that they did not follow, and that they were supposed to keep it clean and do different things; additionally, he opined that the City’s developments and annexations were causing the issue.  He also opined that this came back to impact fees, and that the roads had to be fixed somehow.

Ms. Lisa Hayden, a resident on Dennis Road near the City of Leesburg, said that she liked what Commissioner Campione stated about going back to the 50 units because the County had to consider what was surrounding them.  She wondered if this was something that could be done at the current meeting.

Commr. Campione replied that it would have to be an ordinance, and if the Board went forward on the current day, then they would bring it back at a future meeting.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that it still had to go to the Planning and Zoning Board, and then it would come back to the BCC for a public hearing.

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

Commr. Campione made a motion to move forward with an LDR change that would require 50 lots or more to be a PUD; additionally, the Board would not pursue a moratorium ordinance.                                                                                     

Commr. Shields asked if this would be with the exception of rural conservation subdivisions.

Commr. Campione replied that she wanted to do this for all of them.

Commr. Parks seconded the motion; however, he did not think that the previously proposed moratorium would have been a true moratorium.  He thought that the County would be willing to work with someone, and he thought that moving forward was a great idea. 

Commr. Smith relayed that he did not like it because the County was not adding more density, and he opined that they were restricting the builders from building on properties that they had entitlements to.

Commr. Campione pointed out that this rule had been in place for many years, and opined that it has been in place when the builders had purchased those properties.

Commr. Smith indicated that he did not like it at that time.

Commr. Blake expressed appreciation for Commissioner Campione making this change, and he said that he preferred this to the moratorium situation; however, he would still be voting against this item for other reasons.

Ms. Marsh clarified that the way the language was currently proposed, it would require this of any subdivision of 50 lots or more, unless they were using a rural conservation subdivision.  She added that it would currently exclude rural conservation subdivisions, and that if one was going through that separate chapter of the LDR, then they would not be tied to this 50 lot requirement.

Commr. Campione responded that the Board could leave this intact.  She added that then builders would not have to go through a PUD process if they wanted to use the County’s rural conservation design; furthermore, the County would like to have a model of this.

Commr. Smith said that he liked the rural conservation design because it was voluntary.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved to move forward with an LDR change that would require 50 lots or more to be a PUD, excluding rural conservation subdivisions; additionally, the Board would not pursue a moratorium ordinance.

Commr. Smith and Commr. Blake voted no.

other business

APPOINTMENT TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Commr. Shields said that the two largest cities had membership on the Tourist Development Council (TDC), and that Mr. Alan Reisman would now be the City of Leesburg representative.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Alan Reisman to the Tourist Development Council as an Elected Municipal Officer to complete an unexpired term for Council Member Mike Pederson who resigned in January 2023, and to serve an additional four years for a term ending December 1, 2027, along with approval of an applicable waiver.

APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Commr. Campione stated that one of these appointments was from District 4, and she mentioned that Mr. Ray Powers technically lived in District 4 now that the County had redistricted; however, he was initially appointed from District 5.  She added that his term would expire in 2025, and she thought that she could make him the appointment for District 4.  She added that Mr. David Williamson could be appointed to District 5 to finish that term, noting that this would move Mr. Powers into his correct district.

Ms. Marsh explained that the motion would essentially be to move Mr. Powers from the District 5 seat to the District 4 seat, and appoint Mr. Williamson to complete the unexpired District 5 term.

Commr. Campione asked if this would also include the District 2 appointment.

Commr. Parks stated that he would like to appoint Mr. Paul Giacalone, a resident of the City of Minneola.

Ms. Marsh did not believe that his application had been received yet.

Ms. Barker confirmed that they would have a quorum with the appointments just made to Districts 4 and 5, and that if the Board would like to hold off on the appointment for District 2 until the County received the application, then this item could be brought back.

Ms. Marsh said that the concern with appointing a District 2 member when the County did not have the application was whether there would be something in the application that required a waiver.  She said that she would not want the Board to appoint him without the County reviewing the application.  She then asked staff if there would be a quorum.

Ms. Mary Ellen Stern, Executive Director for Economic Growth, was unsure if they had a quorum yet, and that without District 2, she did not know if they would have a quorum.

On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to move Mr. Ray Powers from the District 5 seat to the District 4 seat, and to appoint Mr. David Williamson to the District 5 seat to complete the unexpired term of Mr. Powers.

