A regular MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
january 24, 2023
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 24, 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; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Josh Pearson, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION and pledge
Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the meeting, and said that the meeting was also being streamed live on the County website; furthermore, they were also broadcasting the meeting via Zoom for individuals who were unable to attend.
Pastor Chase Allen, with First Baptist Church of Umatilla, 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, stated that for Tab 9, the original sublease was updated to reflect the current Chairman, and that for Tab 10, staff updated the attached price tabulations. She added that for Tab 19, supporting documents for the midyear budget adjustment hearing were attached, and that for Tab 21, they updated the attached resolution and agreement. She remarked that for Tab 25, regarding the Board of Building Examiners appointments, the consumer member vacancies were updated to reflect two seats that needed to be appointed, noting that there were two applicants for those two seats. She concluded that Tab 26 was added as an addendum to the consent agenda since the agenda was first published.
Minutes approval
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the minutes for the BCC meetings of November 15, 2022 (Regular Meeting), and November 22, 2022 (Special Meeting) as presented.
citizen question and comment period
Ms. Deirdre Griffin, a resident of the City of Leesburg, expressed concerns for a proposed annexation rezoning case in the City of Leesburg which did not require a second access for ingress and egress. She opined that the only ingress and egress onto United States (U.S.) Highway 441 had heavy commercial development, and that it caused congestion and confusion. She relayed that the inadequate easements were legally granted 21 feet and 18.5 feet paved, noting that the easement was merely a driveway. She opined that this would become a significant safety risk due to the widths, as well as the lack of sidewalks for pedestrians. She opined that the road network has significant safety issues if something blocked the road, noting that since there was only one way in and out, there would be no way to allow an ambulance or fire truck to enter the area. She opined that this was not in harmony with the public’s best interest, as it jeopardized the safety and welfare of the existing community. She believed that this case should only be approved contingent that there was a second approved ingress and egress, and she asked the Board of County Commissioners to request that a preliminary design review (PDR) be completed prior to the second reading by the City. She then showed images of the ingress and egress, including traffic coming off U.S. Highway 441.
Ms. Cynthia Rahrig, a resident of the Hideaway 55+ community in the City of Leesburg, expressed concerns about the amount of traffic that would be added by the proposed case, opining that it was challenging for ambulances and fire trucks to access her community. She opined that it was a dangerous area, and she said that the proposal was to place 48 two to three story homes in the area. She opined that single family dwellings would ease the congestion, and requested to have a PDR completed before the second reading.
Mr. Joseph Richardson, Director for the Central Florida Freethought Community, recalled that he had provided the Invocation at the December 6, 2022 BCC meeting on behalf of his organization, and he opined that Commissioner Parks had suddenly planned a second Invocation, which was a Christian prayer, on that day; furthermore, he opined that this presumably occurred because his Invocation was not a prayer. He relayed that the fact that his Invocation was deemed insufficient prompted a letter of complaint from attorneys at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a blog post which was seen by half a million people, and a front page article in the Orlando Sentinel. He opined that the situation remained unresolved and that there had been no response to the Freedom from Religion Foundation letter of complaint; additionally, he had emailed Commissioner Parks in December 2022 and offered to meet with him, but received no response. He commented that Mr. David Williamson, with the Central Florida Freethought Community, had asked for clarification and was referred to the Orlando Sentinel article where Commissioner Parks had said through a spokesman that “he would apologize.” He opined that this had not happened, and that he had no assurance that this would not happen again if their Invocation was deemed inadequate. He expressed appreciation for Commissioner Parks’ sentiments as expressed in the Orlando Sentinel article; however, he opined that nothing in them constituted an acknowledgement that a mistake was made, nor an apology or a commitment to not repeating this mistake. He asked the Board for these three items.
Mr. Ray Hayden, a resident on Dennis Road, played a video regarding the proposed annexation in the City of Leesburg which showed the entrance to the proposed development. He then played another video which demonstrated that more often than not, when entering or leaving the community one would come face to face with another vehicle where drivers would have to yield in order to avoid a collision. He opined that traffic conflicts were a constant issue for most of the trips where people were coming in or out.
Ms. Lisa Hayden, a resident on Dennis Road, showed a map of the proposed development and noted that it was across from Lake Square Mall. She relayed her understanding that they were looking to build 46 to 48 units, which could be around 90 trips per day on the narrow path shown by Mr. Hayden. She asked for the BCC to send a letter to the City of Leesburg stating that the Board had significant safety concerns regarding the single substandard ingress and egress of the proposed development; additionally, she asked the Board to request that since access to the proposed development was based on private easements along a narrow path with no sidewalks, that both transportation and traffic safety studies be completed and submitted to the City of Leesburg’s planning board prior to the second reading. She commented that the second reading was scheduled for February 27, 2023, and she asked if a PDR could be done before the second reading. She also thanked Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, Mr. Seth Lynch, with the Public Works Department, and Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, for their outstanding customer support.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there would be another BCC meeting before this item went to the City of Leesburg planning and zoning board.
Ms. Barker relayed that staff could add it to the February 14, 2023 BCC meeting, and that it could include a report from the Lake County Public Works Department.
Mr. Banks Helfrich, a resident of the City of Clermont, stated that he was a sustainable farmer and that he taught sustainability. He remarked that once per month he opened his farm to a tour, teaching, tasting of his crops, and clippings of trees that individuals could take and grow themselves. He specified that it was the second Saturday of each month, and he invited everyone to visit his farm.
Ms. Cindy Newton, a resident of Commission District 4 speaking via Zoom, thanked the BCC and staff for their support of the rural conservation design standards which would come before the Board for adoption on the current day, and for the progress being made regarding the countywide joint planning agreements (JPAs). She encouraged each County Commissioner to pair up with a City Commissioner to tour their area and see why residents had been passionate in working to preserve this unique area and protect the high recharge capabilities with the large amount of undisturbed open space, limited density, and impervious surface ratio (ISR).
CLERK OF the Circuit COURT and comptroller’s CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Shields, 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, Items 1 through 3, as follows:
List of Warrants
Notice is hereby provided of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136.06 (1) of the Florida Statutes, which shall be incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.
City of Fruitland Park Ordinance 2022-025
Notice is hereby provided of having received Boundary Amendment Ordinance 2022-025 from the City of Fruitland Park.
City of Groveland CRA Ordinance 2022-58
Notice is hereby provided of having received Ordinance 2022-58 adopting the Fiscal Year 2023 Carry Forward Budget Amendment for the City of Groveland’s Community Redevelopment Agency, per Florida Statute 163.387(6).
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Commr. Smith relayed that he received a comment card for Tab 11 and Tab 26; therefore, these items would be pulled to the regular agenda.
Commr. Parks stated that he would likely object to the ordinance referenced in Tab 5, though he believed that there would be a fair hearing. He asked what date the ordinance would be advertised for.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, County Attorney, believed that it was coming back on February 14, 2023.
Commr. Parks expressed support for advertising the ordinance; however, he thought that this ordinance was not necessary in the sense that the Board could deny any zoning case without prejudice, and that it could come back through that process. He opined that changing this for one case or another was probably not always the best thing to do.
Commr. Smith clarified that the current item was just to advertise the ordinance, and then it would come back and the Board could discuss it further.
Commr. Campione explained that it was about applications which were denied, and then a change of circumstance occurred, noting that this item would remove the one year wait period if there was a substantial change.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Consent Agenda, Tabs 3 through 13, pulling Tabs 11 and 26 to the regular agenda, as follows:
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Recommend approval and execution of a Second Amendment to Agreement for On Call Legal Services with Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Recommend approval:
1. To utilize Omnia Partners – Public Sector Agreement No. 18221 with KRONOS SaaShr, Inc., for Workforce Management Systems and Related Products, Services and Solutions; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact for Fiscal Year 2023 is $94,320 (expenditure) with subsequent fiscal years' annual estimated fiscal impact of $64,320 (expenditure).
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Planning and Zoning
Recommend approval to advertise an Ordinance amending Section 14.00.09, Lake County Code, Land Development Regulations, entitled Res Judicata. There is no fiscal impact.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Facilities Management
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 23-402 for full maintenance and repair of chiller, boiler, cooling tower, and pump, including water analysis and treatment to Hill York, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $320,994 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contract 23-417 for fire protection system services to Randall Mechanical, Inc. (Apopka, FL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $206,337 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval:
1. To purchase services from ASCO Power Services, Inc. (Florham Park, NJ) for repair and modifications to the existing power control system, located at the Lake County Judicial Center; and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation; and
3. Of a budget transfer in the amount of $299,831 from Facilities Repair/Maintenance to Facilities Buildings Capital for the cost of the modification of the existing ASCO Power Control System located at the Lake County Judicial Center.