Commr. Parks inquired if Ms. Stern already had a confirmation from someone from District 2 to attend the next Board of Adjustment meeting.

Ms. Stern stated that this was not for sure, noting that they needed the appointment for District 2.  She clarified that one of their members had not responded whether they could attend the upcoming meeting, and that without filling the District 2 seat, they were unsure if they had a quorum.  She added that they also needed confirmation from the appointee that they could attend the meeting in the following week.

Commr. Smith asked if this would be the first time that the Board of Adjustment did not have a quorum.

Ms. Stern responded that it had been postponed in the past.

Ms. Marsh added that they did not have this meeting in February 2023, and that it had been an issue which was why staff had discussed dissolving the Board of Adjustment and including those functions in the Planning and Zoning Board.  She added that the County opted to keep the Board of Adjustment, but move them to the same day as the Planning and Zoning Board, which would be April 5, 2023.

Commr. Parks suggested that someone could possibly serve in District 2 for the next month with the understanding that he would likely request that Mr. Giacalone was appointed.

Commr. Shields inquired if the Board could approve Commissioner Parks to approve whoever he wanted as soon as the application was received.

Ms. Marsh commented that the Board could approve Commissioner Parks’ candidate so long as a waiver was not required.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it was an ethics waiver.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this, adding that it would be for if Mr. Giacalone worked or had any ties with people who had contracts with the County.

On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to give Commissioner Parks the authority to approve appointing the District 2 member when that person applied, assuming no waiver was needed.

reports

county attorney

REVISED RES JUDICATA ORDINANCe

Ms. Marsh reviewed the revised ordinance regarding res judicata which was approved earlier in the current meeting.  She mentioned that staff had changed it to say “At the request of a County Commissioner who voted in favor of denying an application, an item may be placed on the BCC’s agenda to consider scheduling a new hearing on the application prior to the expiration of the one year threshold.  The BCC must consider whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances warranting the reconsideration of the application.  If the Board approves the individual Commissioner’s request by majority vote, the application will be scheduled for a new public hearing in front of the Board, and notice shall be provided as set forth elsewhere in the LDR.  Any person who submitted a comment card with contact information during the original public hearing that resulted in the denial shall be notified of the date the Board will consider the exception to the one year threshold.”

county manager

supervisor of elections leased facility

Ms. Barker provided an update on the proposed Lake County Supervisor of Elections facility in the Sears building at Lake Square Mall.  She explained that the County had been working with the architect and the construction manager, noting that they had been working on the design of the project and that the County had received an estimated cost based on 75 percent design of the facility.  She explained that the estimated cost for the renovations of the Sears building would be about $8.3 million based on the current design, and that the BCC had previously provided approval to do the renovations at the facility in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million; therefore, there was about a $5 million gap in funding.  She said that the Supervisor of Elections had requested that the County negotiate a termination of the lease agreement with the landlord at the mall, and that Board approval would be required.  She added that if the Board wanted to move in a different direction and have the architect redesign the facility to meet the $3.5 million budget, then staff could request this.  She relayed that the Supervisor of Elections had indicated that he would like to see if the County could get out of the lease agreement and then look for temporary facilities for warehouse space in the amount of about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, as well as leasing additional office space in the bank adjacent to his current facility.  She requested Board direction because the only direction she currently had was a redesign of the facility for $3.5 million.

Commr. Shields asked how much it would cost to terminate the lease.

Ms. Barker replied that staff would have to negotiate this with the current landlord, and that their current lease stated that they had a minimum of five years that they must stay within the lease; furthermore, the lease amount was approximately $520,000 per year, and if the landlord did not offer a reduction, it would be about $2.5 million.

Commr. Smith said that he could not make a decision without all the facts, and that he would like Ms. Barker to at least talk to the landlord and see if they were willing to let the County out of the lease, or what would be terms and conditions they would need.

Ms. Barker commented that staff would need Board direction to negotiate with the landlord for this.

Commr. Campione relayed that there was also an issue with asbestos and that it was in the range of $750,000 to address.

Ms. Barker clarified that it was around $1 million to remediate this, and that there were also air conditioners that needed to be replaced for about $600,000.  She added that the roof needed to be resealed due to some leaks, and that while the County had some funding in the original budget for work on the air conditioning, it was probably around an additional $750,000 to $1 million of additional repairs outside of what they were originally anticipating.

Commr. Campione asked if it would be $3.5 million plus those repairs.

Ms. Barker confirmed this, or said that they could do the $3.5 million minus this, which would be what was left for design.  She added that the total was $8.3 million, and that the architect was working with the Supervisor of Elections identifying his needs based on his security needs and the space needed for training for his election workers; additionally, based on the design at the current point, the cost estimate was $8.3 million.

Commr. Parks inquired if this included the asbestos removal, and Ms. Barker clarified that it included this, along with the repairs of the air conditioner and roof.

Commr. Campione expressed interest in finding out of the County could terminate this lease.

Ms. Barker asked if there was a dollar amount that the Board would like to negotiate, or if they just wanted to see what the landlord was willing to offer as far as a dollar amount to be brought back as an update.  She stated that the County did not have to start paying a monthly lease amount until June 2023, and that she had discussed in the past with the landlord about offering to pay the lease amount, which was approximately $45,000 to $47,000 per month, from November 2022 when the Supervisor of Elections took possession, through June 2023.

Commr. Smith opined that this would be fair because the County had utilized the building for that period of time.

Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that asbestos was outlawed around 1981, and he was unsure if there was some room for discussion on this.  He complimented the landlord on being good to work with, but he expressed a concern for $700,000 for asbestos removal.

Ms. Barker believed that it was closer to $1 million.

Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that any future user would have to address this, or ordinarily the landlord would.

Ms. Barker remarked that they had started removal of the ceiling tiles for the asbestos, and if the County halted everything at this point and managed to negotiate a mutual termination of the lease agreement, then they would likely have to replace the ceiling tiles.  She relayed her understanding that there was direction for staff to talk to the landlord and see what they could work out, and said that staff would come back at a future BCC meeting with an update.

Commr. Smith thought that the threshold could be Ms. Barker’s suggestion from November 2022 to June 2023 because the County had utilized the building for that period of time.

commissioners reports

commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1

REAL TIME CRIME CENTER

Commr. Shields mentioned that he had a tour of the new real time crime center and that it looked like a great tool for law enforcement.

VISIT TO CITY OF TALLAHASSEE

Commr. Shields relayed that he visited the City of Tallahassee on behalf of the Florida Association of Counties (FAC), noting that Representative Mike Giallombardo was putting forward a cybersecurity bill; furthermore, he wanted to ensure that there would not be any unfunded mandates for the County.  He relayed that it looked like it was mostly for State organizations, and he did not think that there would be any impact to the County.

WATER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Commr. Shields said that he had a Water Safety Advisory Committee meeting.

LEAD KICKOFF EVENT

Commr. Shields stated that they had a second LEAD kickoff event in the City of Leesburg, and that there was great attendance from the community.

BURNING IN FOUR CORNERS

Commr. Shields commented that he was receiving many complaints about burning in Four Corners, relaying his understanding that land was being cleared.  He said that it looked like it was mostly in Orange County, and that they had to go to the State for their permits; furthermore, he relayed that he was unsure of how to proceed on this issue.

Commr. Campione asked if it was small scale burning or developments.

Commr. Shields thought that it was developments being built in Orange County.

Commr. Parks stated that there were some on the Lake County side of Four Corners.  He mentioned that they had to receive a burn permit and that Lake County did not issue these.  He said that someone from the County could possibly help on behalf of asking for the burn permits and making sure that the individuals were following the conditions that they were supposed to be operating under to have the burn.

commissioner parks – district 2

UPCOMING MEETING IN THE CITY OF GROVELAND

Commr. Parks remarked that there was an upcoming meeting on April 7, 2023 in the City of Groveland regarding joint planning, noting that Lake County wanted the Cities to enter into JPAs with the County.  He opined that it was better planning and a better process, and he clarified that no one from the County had asked for the Cities to have something exactly like another City.  He also mentioned that there was room to have a JPA customized to the City. 

Ms. Stern explained that the event was called “Lake County Stakeholder Workshop #2,” that it regarded conservation strategy, and that it was scheduled for Friday, April 7, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at Lake David Center in the City of Groveland.

commissioner campione – district 4

REZONING CASE NEAR HARBOR SHORES ROAD AND GOOSE CREEK ROAD

Commr. Campione stated that under the County’s new provision for res judicata, she wanted to bring back the case near Harbor Shores Road and Goose Creek Road to reconsider it with regard to the road access that the developer had worked out with the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA), noting that it was an easement that would provide a second access to disperse the traffic.  She clarified that the Board would have to vote on whether they would rehear it, and then if they reheard it, they would also have to make a decision on whether to approve the PUD.