The fiscal impact is $299,831 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget. Commission District 3.
Parks and Trails
Recommend approval:
1. To release the current Sublease Agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the Neighborhood Lakes Scenic Trail and Trailhead, a 165-acre portion of Wekiva Springs State Park; and
2. To accept FDEP’s Partial Release of Lease related to Lease Number 2386, which terminates the Sublease Agreement; and
3. To authorize the Chairman to execute the new Lease Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida as the replacement for the Sublease Agreement, and any subsequent lease documents related to the termination of the Sublease Agreement.
The annual fiscal impact is $300 (expenditure).
Public Works
Recommend approval:
1. Of Contracts 22-543 for Traffic Signs and Materials as needed with a pool of vendors: Crown USA, Inc. (Woodbury, GA), Osburn Associates, Inc. (St. Petersburg, FL), Safety Products, Inc. (Lakeland, FL), Safety Zone Holdings, Inc. dba Safety Zone Specialists (Lakeland, FL), Swarco Industries, LLC (Columbia, TN), Mandel Metals, Inc. dba US Standard Sign (Franklin Park, IL), Vulcan, Inc. (Foley, AL), and Xcessories Squared Development & Mfg., Inc. (Auburn, IL); and
2. To authorize the Office of Procurement Services to execute all supporting documentation.
The estimated fiscal impact is $150,000 (expenditure) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.
Recommend approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Leesburg to transfer the jurisdiction of Rumford Road (3220) to the City of Leesburg.
The fiscal impact is $44 (expenditure - recording fees) and is within, and will not exceed, the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Commission District 3.
Recommend approval of an amendment to the Developers Agreement with Galvin Land Services to dedicate right of way associated with the County Road (CR) 437 in exchange for transportation impact fee credits.
The estimated fiscal impact is $41,556.24 in transportation impact fee credits. Commission District 4.
tab 11: road transfer to city of groveland
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. T.J. Fish, Director of Transportation and Public Works for the City of Groveland, said that the City had a great experience coordinating with County staff, and that the City was sincere about their JPA efforts, noting that their current interlocal service boundary agreement with the County said that they were supposed to cooperate on roadway transfers; furthermore, he hoped that this could lead to other transfer agreements. He then commented that for Tab 26, the City was pleased to see the County moving forward on this distributed wastewater program, and that the City of Groveland was interested. He indicated an intention for the City of Groveland to utilize the contract and be helpful in being good stewards of their environment in their service area.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved an Interlocal Agreement to transfer ownership and maintenance of Obrien Road (CR 2427) and South Obrien Road (CR 2227) to the City of Groveland.
tab 26: onsyte performance contract
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to award contract 22-917 to OnSyte Performance, LLC (a State of Georgia company), to undertake water quality improvement projects such as the abandonment and replacement of traditional septic systems with individual distributed wastewater treatment systems. The Board also approved the following items: an Installation Agreement with Onsyte Performance, LLC; an Operations and Maintenance Service Agreement with OnSyte Performance, LLC; Florida Department of Environmental Protection Grant WG070 for Lake County Septic to Sewer Conversion; and adoption of unanticipated revenue Resolution 2023-8 in the amount of $1,000,000 to receive grant funds from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to assist in funding the County’s septic to sewer conversion.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-8 rural conservation design
Mr. Bobby Howell, Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning, said that this was the adoption of the rural conservation design standards in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), and that there had been no changes since the transmittal hearing.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-8 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate rural conservation design concepts and criteria.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-9 Rural conservation design
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; CREATING CHAPTER XVII, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, TO BE ENTITLED RURAL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE; APPLICABLITY; DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PROTECTED LANDS; DENSITY STANDARDS; EVALUATION CRITERIA; WATER SUPPLY & SEWAGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES; OPTIONAL DENSITY BONUSES; PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION; SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANS; AMENDING CHAPTER II, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED DEFINITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 3.02.06, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ENTITLED DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, FLOOR AREA, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 6.12.01, LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, REGARDING CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS; 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. Campione stated that there was language in the City of Eustis Comp Plan that referenced four types of communities which were considered to receive extra protection in the Wekiva Rural Protection Area (RPA). She relayed that the County referenced sensitive habitats, and that the City of Eustis language specified longleaf pines, sand pines, xeric oak scrub, etc. She wondered if it would make sense for the County to reference this language.
Commr. Parks remarked that it could be added to list those natural communities.
Ms. Marsh added that there was an errata sheet that also needed to be approved if the Board wanted to add language regarding trails.
Commr. Blake asked to clarify that these standards were creating a separate category called the Rural Conservation Design Standards, that it was only an option, and that people could choose to either do this or go through the planned unit development (PUD) process. He added that he was opposed to mandatory criteria.
Ms. Marsh confirmed that this was what the Board had approved as part of the Comp Plan amendment, and that individuals would have the option.
Commr. Parks relayed that there was an incentive to utilize this option.
Commr. Smith confirmed that this item was voluntary.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried by a vote of 4-1, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-9 creating Chapter XVII, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Land Development Regulations, to be entitled Rural Conservation Subdivision Design Standards, with the addition to the language with regard to habitat protection regarding the natural communities of longleaf pines, sand hill, sand pine, and xeric oak scrub, along with an errata sheet.
Commr. Blake voted no.
public hearing: ordinance dissolving the board of adjustment
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 OR REPEALING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE, APPENDIX E, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: REPEALING SECTION 13.02.00 ENTITLED ALTERNATE MEMBERS; REPEALING SECTION 13.03.00, ENTITLED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING FOR TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD; AMENDING SECTION 13.04.01, REGARDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, ENTITLED FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES; AMENDING SECTION 13.04.02, ENTITLED MEMBERSHIP; AMENDING SECTION 14.00.04, ENTITLED APPLICATIONS; AMENDING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAKE COUNTY CODE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO REPLACE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERENCES; 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.
Mr. Ray Powers, a Board of Adjustment member, listed several Counties that had boards of adjustment, and he indicated that his board’s meetings could be from five minutes to two hours long depending on the amount of speakers. He expressed concern that if their duties went to the Planning and Zoning Board, some individuals that the Board of Adjustment could address quickly could possibly be waiting a long time, and that it could also increase the length of the Planning and Zoning Board meetings. He relayed his understanding that the same information was needed for his board as would be needed for the Planning and Zoning Board, and he opined that people were generally more relaxed at Board of Adjustment meetings. He thought that his board served the constituents, and he opined that the BCC should consider the people coming before the Board of Adjustment and how quickly they could address things. He stated that the only alternative to anything that the Board of Adjustment said was to go to court, and that he had never been summoned; therefore, he thought that that the Board of Adjustment did a good job in not creating more expense.
Mr. James Argento, Chairman for the Board of Adjustment and speaking via Zoom, thanked the BCC for allowing him to serve, and he commended the members of his board. He thought that they had been a good board and that the BCC could be proud of the work they had done. He commented that the Board of Adjustment had discussed this matter at the previous meeting, and that there could possibly be some feedback available to the BCC.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Blake expressed appreciation for the Board of Adjustment, and he shared that he was agnostic on the existence of it as an entity; however, he wanted the County to have the best process they could, and for property rights to be protected. He explained that the Board of Adjustment was similar to a safety valve and that if someone had an issue and needed to obtain a variance, then the Board of Adjustment would hear this to ensure that their property rights were protected, noting that the Board of Adjustment could make an exception if it made sense. He added that this did not come to the BCC and that the Board of Adjustment was not an advisory board. He indicated that he had conversations with several Board of Adjustment members, and that one suggestion would be rather than eliminate the Board of Adjustment completely, to streamline the process for everyone by having the Board of Adjustment meeting follow or precede the Planning and Zoning Board meeting at a time certain.
Commr. Smith thought that the Board of Adjustment was doing a great job, and he opined that this item was about efficiency. He asked Ms. Marsh if Commissioner Blake’s suggestion would affect the County’s notifications.
Ms. Marsh replied that they would have separate notifications if they were kept as separate boards, though they would all be on the same timeline, versus how they currently had deadlines one week apart.
Commr. Smith added that this could assist with residents potentially having to attend three or four different hearings, noting that they could just attend one hearing.
Commr. Parks thanked the Board of Adjustment members, and he thought that the current discussion was a good compromise to have both the Board of Adjustment and Planning and Zoning Board meetings on the same day, noting that it could possibly be more efficient.
Commr. Shields also indicated support for this.
Commr. Campione proposed possibly holding the Board of Adjustment meeting first.
Ms. Marsh commented that it needed to be time certain because staff had to advertise it, noting that the only issue was whether the Board of Adjustment members’ schedules would allow them to attend a morning meeting. She added that they could also keep the Board of Adjustment in the afternoon on a different day.
Commr. Campione stated that if they did the Board of Adjustment at 9:00 a.m. and the Planning and Zoning Board at 10:00 a.m., they would more than likely be done with the Board of Adjustment meeting in time.
Ms. Marsh relayed that the Board of Adjustment’s meetings had not been very long, and that staff would have to coordinate with members on both boards to ensure that they would be available.
Commr. Blake relayed that he would be willing to do this at the current time, and that they could possibly make adjustments in the future.
Commr. Campione thought that since the Planning and Zoning Board was an advisory board, it could be challenging to also be a board where they had the final say, noting that the only recourse for a property owner was to go to court. She also thought that bifurcating the roles may be good from that standpoint, and she mentioned that the Board could adjust the time if it did not work. She opined that this addressed the efficiencies part and could make it more user friendly for applicants and staff. She then made a motion to approve this item with the discussed modifications.
Ms. Marsh said that staff would need the BCC to deny this item because staff did not need an ordinance to make this change. She thought that staff was looking at April 2023 to change everything over, and that they could still target this date to move the Board of Adjustment to the same day as the Planning and Zoning Board.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board denied an ordinance dissolving the Board of Adjustment and transferring its functions to the Lake County Planning and Zoning Board.
public hearing: ordinance 2023-10 lake county water authority
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 24-19, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED CHARTER AMENDMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE LAKE COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY; AMENDING SECTION 24-5, LAKE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED GOVERNING BOARD; OFFICERS; REQUIRING ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING; 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.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Ordinance 2023-10 amending Section 24-19, Lake County Code, entitled Charter amendment, to allow the Board of County Commissioners to issue administrative and operational directives to the Lake County Water Authority and amending Section 24-5, entitled Governing Board, to require annual ethics training.
public hearing: challenger drive and lenze drive
Mr. Jeff Earhart, Engineering Manager for the Public Works Department, presented Tab 18. He explained that the purpose of this public hearing was to adopt an assessment roll containing the properties subject to the non-ad valorem assessments associated with the project, and to accept Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive into the County road maintenance system. He said that this project was in the Shirley Shores area, and he showed a map of the area. He stated that Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive were dirt roads and had been paved with asphalt; additionally, he also pointed out where the County had resurfaced some of Lenze Drive and Shirley Shores Road, noting that the County had paid for 100 percent of this resurfacing. He relayed the following items for completed work: paved about 4,400 feet on Challenger Drive; paved approximately 2,700 feet on Lenze Drive; and resurfaced on Lenze Drive and Shirley Shores Road. He showed images of Challenger Drive before and after it was paved, noting that the County had also added a turnaround for individuals getting mail at the community mailboxes. He then showed pictures of Lenze Drive before and after it was paved, noting that it also had speed tables to help slow traffic down. He then provided the following background information: in 1993, property owners started this to try to get it paved; in August 2017, the Board passed the ability for the County to use municipal service benefit units (MSBUs) to fund projects like this; in October 2017, the County provided residents a petition with what this might cost; in 2018, residents brought back the petitions and 57 percent were in support of it; in November 2020, the Board executed the agreement to do the MSBU; and in March 2022, the County completed the construction. He relayed that the total cost was about $1.2 million, which was shared 50/50 because this was called a collector road. He commented that 121 units were served by this, and that the roughly $625,000 from residents was about $5,100 per parcel if it was paid at one time. He said that this item would go on the 2023 tax bill, and that the County established that the rate was prime plus two percent; however, the County was still saying that it was 5.25 percent interest and that it was not increased based on the new primes. He displayed the numbers and explained that it would be almost $5,000 if it was paid in full; otherwise, one would pay between $700 starting out, down to $500 per month over the 10 year period. He said that the next step would be accept the assessment roll and accept the roadways into County maintenance system. He added that in the following month, letters would be sent to the residents, who would have the ability to pay 100 percent in full, noting that it would not show up on their tax roll, nor would they pay any interest; however, if this did not occur, then it would be sent to the Lake County Tax Collector in September 2023 to be added to the tax roll and start the collection of the assessment. He relayed that each year, residents could choose to pay it all, and the County would adjust it.
Commr. Blake asked what percentage of the homeowners had approved this.
Mr. Earhart replied that originally, 57 percent provided “yes” responses. He added that if they did not provide any response, then staff assumed that they were “no” responses.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matthew Burdick, a resident on County Road (CR) 448A, said that he had recently purchased one acre of land on Atlantis Road. He relayed that he was never told that there was a road project which began in 2020, which was two years before he purchased the land, and that he did not have $5,130 to pay for this project. He added that he did not vote on this project, and he opined that it did not seem fair that each owner was assessed the amount regardless of how large their parcel was; additionally, he stated that he did not receive a July 2022 notice. He opined that this was an extreme hardship on him, and he said that he did not agreement with this assessment: furthermore, he objected to the acceptance of the roads into the County maintenance system.
Ms. Lorie Bender, a resident on Lenze Drive, remarked that she had purchased property on August 10, 2022 and that there was nothing in the seller’s disclosure regarding an assessment and that the road project had not been approved already; additionally, she said that nothing had come up in the title search. She opined that with this being done almost two years prior to her purchase of the property, and because there were no liens or an assessments being noted in the title search, then this was something that she should not be assessed for.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Blake relayed his understanding that taking a road into County maintenance did not occur often since he had been on the Board. He indicated concerns for the possibility of a bill being imposed on someone who did not want it and could not afford it, and he commented that the amount which was not covered was about $625,000, which had already been funded from the gas tax; therefore, he suggested to reimburse the gas tax fund out of penny sales tax for this amount to prevent a financial hardship on individuals who could not afford this currently. He also questioned how to address this going forward, opining that if it was 51 percent approval, then almost half of the individuals would be imposing bills to individuals who did not want the benefit. He relayed that Ms. Marsh had proposed to possibly raise the threshold so that a clear and overwhelming majority of residents were agreeing to it, and to set aside some funding so that someone with a financial hardship who voted against the item could apply as a safety mechanism.
Commr. Campione mentioned that a similar issue had occurred in her district, and opined that the subject situation was different. She recalled receiving a packet from a group of people on Lenze Drive, which included a video of vehicles becoming stuck there. She relayed that it was costing a significant amount of tax funding to address the issue and make it passable, and that this was an opportunity to try to solve an issue. She opined that there was no way that residents on that road alone could do this from a special assessment standpoint, noting that everyone else fed into the main roads where the issues were occurring; however, she expressed concerns for the principle of being charged something that one did not have notice of, or something that did not appear in the public records. She thought that in this situation, the property values and conditions would improve, along with there being less funding spent to address public safety and transportation issues; furthermore, she thought that the County would come out ahead in the long term by leaving this as a publicly funded project. She indicated that she would be in favor of not going forward with any type of a tax assessment roll, but just using the gas tax which was previously used to fund this. She said that she liked the idea of a higher threshold or different ways to address hardships if future situations came up where neighborhoods were trying to do something good for their neighborhood, but it was impossible for them to fund it 100 percent on their own. She clarified that she wanted to leave the possibility open for doing something like this, as long as the County learned from the current situation as a way not to do it, and ensure that they did not place this burden on individuals there currently.
Commr. Smith asked if this could be added to an agenda for March 2023 to have a longer discussion on the policy. He added that he liked Commissioner Blake’s idea for hardships.
Commr. Parks thought that a mistake had been made, but that there was some good done if one looked at the before and after pictures. He thought that the 14 people who received no notice because of the County’s mistake should not pay, and he opined that this was a good tool. He also thought that the discussion about increasing the threshold was a good idea, noting that 57 percent of individuals voted in favor; furthermore, if one did not vote, then it was considered “no.” He opined that some people likely would not respond, and he was unsure if they would ever reach 100 percent approval for anything. He relayed that this was a good tool for roads and that there were many road issues across the County. He indicated that he did not know how they could make something like this happen in terms of funding a project, opining that putting this on everyone else was not fair, nor was it fair to the rest of the county.
Commr. Campione thought that they also had to factor in what it was costing the rest of the taxpayers to address the issues and were being compounded. She expressed interest in having a more thorough discussion.
Commr. Blake opined that some people wanted to live on dirt roads, and he added that for the current item, there were many people receiving the bill who still lived on dirt roads and not on the roads which were paved. He also noted that the price of what residents had agreed to could possibly increase significantly in a short period of time; therefore, the bill could be much larger than what residents initially thought they were voting for.
Commr. Smith opined that the County’s processes were not followed. He said that it allowed people to purchase property who did a title search, noting that this item did not show up in the title search. He opined that mistakes had occurred and that the County should not be penalizing the individuals who purchased property after the fact.
Commr. Parks made a motion to not assess the 14 property owners that had purchased property after the decision was made.
Commr. Shields seconded the motion.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that there were also individuals who had purchased property from individuals who had voted no.
Commr. Blake said that he was not in favor of doing it this way, and he opined that it seemed like they were treating people differently. He thought that if the process was tainted, then the County should throw it out and address the process going forward. He thought that the item needed to be denied.
Commr. Campione agreed, noting that there could be a situation where someone benefited from voting no and selling the property. She opined that the process was tainted and that it needed to be thrown out.
Commr. Parks did not think that it was fully tainted because they went through the process and the full road was constructed, noting that there was still some gain for everyone who voted yes.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Shields which failed by a vote of 2-3, the Board did not approve to not assess the 14 property owners that had purchased property after the decision was made.
Commr. Smith, Commr. Campione and Commr. Blake voted no.
Commr. Blake made a motion to deny adoption of the assessment roll, and Commissioner Campione seconded the motion.
Ms. Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer for the Lake County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller’s Office, asked if they would still be accepting the roads into County maintenance, but denying the assessment roll.
Commr. Campione confirmed that this was correct.
Commr. Parks said that he would vote for this on behalf of the 14 people on the list that had purchased property after the decision was made.
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to adopt Resolution 2023-9 accepting Challenger Drive (County Road No. 3358B) and Lenze Drive (County Road No. 3356) into the County Road Maintenance system, and denied an assessment roll containing the properties subject to the non-ad valorem assessments associated with the Challenger Drive and Lenze Drive Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU-1).
recess and reassembly
The Chairman called a recess at 10:20 a.m. for 10 minutes.
public hearing: amended fiscal year 2023 budget
Ms. Allison Teslia, Director for the Office of Management and Budget, presented a public hearing for the mid-year budget amendment. She explained that purpose of the mid-year budget amendment was to make adjustments to the fiscal year (FY) 2023 budget to add previously unanticipated revenues and expenditures, and to include any necessary changes that had been identified. She stated that the countywide budget, which included previously approved unanticipated revenue resolutions, was $756.2 million, and that the proposed changes on the currently day were $13.1 million, which would bring the supplemental budget to $769.3 million. She commented that the total mid-year adjustments for the General Fund revenues were $6.5 million and included the following: a decrease in ad valorem revenues due to the adjustment for the final property values that the County received on October 1, 2022 which includes Value Adjustment Board adjustments; an adjustment for changes to the beginning fund balance of $6.4 million, which was attributable to additional revenues received and cost savings over the initial projections for FY 2022; and other revenue adjustments that totaled $220,000. She remarked that adjustments to the General Fund expenditures included the fire assessment and Mt. Plymouth Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) payments due, which were also attributable to the final property values as of October 1, 2022, and that it also included adjustments impacting the Constitutional Offices. She specified that this included the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller request for $335,000 from their excess fees in FY 2022 for replacement switches; furthermore, for the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), there was $23,000 for the City of Mascotte school resource deputy contract. She said that other adjustments included a $5.8 million increase to reserves, and $269,000 in other adjustments including the following: wage adjustments from final rates provided by the State; $50,000 for the Office of Animal Services professional fees; and software costs and adjustments for the Medical Examiner’s budget allocation. She stated that the current General Fund reserves were $26.3 million, which represented 16.2 percent of the annual operating budget, noting that the original adopted budget for reserves was about $35 million; however, the Board had recently approved the purchase of the YMCA and the renovation of the Sears building for the Lake County Supervisor of Elections, which was about $8 million. She commented that after the approval of the mid-year adjustment, the total General Fund reserves would be $32.5 million, which was an increase of approximately $5.6 million, representing 17.3 percent of the operating budget. She explained that several attributes, including conservative budgeting and spending due to economic uncertainty, were part of the reasons why they saw an increase; additionally, revenues came in higher than anticipated in FY 2022. She relayed that the current Board policy stated that reserves should be between seven and twelve percent of the operating expenses, and that the long range target for reserves was 16 percent of the operating expenses. She remarked that the total adjustments for the other funds was approximately $6.6 million, and included resort taxes and transportation district revenues that exceeded actual expenditures from the FY 2022 projections. She said that under capital projects, there was an increase in Infrastructure Sales Tax revenues over the initial projections, and that it also included funding for the fairgrounds drainage improvements, emergency medical services (EMS) equipment, and the Public Safety Support/EMS fleet relocation, as their fleet lease expired in 2024 and they would be combining services. She added that there was also $602,000 in other adjustments that were primarily related to beginning fund balance adjustments.
Commr. Smith thanked staff for increasing reserves.
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. Shields asked why 16 percent of the operating budget being in reserves was not the current Board policy.
Ms. Barker responded that it had never been updated, and that staff could bring back a policy change.
Commr. Campione mentioned the possibility of having to utilize reserves, and she asked if it made sense to have a range with a target so that they could have an in-between period where they would replenish the reserves.
Ms. Barker noted that this could be done, and that staff could also provide an option for a range. She explained that their current policy stated a goal of seven to twelve percent, and that it was not a number that they had to abide by, noting that they had some flexibility in case there was a natural disaster or if they needed to reduce their reserves by some number. She recalled that during Hurricane Irma, their reserves dropped to about 4.5 or five percent of the operating budget, and that they received notification from their auditors that this was a concern and that it needed to be addressed in future budget years; furthermore, they had done this once they received the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement. She commented that she could bring back a range higher than seven to twelve percent, but would include some flexibility.
Commr. Parks added that the number of operating days was a key factor with determining the percentage of reserves. He asked how many days they could operate.
Ms. Barker replied that 16 percent would basically be 60 days of General Fund operations, without including internal transfers.
Commr. Parks remarked that not having enough funding made them vulnerable to having to rely on the Federal Government.
Commr. Blake added that it also affected the County’s rating, and that the reason why they had it as a policy goal was to not affect future Commissions by setting it at a certain amount and not being able to go below it.
Commr. Shields commented that it had been above 16 percent for the past two years, and he opined that this seemed like where they wanted to be.
Commr. Campione opined that this had to be balanced and that if reserves were exceeding their goal, then they needed to be giving money back.
Commr. Parks opined that they also had to factor in their commitment to roads and an increase each year of using the General Fund for this purpose.
Commr. Campione stated that if they were above the target, but had a policy that they would put any amount above this toward road projects and addressing deficiencies, then this could be a positive.
On a motion by Commr. Parks, seconded by Commr. Campione and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved an amended budget for FY 2023 to include a reconciliation of beginning fund balance and other adjustments, and Resolution 2023-6 adopting a supplemental budget of $769,272,340 for FY 2023.
regular agenda
discussion on adjusting impact fee rate schedules
Ms. Teslia presented Tab 20. She provided the following background information: impact fees are required to be updated every few years in order to have the most recent and localized data in the calculation of the fee; in August 2021, the Board accepted the study for the library, parks, and fire rescue impact fees as presented by Benesch; in April 2022, the Board was presented with the transportation impact fee study; in July 2022, an overview of all the fees was presented; and the Board directed staff to hold the workshops on August 23, 2022 and September 6, 2022, which presented the demonstrated need study justifying an increase greater than 50 percent of the current rates. She reviewed the impact fee rates and showed a comparison of the rates for a 2,000 square foot single family home, which was using a five percent discount for 95 percent of the fully calculated rate; furthermore, this example reflected transportation rates in the south and northeast/Wekiva benefit districts. She then displayed a comparison for a 1,300 square foot multifamily unit’s rates would be with a five percent discount in the same districts, along with a comparison of the fees per 1,000 square foot of general light industrial, with the rates based on each individual benefit districts. She added that these rates also reflected 95 percent of the full calculated rates, and she then showed a comparison of the fees per 1,000 square foot of general office, with the rates also reflecting a five percent discount. She displayed a comparison of the fees per 1,000 of gross leasable area for retail with the rates based on the benefit district and at 95 percent of the fully calculated rate, along with a comparison of the rates for the west benefit district based on the land use type, using a 74 percent discount or 26 percent of the fully calculated rate. She said that current fees were based on the central benefit district rates, as this proposed new district was within the established central district. She reviewed revenue comparisons and showed a comparison of the transportation impact fee revenues based on 2020 and 2021 revenues, pointing out that in each district, the following items were shown: the current discount; the estimated revenues per year; the estimated revenues using a five percent of the current adopted impact fee rates; and an estimate of the lost revenues per year. She displayed a schedule with the estimated revenues per year using the revised most recent study, and the estimated average increased revenue per year should those rates be adopted with a five percent discount or 95 percent of the fully calculated rate. She concluded by showing a schedule of the other impact fees, with the estimated revenue per year using the current rates and discounts as reflected, in addition to the revenues projected with updated calculations using the five percent discount or 95 percent of the revised calculated rate. She said that staff was seeking direction from the Board for adjusting the rate schedules for the library, parks, fire rescue, and transportation impact fees as presented in the accompanying proposed ordinances; furthermore, direction was requested based upon the studies prepared by Benesch as to the division of the central benefit district into two districts, thereby creating a new impact fee district to be known as the west benefit district.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Adam Edgington, a resident of the City of Clermont, expressed concerns for affordability and the timing of raising any fees, opining that impact fees were paid by homebuyers in the county. He said that his company’s average house price in the previous year was in the $500,000 range, and that the average payment at the beginning of January 2022 was $2,168; furthermore, to recreate the same payment with current interest rates, the house price needed to be $323,000, which was a 35 percent reduction. He asked that the Board consider this as they continued to add costs to housing, and he relayed that one could obtain a permit and an impact fee in Sumter County for $3,400 or less, whereas Lake County’s totaled an average of about $17,000 to $18,000, exceeding up to $28,000 on the most expensive and largest homes. He indicated an understanding that Sumter and Marion Counties were rural and did not represent what was in Lake County, and that Orange County was a better example. He relayed his understanding that Orange County reduced their permit fees by 25 percent to help builders until September 30, 2023, and that they had created a $3 million fund which was a 100 percent reduction in impact fees for low income housing. He asked the BCC to try to keep housing affordable, relayed that the current Lake County impact fee coordinator was gone, and opined that the County was not ready from a structural standpoint to take those calls.
Mr. Roger Stephan, a resident of the City of Eustis, said that he had heard that if one raised the rent of tenants by $100, it took eight percent of the population out of the rental market and made them homeless. He thought that this could also be applied to housing, and he expressed concerns for inflation over the past two years. He thought that the impact fees punished those who wanted to improve their property, opining that when property was improved, the tax base increased and the County received an annual return, whereas an impact fee was one time. He questioned why there was not a competing impact fee study to help show both sides, and he thought that the County needed to group all of the impact fees together to show people how much the fees were in total in each section.
Mr. Don Magruder, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of RoMac Building Supply, relayed his understanding that Lake County would have the highest impact fees in Lake, Sumter and Marion Counties with this increase. He recalled that he had previously opined that Lake County was using impact fees to balance obligations due to out of control spending, and that they were using the emergency clause, opining that there was no natural disaster or infrastructure failure which required it. He provided the Board with handouts including the distribution of taxes levied by property type for the years 2013, 2014 and 2023, noting that the documents had been created by the Lake County School District. He also provided the State of Florida population estimates created by the Florida Legislature and the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research which indicated that in 2013, Lake County was moving forward economically. He opined that the comparison of the taxes levied by Lake County and the population growth from 2013 to 2022 produced concerning numbers for taxpayers and citizens. He commented that in the cities and unincorporated Lake County, the population grew from 303,000 to 403,000, noting that this was a 33 percent increase; however, in unincorporated Lake County the population only grew 25 percent, adding that 68 percent of the growth occurred in the cities. He indicated an understanding that the taxes levied by Lake County, not including the Cities, was $182,204,495, and that in 2013 it was only $82,233,813. He opined that in the last 10 years, the excess value of taxes had increased by 121 percent to about $99,970,000, and he opined that if Lake County had followed inflation and population growth, they would have $44.8 million in the current year for roads. He relayed his understanding that the County had 1.9 percent growth annually at a 260.86 per capita growth in taxes, and he opined that the geographic area and population of the county continued to decrease, and that the cities were the main places for growth. He opined that the numbers indicated that they could not justify raising impact fees under the emergency clause because they had almost $100 million more in revenue in the past 10 years. He opined that if the County was sued for this, they would fail because they had no justification that they had no income. He opined that the County had the funds and the ability, but that they did not move it to the priorities that they should.
Mr. Lee Steinhauer, a resident of the City of Winter Garden and representing the Apartment Association of Greater Orlando, opined that impact fees directly affected the cost of producing housing, and that if they wanted housing to be more affordable, then they should not make it more expensive to build housing. He thought that a balance needed to be reached with the funding needs for infrastructure, and he thought that the legislation attempted to do this by placing some reasonable limits around what the increases could be, as well as providing for a phase in approach to give predictability to projects. He was unsure if it rose to the level of extraordinary circumstances, and he relayed that if the Board was going to increase the fees, then his organization would like to see this predictability in terms of having the fees phased in.
Ms. Lisa Templin-Rayborn, a concerned citizen, said that housing gave the County funding each year in the form of ad valorem taxes, and relayed her understanding that in two years, the County collected $153,365,391 in ad valorem taxes. She opined that the County would receive more than this amount in the following years, and she relayed that $20,000 in impact fees on a house equaled $46,000 in a 30 year fixed mortgage, opining that this was not an affordable expense. She opined that the homebuilding industry was not invited to participate in the work groups, and that the County needed to focus on considering reallocating existing funds. She also opined that this financial burden did not encourage the next generation to live in Lake County, and she indicated an understanding that years prior, eight percent of the County budget went to the roads; however, those expenses had been placed on the new construction. She thought that they needed to get back to enterprising and ask for capital campaigns from corporations to help build the kind of community that they wanted to live in, and she expressed concerns for the County spending $8 million on an animal shelter when they did not have a shelter for people. She further opined that this $8 million could have helped improve roads, provide affordable housing programs, or improve libraries. She opined that builders and developers did not pay impact fees, and that it was paid by the end user. She also opined that increased government taxes and fees would equal increases in rents on multifamily, and that when new housing increased, existing home sale prices increased. She questioned why there were extraordinary circumstances, opining that Benesch was renowned nationwide for giving school boards and government justification for increasing taxes and fees. She opined that with government, the job was to provide infrastructure and safety, and she encouraged getting back to the core basics.
Ms. Hayden, a resident who had spoken earlier in the meeting, opined that there was an extraordinary circumstance with the amount of building along the CR 44 corridor. She thought that they currently had about 1,300 units under construction, and that it was being annexed by the City of Leesburg. She opined that for over 4.25 miles, there were no traffic calming devices, and that this was creating a significant safety concern for residents who used this road. She opined that there should be some attention given to increasing transportation impact fees for older roads which were being over utilized by new development.
Mr. Nick Christakos, with Ashton Woods and Starlight Homes, said that he found property and developed pro formas which was almost a two year process. He relayed that they had since had increases in material costs and interest rates, and opined that he now had a tax that he was not expecting. He opined that the County would be placing a burden on the homebuilders, noting that his organization would be bringing people into the County who would continue to pay taxes.
Mr. Craig Cook, a resident of the City of Winter Park, said that he worked for a company that was building in Four Corners, noting that they had closed on a piece of property to start building in December 2022; furthermore, it had taken eight months to get the loan set up. He expressed concerns for a possible fee increase, noting that there was no way for his company to get this out of the current budget. He asked if there could be an extension in the timeframe so that his company could pay impact fees when they pulled building permits, and to allow people to react and not close on something that they did not have enough money for.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Blake said that he had read that in the past three weeks, a major national homebuilder had a 68 percent cancellation rate on contracts for new homes, compared to an 11 percent cancellation rate in the previous year. He expressed concerns for calling a 400 percent transportation impact fee increase a five percent discount in the central district, and he opined that House Bill (HB) 377 was put in place to protect taxpayers from extraordinary government increases. He opined that there were no extraordinary circumstances, and he relayed that according to staff, a $100 increase in the cost of rent resulted in a nine percent increase in homelessness. He indicated a concern for this, noting that the County had recently reformed a homelessness mitigation council. He opined that impact fees were passed down to the consumer who purchased the home, and he mentioned that many homes were purchased by corporations to be placed on the rental market.
Commr. Campione remarked that the central district had the lowest transportation impact fee in the county, and she mentioned that one could see examples of what happening on CR 44, along with what was occurring in Yalaha and Okahumpka. She said that it was primarily the City of Leesburg that was doing these large annexations, though they had the lowest transportation impact fee; furthermore, the County was being inundated with residents who were having to experience this. She commented that she heard how this affected the small builder and the individual; however, she mentioned the large homebuilders and massive projects, and she expressed a concern for when this was occurring in the central district and they were paying the lowest transportation impact fees, along with everyone living around there having to bear the burden of items that needed to be done. She expressed concerns for the decision making about where projects were being placed, and she indicated that she would not be in favor of the immediate 95 percent rate for extraordinary circumstances; however, she opined that one could drive around and see extraordinary circumstances. She mentioned that she was in traffic cycles that lasted two or three lights in Commission District 4, and she opined that the impact fees were put to good use with turn lanes, traffic signals, and items that were addressing impacts. She relayed that a concern from Lake County residents had been for why they should have to fund certain infrastructure improvements that were not needed until a project went in. She relayed her understanding that that new developments were essentially paying the operating cost of the ongoing impacts, and that the impact fee was paying for the transportation impact resulting from a new project. She clarified that the tax base was paying for ongoing operating costs, but not a light, turn lane or roundabout that was needed to address a new impact. She mentioned that there was a large amount of impact in the central district, and she expressed concerns for adding a high fee for one to build a house on a lot; however, if they had balance, then they would not have a situation where they would have extraordinary circumstances. She felt that the central district needed the most attention, noting that the south district and the northeast/Wekiva district had the higher transportation rate for a while. She thought that they should consider the possibility of removing the areas of the City of Umatilla, Astor, Lake Mack, Paisley and Pine Lakes out of the northeast/Wekiva district, because this is where they might have one lot being constructed; furthermore, she opined that places like Astor could use slightly more activity. She did not feel that this area fit in the same category as an area that was adjacent to State Road (SR) 429 and significant new growth, and she opined that a challenging economy with rising interest rates was not stopping those new projects. She then mentioned that the County already had an ordinance that would allow them to waive transportation impact fees on infill projects, noting that they would have to designate funding to offset this. She thought that the County should review this, noting that they already had an infill waiver for school impact fees and that these houses were being built. She opined that the policy was helping in this regard and to address affordability, and that the County could possibly put more attention on how they could promote infill projects closer to shopping, schools, etc. She stated that if the 95 percent would be considered, noting that it would require four votes, then the County had not discussed the idea of doing it on a 25 percent per year basis. She relayed her understanding that if there were three votes, they could go to a 50 percent increase at 12.5 percent per year, and if they had four votes, they could go to 95 percent, opining that it could be phased in. She urged the BCC to pay attention to the central district, which was where they were encountering many issues and large projects with impacts that needed to be addressed.
Commr. Parks stated that they could look at the south and central districts, opining that there were some similarities. He then inquired what the 95 percent schedule in the south district would do for an 800 square foot unit.
Ms. Barker replied that the County did not currently have a rate established for tiny homes or accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and that currently they would be paying $2,000; furthermore, if the BCC implemented 95 percent of the full calculation, it would only be $1,669 for the smaller unit.
Commr. Parks opined that the infill program was impactful to affordable housing, and he thought that this was a positive step which could encourage a smaller home.
Ms. Barker mentioned that it was 800 square feet or less, and that the next category would be 801 square feet to 1,499 square feet, which would go from $2,331 to $4,500 at the 95 percent rate.
Commr. Parks commented that if this new schedule went forward, it would enable anyone across the county to do an ADU affordably, which could benefit quality of life and affordable housing. He also opined that the affordable housing legislation which had been passed gave the County more latitude to address issues and waiving.
Commr. Blake added that the County would not have to replace this from the General Fund.
Commr. Parks opined that the County’s cost for maintaining roads was increasing, and he relayed that individuals had expressed concerns about potholes and the roads.
Commr. Blake indicated an understanding that the impact fee could not go toward maintenance, and could only be used for increasing capacity.
Commr. Parks confirmed this, but noted that residents had expressed concerns about capacity. He recalled that the BCC had suspended impact fees in the past, and he opined that the only way to catch up on this was to put it back on everybody. He opined that they could not make the gap grow further by not assessing the full cost to build a road, noting that he was only discussing transportation impact fees. He said that there was a balance, and he pointed out the slide with the lost revenue per year in the south benefit district, noting that an increase of even $3 or $4 million would be more funding toward capacity projects. He relayed that the County hoped to get to eight percent from their General Fund for roads, and that they had projects they were funding with the penny sales tax, but he opined that something else would be affected because of this. He relayed that all of the Cities in the south district expected the 95 percent.
Commr. Shields indicated that he had heard from his constituents to stop the development or build roads. He added that a significant amount of the funding they received from the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) required a match, and that in the past the County had to utilize funding from sales tax revenue, noting that this funding could have gone to maintenance.
Commr. Parks thought that the Board should discuss Commissioner Campione’s comments about getting to 95 percent in the central and south districts if it was incremental to get four votes.
Commr. Blake asked if anyone had any information about Orange County reducing their fees by 25 percent, and Commissioner Parks clarified that it was only for permit fees. Commissioner Blake then proposed possibly waiting until September 2023 to see what happened in the economy. He relayed that the difference was only about $11 million countywide, which he opined would not make much of a difference. He thought that it would be prudent to wait and see what happened before creating an issue for the homebuilding industry.
Commr. Smith agreed with Commissioner Campione about the central district, and he agreed with Commissioner Blake that he was not currently in favor of the 95 percent extraordinary circumstances rate unless they could determine a mutually beneficial way of phasing it in over four or five years; however, he thought that impact fees needed to be adjusted. He stated that he was not convinced that the County had extraordinary circumstances on all impact fees, relaying that fees also affected industrial buildings, industrial parks, and commercial buildings where the County was trying to increase its economic development.
Commr. Shields asked about splitting it by district, and Commissioner Smith replied that he would have to see what it looked like.
Commr. Parks relayed his understanding that what was proposed was taking transportation impact fees to 95 percent, incrementally over four years, for the central and south districts.
Commr. Smith said that he was unsure about removing the City of Umatilla, Paisley and Astor from the northeast/Wekiva district, noting that this had been done in west Lake County to encourage growth and that this was why the central benefit district benefit was paying the least amount. He was unsure if the Board wanted to have a circumstance where they would have to come back and readjust at a later time.
Commr. Campione remarked that there were low densities in those areas, and that most of it was in the Wekiva Protection Area with one unit per twenty acres; therefore, they would not have large developments. She added that it would be for an individual who had a 10 or 20 acre parcel, opining that this could address someone who wanted a rural lifestyle on a large lot. She also indicated that it could possibly help the local homebuilders, since they were the ones who usually built those homes.
Commr. Smith related that he would like to see the House Bill rate.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that it was only about 12.5 percent, and she opined that the issue with this in the central district was that they could not make much headway by adding this over the next four years to where the central district was at currently. She thought that it would be helpful to consider these scenarios, and she said that the Board could narrow it down to the central district, comparing the House Bill rate dollar amount to the 25 percent increment each year.
Commr. Parks inquired about what they would do with the south district.
Commr. Campione relayed that everyone who had talked to her from South Lake had asked for the 95 percent. She opined that it was an extension of Orange County, and she remarked that when Orange County did things like reduce fees, they had funding sources that Lake County would never have access to due to their population levels. She also stated that the matching part of this was critical because it went to projects that the County was trying to move up on the Lake-Sumter MPO list, along with State funding. She added that if the County could come up with $2 or $3 million on a large project, then this could make the difference with being able to move forward.
Commr. Blake said that he had viewed the bill analysis from the Florida Senate, and that there was a provision that an impact fee may not be increased more than once every four years. He asked that if they went forward with an extraordinary increase, would having it in tiers be a possible loophole around this.
Ms. Marsh clarified that the statute allowed them to do it over time, and she thought the theory was that if they did it all at one time, then would not increase it again for four years; however, they could spread it out over the time based on the statute.
Commr. Blake expressed concerns that this was not consistent with the definition of “extraordinary circumstance,” which seemed to imply that the County needed funding at the current time and that they had an issue. He opined that when this was used to justify passing it, and then if the Board decided to spread it out over a number of years, then it seemed like the Board was possibly playing around with the intent.
Commr. Campione opined that an issue was that they did not provide a good in-between, because the County was possibly going 12.5 percent for four years, and they could review their fees after the fourth year. She opined that the County could not address all of the needs once they were locked into this, and she also opined that the County could not address all of the needs regardless of what they charged; however, they were working on the highest priorities. She thought that it could still be extraordinary circumstances, but they would just be choosing to do it in smaller increments to account for other issues.
Commr. Blake said that he would volunteer to reach out to the sponsors and ask if this type of increase in this kind of an economic environment met what they thought they were writing in when they wrote this bill in 2021.
Ms. Barker relayed her understanding that the Board wanted to focus solely on the comparison of the central and south districts up to 50 percent of the House Bill limit, phased in over four years, or the 95 percent of the full calculation based on the Benesch study, phased in over four years.
Commr. Campione thought that staff needed to also include the northeast/Wekiva district.
Ms. Marsh added that this would only be for transportation.
Ms. Barker added that they also had fire, parks and library impact fees for all of the districts, and that these currently did not have rates which differed by district. She explained that the library impact fee was a countywide rate that homebuilders would pay, and that fire and parks were limited to the unincorporated area only.
Commr. Parks mentioned that there was no dedicated funding source for parks and trails other than impact fees on a regular basis.
Ms. Barker clarified that the County also used the Infrastructure Sales Tax.
Commr. Campione requested a comparison.
Ms. Barker showed a chart for 2,000 square foot homes, pointing out the current fee for the south and the northeast/Wekiva districts. She explained that parks was currently $222 and could go up to $291, noting that the 95 percent would be $276. She added that the maximum fee was $291 because it did not increase more than 50 percent, and that it was only a 31 percent increase over the current rate.
Commr. Campione wondered if there was an interest from the Board to move forward with those three categories so that they could focus on transportation.
Commr. Parks indicated that he would like to have it answered.
Commr. Blake thought that it would be prudent to wait until summer 2023 to see what happened to the market before further affecting it.
Commr. Parks commented that the Board could make a decision on the current day to increase it to the statutory maximum, which was not the full 95 percent.
Commr. Smith added that the Board could receive information and do it all at once.
Commr. Campione asked if they could bring back the requested charts at the next BCC meeting.
Ms. Barker replied that it could be brought back on February 14, 2023, and that they would request to advertise the decision made on that date.
Ms. Marsh did not recommend doing an approval to advertise until they had an ordinance, noting that she could not draft the ordinance until she had the schedules.
Commr. Campione relayed that she was more inclined on fire, library and parks to go with the House Bill limit, opining that the County was experiencing extraordinary circumstances for transportation. She added that if they could come up with a balance on this, then they would possibly have the votes for something more than an increase of more than 12.5 percent per year for transportation impact fees.
Ms. Barker summarized that staff would bring back the comparison for transportation, and that for fire, library and parks, she was hearing 50 percent phased over four years.
Commr. Campione relayed her understanding that the infill waiver for school impact fees was paid for by the school district, and she relayed that she had seen units being built in the Cities of Eustis, Tavares and Mount Dora on infill lots. She commented that the County already had the provision in place for transportation infill, but they had never funded it. She asked if this could be evaluated, proposing to possibly do 50 lots per year, and that the first 50 developers who submitted an application could receive the benefit of using this waiver. She said that it was a tool to promote redevelopment, and that it usually benefited local builders.
Ms. Barker stated that staff would identify an amount for 50 lots.
Commr. Campione added that staff could also identify what 25 infill lots would look like, with five per district, or 50 lots with 10 for district.
Commr. Parks relayed they would often hear that one did not believe the numbers, that one did not believe that it cost that much to build a road, or that there was governmental waste or hiding of funding for this. He relayed that staff had struggles with even finding contractors to do this, and that the costs were what they were. He thought that staff was efficient in trying to find the lowest and most cost effective way to pave their roads, and to look for innovation and private input.
easement modification in favor of lcwa
Ms. Barker recalled that this item was first brought to the Board on December 6, 2022, and explained that this was a request by a developer that was looking to make a minor adjustment to an easement for the Lake County Water Authority (LCWA) on the Palatlakaha Creek. She relayed that during that meeting, the Board had requested to table this item to have some questions answered, and she said that staff was bringing this item back for the Board’s consideration.
The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.
There being no one who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.
Commr. Parks asked what had changed in the site plan.
Mr. Ben Snyder, representing the applicant, replied that the change was to locate a parking lot on one of the lots, and then to orient an easement from that parking lot through the tree preservation area to the LCWA property. He added that there was more specificity than the previous proposal.
Commr. Parks inquired how much of a loss this was.
Mr. Snyder responded that it was just one lot for a parking lot to provide access, and that the decision was made to provide parking for people who wanted to utilize it, but not improve a stabilized road to access the LCWA property.
Commr. Campione said that much of what she was concerned about was the ability for LCWA personnel and those who were avid kayakers and canoers to be able to use this amenity. She said that this was what was negotiated by the LCWA, noting that Mr. Snyder and his organization were going to give up approximately one lot which would be used as a parking area, and then there would be an easement from that location to where one would launch. She added that they had also negotiated a cash payment or a charitable contribution that would go to LCWA uses, and she said that she was inclined to defer to the LCWA. She relayed that her only question was if there was enough room for people to park there.
Mr. Snyder opined that there would be plenty of parking, noting that they were proposing to dedicate an entire lot for this. He stated that the most substantial change from when the Board saw the agreement was that the charitable contribution had been increased dramatically.
Commr. Parks thought that Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Director for the Office of Parks and Trails, should possibly determine how much area and the configuration for the parking area.
Commr. Campione asked if it was Mr. Snyder’s intent that people in the neighborhood would be able to use this parking area.
Mr. Snyder replied that they could do this, and that it would be open to the public.
Commr. Campione relayed that the next question was ensuring that neither the County nor the LCWA would have to take care of the parking area. She asked if this was covered in the agreement.
Ms. Marsh relayed her understanding that it was not entirely clear who was maintaining it; however, the Board could make this part of their motion.
Commr. Campione indicated an understanding that the County would be saying that they did not have an issue with the LCWA doing this because they were transferring a property right; however, the BCC’s suggestion would be to clarify the questions about who would maintain the parking area so that it did not fall on the public, the BCC or the LCWA, and that it would be wide enough for several parking spaces.
Commr. Parks opined that the developer could give up one lot, and he expressed interest in letting some of the other experts help determine this to make sure that there was enough parking long term.
Commr. Smith relayed his understanding that the engineering firm would make sure that it would be a good parking lot. He also asked if the parking lot would be next to the model home.
Mr. Snyder clarified that it would be an independent parking lot.
Ms. Marsh explained that if the Board approved this item, the resolution would basically attach their contract to it; therefore, if the Board wanted changes to this, then they would need to include it in their motion. She added that before the resolution was signed, they would have to obtain an updated attachment.
Commr. Campione asked if this could include a condition that the dimensions of the parking area and the conditions with regard to ongoing maintenance be addressed in the agreement ultimately signed by the LCWA.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this, noting that this could be addressed before they had the resolution processed for signature.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution 2023-7 authorizing an easement modification in favor of the Lake County Water Authority as required by Section 24-10, Lake County Code, with the addition of requirements for the dimensions to be established to assure sufficient parking, and that conditions be in place to assure that the maintenance of the area for parking did not fall on the public, the County or the LCWA. The property subject to the easement modification is located on Palatlakaha Creek (Battaglia PUD).
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES COUNCIL
On a motion by Commr. Shields, seconded by Commr. Blake and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following members to the Children's Services Council: Ms. Tanya Moore, who resides in District 4, for District 2 to complete an unexpired term ending on May 14, 2023, and an additional two year term; and Ms. CJ Blancett, who resides in District 4, for District 5 to complete an unexpired term ending on May 14, 2024.
APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
On a motion by Commr. Blake, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint Mr. Michael Ertel as the primary member to the Library Advisory Board, representing the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills.
EXTENSION OF TERM EXPIRATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Commr. Shields asked to confirm if this item was part of the Board of Adjustment discussion.
Ms. Marsh confirmed this, in the event that the BCC combined them; however, staff still needed to receive applications.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to extend the term expiration date of the following Planning and Zoning Board members to May 23, 2023: Ms. Laura Jones Smith for District 2; Mr. Dan Matthys as the At-Large Representative; and Mr. Bill Mathias as the School Board Alternate.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING EXAMINERS
Commr. Campione asked if Mr. James Argento was on the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Marsh said that he currently was, although he had notified the County that his preference was to be on the Board of Building Examiners; therefore, if the Board appointed him, he would resign from the Board of Adjustment.
Commr. Campione thought that he would be excellent on the Board of Building Examiners.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved to appoint the following members to the Board of Building Examiners; Mr. Thomas Grayford (reappointment) as a Section 489.105(3)(a)-(c) contractor in the areas of Sheet Metal, Roofing, Class A Air-conditioning, Class B Air-conditioning, Class C Air-conditioning, Mechanical, Commercial Pool/Spa, Residential Pool/Spa, Swimming Pool/Spa, Plumbing, or Underground Utility and Excavation; Mr. William Lawson (reappointment) as a Section 489.105(3)(d)-(o) contractor in the areas of Sheet Metal, Roofing, Class A Air-conditioning, Class B Air-conditioning, Class C Air-conditioning, Mechanical, Commercial Pool/Spa, Residential Pool/Spa, Swimming Pool/Spa, Plumbing, or Underground Utility and Excavation: Mr. Bill Giffing (reappointment) as a consumer member; and Mr. James Argento as a consumer member, with approval of a potential ethical conflict waiver.
commissioners reports
commissioner shields – vice chairman and district 1
traffic meeting in groveland
Commr. Shields mentioned that on March 1, 2023, there would be a traffic meeting in the City of Groveland, and he asked if there was a plan to promote this meeting.
Ms. Barker confirmed that the County would be sending out information through social media and possibly a press release.
Commr. Shields expressed that there were concerns about traffic and how people could travel to the City of Orlando when SR 50 already had traffic, noting that they would have a brainstorming session with the community.
lake economic area development meeting
Commr. Shields relayed that he had attended his first Lake Economic Area Development (LEAD) meeting and that they now had three dedicated people for economic development. He specified that one individual was going to all of the businesses, particularly the ones that needed some help, and that another individual was doing entrepreneurship. He added that the third individual was recruiting businesses, and that there were two proposals to bring companies in.
east central florida regional planning council meeting
Commr. Shields commented that he had an East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) meeting in the previous week, and that there was some federal economic development funding that they may possibly be able to utilize.
city of groveland cra meeting
Commr. Shields remarked that he had attended a City of Groveland CRA meeting on the previous night, and that he heard more about traffic issues there.
arts and cultural alliance meeting
Commr. Shields said that he had attended an Arts and Cultural Alliance meeting and that they did not have a quorum. He mentioned that the Cities were supposed to have individuals attend; however, this was not occurring with some of the Cities. He expressed concerns for how it was set up, and he mentioned the possibility of not making it a County board anymore.
Commr. Campione thought that the County should consider adapting and ensuring that they could do what was needed to utilize State funding for purposes related to arts and culture. She added that it seemed like it was creating a significant amount of staff work, along with items related to the Sunshine Law and public records.
county noise ordinance
Commr. Shields related that he had a Zoom meeting with a constituent and Ms. Marsh regarding a noise issue, and he relayed his understanding that the County’s noise ordinance had not been reviewed since 2019. He requested some consensus, relaying his understanding that the constituent wanted relief and that there was nothing that the Office of Code Enforcement or the Lake County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) could do to stop this.
Commr. Campione asked if this was occurring each day.
Commr. Shields confirmed this and opined that it was intentional, relaying that a resident had a speaker on their property line.
Commr. Blake opined that it sounded like harassment, which was a different situation.
Commr. Smith inquired if this would fall under the same ordinance as a nuisance dog.
Ms. Marsh explained that their ordinance was based on a reasonable person standard, noting that typically the LCSO issued citations for ordinance violations. She added that the LCSO had been there on numerous occasions, and that the Office of Code Enforcement was working with them. She believed that the individual had been cited in the previous weekend, relaying that both neighbors were complaining about each other. She opined that it was a difficult neighbor situation, and she recalled that there was a staff presentation to the Board in 2019 regarding the use of decibel levels. She stated that this particular resident was asking for the County to use decibel levels, and that staff could bring this back; however, she relayed her understanding that decibel levels were challenging to enforce.
Commr. Shields remarked that the constituent had also mentioned that the LCSO had asked for clarity on what was harassment.
Commr. Blake recalled that the issue was the enforceability of this in 2019, noting that many items that one would not expect could exceed the threshold.
Commr. Campione inquired if there was anything in-between for decibel readers versus language that was more specific about repetitive sounds.
Ms. Marsh remarked that intent was challenging to prove, and that staff could bring back options. She added that this particular resident had suggested that maybe one could not hear it 25 feet from the property line; however, this would vary on their districts and setbacks.
Commr. Smith opined that the Board could not legislate everything, and he expressed concerns for State legislation that affected each county in the state for one issue. He added that he was not in favor of this, and he opined that the residents needed to work this out peacefully.
commissioner parks – district 2
joint planning agreement meeting
Commr. Parks relayed that he was looking forward to their meeting on the following morning at the Tavares Pavilion on the Lake regarding the quarterly update for the joint planning agreements that they hoped to achieve countywide, along with the countywide conservation strategy. He said that he was looking forward to an update from the ECFRPC, along with hearing from the Cities about their vision. He urged that following this would be the next steps, and he also urged the importance of communication. He suggested that the BCC should have an update from the ECFRPC in two to three months, as well as time to discuss the conservation strategy and the land trust aspect. He added that a conservation strategy could possibly include the transfer of development rights (TDRs) or an ability for developers to contribute, and that the discussion could include something to educate the Board regarding how to manage this, noting that the Alachua Land Trust had been discussed.
strong towns meeting
Commr. Parks thought that a recent Strong Towns meeting went over well, and that it could encourage some challenging discussion. He then asked if the Board was amicable with what he had said about the conservation strategy update.
Commr. Blake relayed that he was not opposed to information, but that he was ideologically opposed to additional conservation lands via land trusts in the county.
Commr. Parks relayed that this would require little to nothing of the County to do.
commissioner campione – district 4
strong towns meeting
Commr. Campione stated that she had attended an initial Strong Towns kickoff meeting and event at the Clermont Arts and Recreation Center. She mentioned an example that was given of a community which was trying to develop an older commercial area which was a catalyst for the area, creating economic activity and promoting walkability. She mentioned that she was thinking about Sorrento’s main street district, noting that by doing this, they could possibly promote a level of economic activity. She thought that some other towns were interested in the concept, and that it was mentioned to not be afraid to do things slightly differently. She added that they had a great discussion in the City of Clermont about utilities and the idea of how a City government could make a distinction in how far they would have utilities, if they could have tiered rates, etc., to promote more compact development. She said that she was glad to see so many Cities, planners and engineers participating, noting that Lake County was one of the only locations doing this, and that they were the first in the United States; furthermore, there were only three other communities doing this.
point in time count
Commr. Campione commented that she was signed up to help do the point in time count on the following Thursday. She explained they were required to do this annually to determine the number of people who were living in homeless conditions, noting that it had to be done to receive U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding. She stated that there were many volunteers who did this each year, and that they knew where these communities were.
COMMISSIONER BLAKE – DISTRICT 5
governor ron desantis event
Commr. Blake remarked that he had attended an event for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in Sumter County, where the Governor had announced his legislative proposal to try to lower prescription drug costs in the state.
public safety coordinating council meeting
Commr. Blake mentioned that in the previous week, there was a Public Safety Coordinating Council meeting, noting that individuals from the Mid Florida Homeless Coalition had discussed the point in time count. He added that the Council had elected Mr. Chad Monty as their new Chairman, and that there was a presentation from the Florida Department of Corrections about the different things they did to help the Public Safety Coordinating Council reduce recidivism and the demand on the jail.
library advisory board meeting
Commr. Blake said that there was a Library Advisory Board meeting in the previous week, though they did not have a quorum. He added that they met at the Tavares Civic Center, and that he received a tour of the Tavares Public Library expansion. He stated that he also got to see the design for the new Astor library, and he relayed his understanding that it would be completed over the next year.
commissioner smith –chairman and district 3
dinosaur exhibit at w.t. bland public library
Commr. Smith related that the W.T. Bland Public Library in the City of Mount Dora had a great dinosaur exhibit, and he encouraged everyone to visit.
League of cities meeting
Commr. Smith stated that he attended the League of Cities meeting.
strong towns meeting
Commr. Smith thanked Commissioner Campione for attending the Strong Towns meeting, and he expressed appreciation for staff and everyone in attendance.
national compliment day
Commr. Smith said that the current day was National Compliment Day.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
_________________________________
kirby smith, chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________
GARY J COONEY, CLERK