Commr. Smith asked if this had had to be agendized.

Ms. Marsh confirmed this and said that it could be brought back on April 11, 2023; furthermore, if the Board approved moving forward, she thought that the County could meet their advertising time for the first zoning meeting in May 2023.

Commr. Campione inquired if April 11, 2023 would be where the County would send notices to residents who had provided their information.

Ms. Marsh replied that this was correct.

Commr. Campione opined that there was something to work with to see whether the easement could possibly address the concerns, and that this was the significant issue.

COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5

homebuilder’s work group

Commr. Blake stated that he wanted to bring up the idea of the homebuilder’s work group, opining that a few issues had caught the industry by surprise.  He thought that the County could possibly have a homebuilders or industry work group that would receive email notification before something was coming up, such as if the County was going to make significant changes to their LDR or impact fees, that would affect a significant employer in the county, noting that the work group could make comments before it was on the agenda. 

Commr. Smith asked if the email list would include the small businesses that built houses, or just the associations that represented the group.

Commr. Blake replied that he would start with those, and then make it voluntary.

Commr. Smith indicated that he had no issue with sending out anything for discussion, opining that it made it more transparent. 

Commr. Campione recalled that it had previously been discussed as interacting both ways, and that if the homebuilders industry had issues that they wanted to talk to the County about, it could be a way to do this as well.

Commr. Blake mentioned that it could mostly be a notification network, but if something came up that needed to be workshopped, then the County could schedule a meeting with the group.  He said that the Board could work with staff on details.

Commr. Smith said that he was amicable with Commissioner Blake taking the lead on this item and working with staff to come up with a good program, and then bringing it back to the Board for approval.

supervisor of elections leased facility

Commr. Blake remarked that with regard to the ongoing situation with the Sears building, he wanted to make sure the County learned something from it and possibly avoid repeating what happened.  He mentioned that the County had not found out about the asbestos situation until after the contract had gone through, and he proposed possibly having a policy for the County where they would have an automatic required inspection before any leases are signed.

Commr. Parks said that the County would want to look for mold, asbestos and lead paint.

Commr. Campione mentioned that it could be triggered with these specific items so that the County would be covered if these items were present and the landlord did not disclose it.  She added that there was still a large difference between what the facility was supposed to cost and what they were designing it to be.

UNIVERSAL SCHOOL CHOICE BILL FOR STATE OF FLORIDA

Commr. Blake mentioned that on the previous day, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a universal school choice bill for the State of Florida.  He relayed that only six states had anything similar, and he opined that it would make a large difference for many families and students.

FLAG FLYING AT HALF STAFF

Commr. Blake stated that the City of Tavares flag was flying at half-staff, noting that there was a recent tragedy in Nashville, Tennessee.  He opined that flying the flag at half-staff was indicative of a major national incident, and he expressed concerns for frequently seeing the flag at half-staff.  He asked if someone could reach out to the City of Tavares regarding this.

Commr. Smith agreed, but he did not think that a City, County or State could lower the flag half-staff without either the Governor’s or the President’s direction.

Ms. Marsh explained that Governor DeSantis issued a memorandum requesting that for The Covenant School Shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, that all flags be lowered to half-staff, noting that this was at all local and state buildings, installations and grounds throughout the State of Florida. 

Commr. Campione asked how long it lasted.

Ms. Marsh replied that it was until sunset on March 31, 2023; additionally, the memorandum referenced that there was a proclamation by President Biden as well, and that it seemed to be a response to a presidential request.

Commr. Blake recalled that Ms. Marsh had noted many memorandums related specifically to Leon County, and that it could be a recommendation but not a requirement.

Ms. Marsh stated that most of the memorandums that she had reviewed were specific, and that when it was for a specific individual, the memorandum would say for a County to do something if that individual was tied to those counties.  She mentioned that Lake County would not necessarily be lowering the flag every time the Governor did it in Leon County, and that it would only be for the specific areas that the Governor had designated.

Commr. Parks expressed concerns for the flag continually being at half-staff.

Commr. Blake agreed that terrible events had occurred, but he opined that the perpetual half-staff flag had to be addressed.

commissioner smith – chairman and district 3

THANKING EVERYONE FOR HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Commr. Smith thanked everyone who wished him Happy Birthday.

SOMETHING ON A STICK DAY

Commr. Smith said that it was Something on a Stick Day.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK