Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our August 25th, 2026 Lake County Board of County Commissioners meeting. And we will start our meeting as we traditionally do with an invocation. This will be given by Pastor Chase Allen from First Baptist Church of Umatilla and will remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Well, good morning. And as always, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to represent First Baptist Church of Umatilla and most importantly, Jesus. So let's open in prayer this morning. Father, thank you so much for another beautiful day that you've given us today. Thank you for allowing us to wake up this morning and being here in Lake County, Florida, a place that we all love dearly, God, and want to see continue to be steered in the direction that you would have for us. So, God, I pray that you would be with this meeting today, with all that happens in here, with all the business, the decisions, the honors, the different things that take place. And so, God, we pray that everything that happens here in this room would be honoring and pleasing to you. Thank you again for all that you do for us. We love you. It's in Jesus' name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you so much. Thank you, Pastor.

All right. Agenda update. Jennifer Barker, County Manager.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair, Commissioners. First on tab 16, the recommended action language was revised to include if needed. Tab 26, the unsolicited proposal was added to the backup. And finally, tab 29 was added as an addendum and I would request that we move that to the consent agenda.

All right. Is everyone OK with 29 going to consent? All right. OK. Then moving along to Employee Service Awards, Janine Nelson, Associate Director of Human Resources, will present our awards.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm Janine Nelson with the Office of Human Resources and Risk Management. This morning, you have the pleasure of recognizing employees who have reached significant milestones of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of their careers with Lake County. So we're going to start with five years of employment, and those are people who began their employment in July of 2021. We have Jenny Deschens, who is the Records Compliance Coordinator in the Office of the County Attorney. Edward Morales, Delivery Service Driver Operator for Library Services. And then we have Keaton Woods, Telecommunicator with the Office of Fire Rescue Emergency Dispatch. Would five-year employees please stand for recognition? Let's give them a round of applause, please. Ten years of service. I don't believe we have anyone that was able to make it, but we are recognizing Norma Barrow, Office Associate III with the Office of Solid Waste. Addison Harper, who is a firefighter EMT with the Office of Fire Rescue. And then Erin Texter, Digital Services Manager with the Office of Communications. Let's give a round of applause for those employees. We have a 15-year recognition for July 2011 is the date that Nicole DeArmond, who is the Housing Choice Vulture Program Coordinator in the Office of Housing and Community Services. Nicole, do you want to stand please for recognition? Our 20-year employees, all three of them are here. These employees began their careers in July of 2006. Office of Facilities Management, we have Raleigh Breeden, Maintenance Technician II, Thomas Carpenter, Assistant County Manager, and then Dwayne Henry, Construction Program Manager in the Office of Parks and Trails. Would the three of you stand for recognition, please? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. This concludes our presentation today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We have one set of minutes, July 14th. Christine Mullane is here on behalf of Gary Cooney.

Yeah, we request approval of the minutes.

Do we have a second? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Moving then to our citizen question and comment period during this portion of the meeting when the public can discuss items that are on today's agenda with the exception of any zoning items. Anyone who's joined the meeting through Zoom using their phone may press star 9. to virtually raise their hands. If you are participating via Zoom, we would just ask that you click the raise hand button to let us know that you wish to speak. Everyone has three minutes, and we ask that if the buzzer rings and you're still speaking, if you try to wrap it up at that point as best as you can, and try to keep our time limit consistent with everyone. So I've got a number of cards here. First of all, do we have anyone online? No one online at this point. And I'll start here with Farmer Banks Helfrich.

I am Farmer Banks Helfrich. I live in the Clay Road District. Farm tip of the day. It is harvest season and it's also time to put the fall crops into the ground such as anything, any vegetable under the ground. Carrots, onions, radishes, turnips do really well in Florida. Also your brachias or your cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kale, And then any leafy lettuces you can put in the ground right now. Get them ready. Madam Chairwoman, Board distinguished guests, we are in the harvest season beyond just what's in the farm. November 3rd is a harvest for our country. We get to choose and pick who our next representatives are. from DC to Tallahassee to right here in this room to also in small towns and cities. This harvest, we encourage our citizens to participate. In fact, our republic democracy does not work unless we are engaged. We participate, we decide, and yes, we vote. So I implore every one of my citizens to get out and participate. Some of us go above and beyond voting. Some of us stand up in front of council meetings and speak from their heart. Some of us write letters to the editor to show their support or against any types of amendments. Some of us go even above and beyond that. And we actually run for office, yes. I'm sure many of you on the council and the dais understand that. We have servant's hearts. We get in this to help others, to be the voice piece for the people out here, for the citizens out here. We also do it because we want to be at that table with the most amount of resources to help the most amount of people. We have servant's hearts. I am Farmer Banks Helfrich, your candidate for State House District 25, and I have a servant's heart. On a side note, if Madam Chair will allow me, I'd like to just say a couple of words about AI data centers.

If you'd like to say those words now, and we still have time.

Thank you. I think I have 33 seconds. As Floridians, this is our water. This is our electrical grid. This is our natural soundscapes. Before we give up any of these precious resources, let us do our due diligence. I am not saying no. I am saying not now. I support wholeheartedly a one-year moratorium on AI data centers. May you all be blessed. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

All right. Next is Lee Owen.

Good morning. My name is Lee Owen. I am on the board of directors for Habitat for Humanity Lake Sumter, and I'm also the current chair of our affordable housing advisory committee. As everyone here knows, buying a house these days is very challenging, especially with going the traditional route. At Habitat, our mission is to make what we call entry-level home ownership possible. And for our working people in Lake County, that's a critical issue. We do that by building safe, affordable housing for qualified buyers. We don't give houses away. People have to qualify and get their own mortgage, and we help them with that process. And our program empowers families to invest in their futures through sweat equity and financial education. I really just also wanted to give you some updates on what we've been doing across Lake County because you guys have been supportive of our mission and I want you to know that we're doing what you expect us to do. In our last fiscal year, which closed on June 30th, we completed 35 repairs for low income homeowners. across Lake County in Tavares, Eustis, Mount Dora, Umatilla, Leesburg, Altoona, Mascot, Claremont, and Groveland. We covered a lot of ground. And then we built 11 new homes in Tavares, Lady Lake, Groveland, and Leesburg. And we'll build an additional seven in Sumter, County for a total of 18 new homes. For the coming fiscal year, which we just began, we aim to complete a similar number of repairs for low-income homeowners. And if anyone has questions about that process, you can just meet with me in the lobby. I'm going to hang out there afterwards for a few minutes. We also plan to complete and sell 15 new homes in Lake County to qualified low-income home buyers within Tavares, Eustis, and Leesburg. and an additional seven in Sumter for 22 new homes. Of note, and again, thank you for your support, the Sagers Cove project in Eustis, which is a five-lot, what we call pocket neighborhood community, will be going vertical soon with construction. The county made that possible by helping us with the infrastructure costs through the use of ARPA funds. And we couldn't have done that without you guys, so thank you. When construction kicks off, be prepared to get an invitation in your mailboxes to come and celebrate that with us. And then for everyone here, not just the commission members, but everyone out here, we want to let you know that there's two celebrations coming up. We have a partnership with the Lake County Schools, and in various schools we have construction academies for the youth. The Eustis High School Construction Academy will kick off this year's home building project on Thursday, September 10th from 8 to 9 a.m. at 1806 South Bay Street in Eustis. The Leesburg Construction Academy will kick off their project that Friday, September 11th, from 8 to 9 a.m. at 206 Parker Street in Leesburg. This is really cool to see, and if you've not been to one of these things, I would encourage you to see these youth are learning trades that get them jobs after they graduate. You can also learn more at www.habitatls.org. Thank you. Thank you, Lee.

Appreciate that. Appreciate all your hard work. Okay, the other items, I've got one for 20 on the comp plan discussion. Chuck Hyatt, do you want to stay or do you want to make your comments now? If you'd like to go ahead and make them, then you wouldn't necessarily have to stay.

Good morning. Chuck Hyatt, 902 North Sinclair Avenue, Tavares. Dear Chairman and members of the board, On behalf of Lake 100, we respectfully request that the board postpone the adoption and state submittal of the proposed Lake County 2050 comp plan until after the November 3rd property tax referendum vote. Land use policy and economic development are inherently connected. The comprehensive plan will guide Lake County's growth, infrastructure investments, employment centers, and business climate for decades to come. With the potential for significant changes to the county physical structure should the property tax referendum pass, it is prudent to allow the outcome of the referendum to inform a plan that is intended to serve as the county's long-term policy framework. Delaying adoption now may help avoid future amendments while ensuring the plan reflects evolving economic priorities. Lake 100 has assembled a private sector review committee to evaluate the draft comp plan through the lens of economic development and business competitiveness. While our committee has already begun identifying areas of concern, we believe additional time is needed to develop constructive recommendations and practical solutions that will strengthen the final document. Our goal is to collaborate with the county leadership by providing meaningful private sector input before the plan is finalized. We respectfully ask the board to postpone the adoption and state submittal Lake County 2050 comp plan until after November 3rd, 2026. The additional time will allow the county to consider the outcome of the property tax referendum while incorporating thoughtful recommendations from the business community, ultimately resulting in a stronger plan that better supports Lake County's long-term economic prosperity. Thank you. I know you guys have received the letters before. We just wanted to go record in the public. So, thank you.

Thank you Okay, all right moving along then to our presentation of proclamations. We have two items tab two and tab three and If we could have a motion.

Make a motion to approve tab two and three.

Okay, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And is Dylan Bova here? Okay, great. All right, well, I'll come down and I'll read this proclamation, and then we will then do our food bank second harvest presentation. This is Proclamation 202690, whereas polycystic kidney disease, PKD, is one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases affecting an estimated 500,000 Americans and over 12 million people worldwide, and whereas PKD causes numerous fluid-filled cysts to grow in the kidneys, leading to kidney failure and often results in the need for dialysis or kidney transplantation, and whereas there is currently no cure for PKD, and research is critical to developing treatments to improve the lives of those affected by this disease, and whereas the PKD Foundation, founded in 1982, is dedicated to finding treatments and a cure for PKD through funding research, advocacy, education, support, and awareness, whereas the PKD Foundation is committed to supporting individuals and families affected by PKD, offering them the resources they need to manage their condition And whereas raising public awareness about PKD is essential to support research efforts, improve patient outcomes, and ultimately find a cure. And whereas recognizing the efforts of the PKD Foundation in supporting this mission is vital to the well-being of those living with PKD and their families. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida that Lake County does hereby proclaim this fourth day of September which is coming up in the future as polycystic kidney disease Awareness Day and a copy of this proclamation shall be spread upon the minutes of this meeting I

Hi, everyone. My name is Dylan Beauvais. So I work with the National PKD Foundation, which stands for polycystic kidney disease. It does affect over 600,000 Americans. I was diagnosed with the disease at 13 years old. I'm very lucky because it does not run in my family, and most people don't find out until they're 30 years old. So I find out kind of a random... random event, but I'm honestly very grateful because I try my best to advocate for those who don't know yet. That way, when we have research funding and more support for our disease, it won't be as difficult as it was for me for people to find out.

All right.

And Stephanie?

You're welcome.

I'll read the proclamation. Proclamation 2026-91, whereas hunger is an issue of vital concern in Lake County, where 13.1% of people, including one in every five children, experience food insecurity, and whereas Lake County is committed to taking steps to combat hunger in every part of our community, and whereas Lake County is committed to working with Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida to educate people about the role and importance of the food bank network and how food banks stand alongside neighbors facing hunger to ensure everyone has access to food and resources they need to thrive. Whereas the Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida distributed over 7 million meals to Lake County residents last year through a network of 55 partner agencies, food pantries, meal programs, and other community organizations. And whereas the month of September has been designated Hunger Action Month to bring communities together to elevate the voices of people who experience food insecurity and inspire everyone to take action to end hunger. And whereas food banks across the country, including Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida and its partner agency network, will host numerous events throughout the month of September to bring awareness and help end hunger in their local community. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, that the month of September 2026 is hereby proclaimed Hunger Action Month, and a copy of this proclamation shall be spread upon the minutes of this meeting.

Good morning everyone and thank you so much for having me again. You know one of the things that we like to do with Hunger Action Month is just bring it up. I think that there are a lot of members of the community who have time and talents that they want to share with the local community and what better way to do that than to volunteer at your local food pantry. We have 55 stellar pantries here in Lake County that could use that support. So my call to action is for Lake County residents to go out and volunteer this Hunger Action Month. And if you're seeking assistance or you know somebody who needs assistance, please visit our website at feedhopenow.org and you can find help there. Thank you.

All right, Christy, moving along then to the clerk of court's consent agenda.

Thank you, Christina Lane, for the record. We request approval of the consent agenda items one through three. Second.

All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Then moving again onto the consent agenda for the county commission. That's tabs five through 19 plus 29. I'd like to pull tab 19, please.

Tab 19. Move to approve all with the exception of 19.

Okay.

Second.

All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, then moving back to tab 19.

I gotta get my paper here.

So the reason why I'm pulling tab 19 is this is an extension of a trail for the trail going up toward Astor. Correct. The reason why I'm pulling this is this is a request for, for argument's sake, $1.2 million to expand the trail from what we originally agreed to one mile north to another location. The only thing I have is I would much rather see that $1.2 million spent on resurfacing of our roads since this trail was not originally approved for this design to go a mile further up. I feel it's better to use this money for our road infrastructure rather than the trails. Okay. If it was already designed to go that far up, I'd have been okay with it. But since this is a new addition, I think we need to take this money for our infrastructure.

Okay, and I do have a card, and the request was Mike Stevens only to speak if this was pulled on consent, and I do want to just weigh in super fast about the request that we received from Lakeview Terrace and the management at Lakeview Terrace. In addition, the residents, what they were requesting is that we didn't end it short of Lakeview Terrace. They wanted to actually make all the way to Lakeview Terrace so that they could Utilize the trail for purposes of getting back and forth to Umatilla. So we did receive you know a request It wasn't just sort of pulled out of the air And as far as I know the design does in fact continue on it's just that the decision was made not to go all the way up to Lakeview and then we received all of those requests to carry it on but Mike if you want to comment since you've been so involved in all of this I

I am Mike Stevens, the chairman of Lake County, Friends of Lake County Trails. You are correct, the design has been done. The design is about three miles. It goes all the way from Umatilla up to the edge of the forest, all the way through Altoona up through 42 and on. The original piece that was only decided to construct was kind of financially constrained, so right now the piece that's being constructed and the contractors that are working ends basically across the street from the Silver Beach Heights subdivision, actually ends kind of in a sinkhole in the woods. It doesn't go anywhere, it just stops. When the residents of Lakeview Terrace found out about that and the management of Lakeview Terrace found out about that, they submitted letters, and I think everybody got copies of those. Also, Old Mill Stream Submitted those letters as well. I'm obviously supporting it. It gives it a logical place to end and a logical place to connect. It goes from downtown Umatilla all the way to Lakeview Terrace where the residents can then get on it and come to Umatilla. Right now, if we don't finish it, it just ends in the woods across the street from a subdivision. I'm supporting it basically because of the additional mobilization costs and additional inefficiencies of having to have a contractor come back at a later date to finish it. The contractor is there working now and is pushing forward with building the trail. And with the support that it had from the residents and from Lakeview Terrace, there's 600, I think, residents in Lakeview Terrace now, and they're obviously becoming much younger residents that are moving in up there that are looking for things like this. And this just gives us a great place to have a connection. Because right now, if we stop construction where it's planned to stop, there is no connection. It just stops. If we take it up to Lakeview Terrace, it goes all the way right to the front entrance of Lakeview Terrace, all the way into downtown Umatilla, which would allow those folks to come into downtown Umatilla. It goes right in front of Old Mill Stream and allow them to go back and forth as well. So I'm obviously here to support it. Kind of got off my topics, but I'd be glad to answer any questions. It's a great segment of trail. Again, it's been designed all the way from Umatilla all the way to east Altoona Road, which is the north end of Altoona, further probably about another mile or at least a half a mile to three quarters of a mile past Lakeview Terrace. The rest of this section going into the Ocala National Forest has gone through the PD&E study. And now that we're building the trail, we've got that skin in the game so we can apply for Sun Trail money because this is a Sun Trail eligible project so that we can hopefully get that piece designed and then get construction funds for that down the road. So I'm obviously supporting it. It gives us a logical place to end the trail now because of financial. I'd love to see us go ahead and build everything that's been designed because it's like I said, it's been designed out the East Altoona Road towards the forest. But I know, you know, finances being what they are and so forth. It just gives us a logical place to stop. It gives the 600 residents of Lakeview Terrace a connection point to it and allows them to come into downtown Umatilla.

Have we asked any participation of Lakeview Terrace? Any participation? Financial participation.

I have not. I mean, obviously, they're supporting it. I don't know of any.

Well, I know they're supporting it. It's going to support 600 of their residents. So do you think it would be beneficial to say this is going to support 600 of your residents? Would you mind donating some money to this so you can help the cause out? Because I've got a real issue with the 1.2.

Well, they do pay taxes and so forth, and that does support it. And that goes on to a bigger piece, because this is kind of a sales tax transfer. This is not an additional budget item. We're just moving sales tax over to cover it. Talking about long-term funding and using sales tax for long-term funding, a lot of our surrounding counties already do that, because it's a multiplicative effect. Both the addition of trails and the additional business that is done, additional sales that is done, drives that sales tax number even higher, as opposed to buying equipment and depreciating assets and so forth. it actually multiplies that effect of that sales tax being used and invested in those trails so that it brings more business to those communities.

Okay. Commissioner Parks.

Question. Thanks, Mike. Maybe more for staff, but just want to confirm, I think you sort of touched on it. Always love the lens of looking to fund roads, so that's a fair question. Is this, though, is a transfer, as I understand, from the North Lake... Regional Park. East Lake Park. I'm sorry, East Lake. So I guess my question would be, it's coming from sales tax. It's already planned, and we're going to do sales tax later today, I think. So the commissioners, that's the NORP, that's a focus, a big vision is that East Lake Park. I mean, is that okay then? Because it's coming out of that funding source, right? It's not a.

I mean, if that's in both of these are in District four. And so from my standpoint, it's kind of like, okay, do we move forward with more improvements at the East Lake Park? Or do we do we move forward with something like this and just shift those funds over? And my rationale was that we could actually get more. Resident participation if we didn't have the trail just stop in the middle of the forest or on the way up to Altoona at least we would have it at a logical place and then we could pick back up as we were able to with the improvements at the East Lake Park because the East Lake Park improvements are moving into the next phase. So we already have completed ball fields and completed structures and improvements there. So it's being used a lot, but that was an incremental piece to go into the next phase of the East Lake Park, whereas this would be a way to actually basically complete a project in the sense that it would go all the way to Altoona, so I would hate to see I mean, I'm all for moving, you know having funds go to Road resurfacing, but this was already going to go to the East Lake Park So, you know to to take it and say well now you've suggested moving it to this trail But but you want to move it to resurfacing that would? again It was going to go to the park the idea being that this would make more sense to open up a trail for And it also was helpful, I think, on the whole trail equation. When you have a trail, the more that it's used, the better, right? So if it ends at Lakeview Terrace and it ends in Altoona, we have a much greater chance of this actually being utilized for that period of time before we move on to the next segment of the trail. So for me, it was logical.

I guess this question is for the attorney then. Could this $1.2 million be used for infrastructure for road resurfacing?

Yes, it could.

And I understand that people from Lakeview Terrace have made requests, but I'm 100% sure we have had more requests for road resurfacing than we have for trail expansion up to Lakeview Terrace. And the only reason why I say that is We are at a critical point where we have got to start fixing our infrastructure and our roads. And although this is for East Lake Park, maybe this could fix a road that goes toward East Lake Park or a road in District 4 rather than a trail. I'm just not comfortable with spending $1.2 million on a mile for a trail when we can spend $1.2 million a mile for resurfacing. And that's all.

Do you want to open up all of this? Well, I guess we're going to have a discussion later in the meeting about sales tax in general. I mean, is the direction you're going everything that's in?

Well, I'm just talking about this tab and this situation at this point for this money.

Just because we'll be talking about things like the park that is in District 3.

I don't want to convolute anything other than this tab with this request and this money.

I will say it brings up a favorite topic of Mike and mine, or both of us, our topic. I'm not on English this morning, but about a continued funding source for trails, and I think that we hope we have some discussion on that this year.

It does provide that multiplicative impact in terms of the trails, drives business sales, drives more sales tax to be used. And a lot of our surrounding counties are using that sales tax specifically for trails because they understand that impact. And the state understands that impact because most of their revenues come from sales tax. That's why they're putting another $50 million in it every year and a $200 million injection just a couple of years ago. They understand that that drives more sales tax to be able to use for other projects. And I believe under the sales tax program you're going to approve today anyway, I think there's $8 million in road work that's already being used from the sales tax piece. And I think the million dollars that we're talking about here may not even get a feasibility study done for a road. I don't know. But this would complete the trail, have it go to a logical conclusion, a logical place to stop it, to bring more people into Umatilla. You get in a situation where it's a catch-22, you build these small trails and you're going to build them longer. But in the meantime, to get that impact, you've got to have a connection from one to the other. If you don't have connections, then the trail's just going to sit there and not get used as much as it should and not bring that impact that we want to bring.

I'm just kind of wondering where this argument was when we first approved this, because we approved it up to a certain point and you were a supporter of that.

I was not aware how far it was going until after the fact. I did not.

Yeah, I don't think any of us, I think we all thought that it was going to a spot, that it was going to be a place where people could actually hop on the trail. So I think it caught all of us off guard that it was just ending.

Yeah, when they started construction and it just ended in the woods at a big sinkhole on the other side of the street from Silver Beach Heights, that kind of raised everybody's eyebrows. It's like, wait a minute, why aren't they at least going to Lakeview Terrace? Why aren't they at least finishing that additional mile to get those folks connected so that we have that use?

Yeah. I mean, again, it wasn't like, oh, now let's try to do this. It was we literally didn't realize it wasn't going to make it all the way to Altoona. So I would just ask that you would take that into consideration. I understand what you're trying to do, that you're thinking in terms of road resurfacing. We have done a lot of road resurfacing. We're continuing to do a lot of road resurfacing. But if we start looking at it through that prism, then we literally have to look at every recreational use that's on our and if that's the direction we're going to go then we just decide that's the direction we're going to go but but this was more of it was going to go to the park made more sense to shift over and my request on behalf of the people in that community is to allow this to move forward yeah and i'm supportive of it again just because it's coming out of the bucket of the east lake park and that fortunately you're able to do that so it's not

But, I mean, we do have serious road issues, and I hope we have a lot of discussion, not today, but in the coming year again on how to fund these roads.

or elderly living sort of vicinity in that whole area of the county. It's just a purposeless project if we don't lengthen it. So instead of just building a road that we care about and then shortening it from where it would be most effective, so I'd have to support it, although you make very compelling points.

Okay, all right. We have the item on the table. Do we have a motion for approval?

Move to approve. I'll second.

All right. Any further discussion?

Yep. Just for Commissioner Sabatini, thank you very much. This project is not like it's shortened. We approved so much money to go to a certain point, but that's all I'm going to say about that.

All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay. All right. That was tab 19. Moving then to presentations.

I think we can count on that.

Presentations, tab 20.

Good morning. For the record, Kathleen Dial. We have Kelly Klepper with Kimley Horne here today to give you an update, an executive summary on the 2050 comprehensive plan update. So far, you guys have heard updates more at a macro high level. Today, we'll get into some of the details, proposed changes, and some things we need board direction on. So I will turn it over to Kelly Klepper with Kimley Horne.

Thank you, Kathleen. Good morning, everybody. For the record, Kelly Klepper with Kimley Horne. First and foremost, congratulations on a successful couple of weeks ago for some of you. So continuity and definitely some positive strides, so let's keep it going. As Kathleen said, we're here this morning to provide an overview of where we are, what we've been working on, and more importantly, as Kathleen said, start to get a little bit of board direction. We have been working very diligently. We actually have had a couple of I'll call it stakeholder meetings including with the lake 100 to Solicit and receive some input on that. So we've been making those types of items Are we here with a final revised draft today? No, are we here with a pretty substantial? Kind of guidance document. Yes Are we at the point where we need to make sure we're getting those last bits and nuggets of information? Absolutely And then one of the things, especially for this board, is at the very end of this presentation, we're going to give you a quick update on something else that is kind of linked to the comprehensive plan that we know is extremely needed, beneficial, and desired by this group. So we'll give you a little bit of update on that as well. So first and foremost, kind of looking at this, we're gonna go through an overview of the schedule, kind of where we are, what we're doing, and what we kind of see at this point. Also give you a quick update on the additional community engagement, walk through some highlights, and then of course make sure we are providing opportunity to receive that feedback and that guidance from this body because at the end of the day, you all are the ones that are going to be voting to transmit and or adopt at this process. So, again, making sure we get it right, and more importantly, that we also get it right. So as we've talked about, initially we were identifying, you know, that we would be looking to transmit this summer or I'll say late third quarter, both with the property tax referendum and a couple of other things, of course, we've heard. and I know there's been some discussions by this body as far as do we wait until after. So what we've identified here, of course this is subject to the board's approval, is you know scheduled that reflects that sentiment that we've heard loud and clear from a couple of different groups but again you know we will be ready to transmit as soon as this body says go uh with some like i said some additional input again from lake 100 and some of the other entities that we have out there The initial target right now, of course, would be to look at the first and second quarter of 27 that allows those final information and ideas that the property tax referendum comes into play. Then, of course, there's some things that probably get changed with your capital improvements plan. Core policies and discussion items that are laid out in the current comprehensive plan probably don't change. because, again, this is a policy document, it's a vision document. We get into the nitty gritty with the land development regulations and also with some of those, I'll call them policies, that guide further initiatives by the county itself. So capital improvements definitely could get affected. Some of the things we're proposing may get affected. The majority of this document Probably stays fairly much intact with some additional edits And information and updates we've been working very closely with staff including the county attorney to I'll say kind of right size a couple of things and also looking at it from the SB 180 perspective, which is still out there for us But again, we've been identifying those items so that we can keep a running tally of those as we're going through Just a quick update on where we've been. As you all know, we've had a very robust public outreach. We've had a series of three workshops around the county. I will say kudos to you all for actually taking those additional steps going to the county both at the initial, when I say the kickoff, to say here's what we're doing and why, kind of the hey, are we hearing the right information, and then more recently is did we get it right? And that's where Lake 100 provided some additional thoughts with that third round, and one of the reasons we've actually been working very closely with that, I'll call it the Economic Development Stakeholder Group, again, realizing that, and we'll talk about this in just a second, The vast majority of Lake County is residential. the vast majority could potentially get impacted by the property tax referendum. So we need to make sure we're not burying our heads in the sand, especially when it comes to the non-residential and more importantly on those economic development and I'll say business park, employment centers and things like that moving forward. Notice I said employment centers and I know you have an agenda item later this afternoon on something else that has that word in it. We're not talking about those. We're not talking about those as part of this plan. That is completely separate discussion. So don't think that we are proposing or saying, hey, we need to do this. No, we're not. As you can see, again, we've had a number of meetings across the board. We continue to have our biweekly check-ins with staff as we need those additional kind of one-off meetings, including with public works or transportation or whomever. We've been facilitating those items. Again, still kind of going back through the online surveys. We had the initial public outreach. We also met and had a separate survey that was for the students. So we started to get a little different perspective, not just from the residents or the retirees or whoever wanted to take the time to do that, but a dedicated core group of, I'll say, secondary and slash college, additional education components, but students that took the time to provide some of those comments so that we had that well-rounded diversity of information coming back in. Coordination with municipalities continues to be a big item. I know that that has, that was one of the first things we always talked about was you have how many different cities that you have to coordinate with? all of which provide some level of services throughout the county, or you have agreements that specifically talk about water and wastewater, whereas the county does not have those services, of course. So again, making sure that we are coordinating what we're doing and how, and also as some of these things that you'll probably have some questions about when we start thinking and looking at some of the new land use designations, how do those interact with what the county currently has versus what's going on in the cities? The goal for a couple of those new designations, which will be paper, which means they will not be physically mapped at this point, so changing somebody's land use, they are tools and options available to the county. We've tried to provide some sort of bridge or transition for several of these so that the automatic response from some of the development community Well, we have to annex into X. So if we can keep some of those, that information and that control, and I hate using the term control, but we'll say guidance at the county level versus going into that additional level, it just makes our lives as a community so much easier. So what are the highlights? You know, initial reviews, of course, we have looked at the five-year CIP, which is potentially subject to change here in another couple of months. We did look at and provide an additional future land use designation, those public facility components, coordination with the cities at that point. Also looking at... moving some of the development requirements. And Emily Thomas has been working diligently on keeping that list of things that are coming out of the comprehensive plan that will be moved into the land development regulations. So we have a running list of those items as we speak. And that's going to be very important, especially when we talk about one of the last slides I have. And then working closely with the county attorney, just I'll say moving some of the organization around so it becomes more of a succinct type of flowing document versus kind of hit or miss or having additional redundant policies across the plan itself. Trying to state in one place and then reference as we need to so that we don't have duplicative policies, we'll say, between conservation land use which as we all know once we start duplicating policies between multiple chapters and elements there's a risk that that one portion gets called and updated and then we don't catch them in the other ones so making sure we've got that kind of roadmap since we last met of course there was some discussion and some guidance from staff and the board We did end up removing, based off of the recommendations, the urban transition and combined that information with the urban high. Some of the guidance and direction we had was there was too much of a similarity and we think we might be able to achieve what we're trying to do by augmenting or updating that policy itself. also creating a new regional economic center to replace the economic overlay so that there again it would not be the overlay per se but it would be a defined designated land use designation that would be housed within the future land use but reference back to the economic development element again kind of clarifying and updating the tdr process and then also expanding some transportation policies related to the multimodal transportation that the county currently has and commissioners feel free to stop me at any point as we start to go through some of these from the future land use perspective. Again, those additional protection measures, especially for the green swamp and some of the other areas of critical state concern, making sure that we have effectively protected those areas consistent not only with the vision of this community, but also with state law. Revising the urban high and also ensuring that it's designated as a transfer of development rights receiving area. So providing that initial guidance to where we can now start to look at some of those, whether it's city to county or county to county, looking at those areas, because where we have our urban high designated or identified as part of being able to be located, That's where we have our best shot, especially as it relates to infrastructure, roads, water, wastewater, stormwater. And we're not looking at a kind of a hodgepodge across the county of this targeted intersection, this targeted intersection, and when we know we don't have infrastructure in those areas. So we want to make sure we are right-sizing that component. The new future land use designation of mixed use. Again, the biggest thing that you see is right underneath that first bullet. A broader range of uses while supporting smart growth principles. You may sit there and go, well, Kelly, we've got wellness way. That's true. But you don't have something else beyond that necessarily. You have pieces and parts between urban high and some of those other ones. But do you have a land use designation that the county and staff can say, this meets what we're trying to do from an overarching master plan process? Again, that higher design, infrastructure-based, and a true mix of uses. Not single-family attached and multi-family, but actual res and non-res and open spaces kind of identified at that point. Of course, we did look at where do we need to probably not allow those, so including a list of where the mixed use could not be applied. Some of that goes back to, again, some of the state legislature, but also, more importantly, it protects those critical areas that we've identified here. little bit more And I'm definitely going to stop at this point unless you all tell me keep going From a mixed-use perspective and looking at with or without TDRs, what could we potentially envision? What could we start to think about how would that work? I know this body has had some information through dr. Lincas as far as transfer of development rights and there's some other studies ongoing and So again, trying to come up with a framework that would support TDRs and those receiving areas where we do have supporting infrastructure. Madam Chair, I'm going to stop here for a second to see if there's any questions or thoughts.

I'll have some later.

OK. So in other words, keep going.

Keep going.

Got it. In talking with staff and also of course with the lake 100 in the county's economic development stakeholder group The realization was we also needed a new regional employment center So we created and crafted something that would further support the county's diversification away from whether it's industrial or commercial and starting to get really to the heart of employment and The state has a targeted list, the county has a targeted list of industries and businesses that we're trying to attract here, but you don't have one future land use designation that you could use that kind of covers all of that. You'd have to kind of push and pull and maybe look at some potential modifications. The easy button on that one is let's create a designation that can be used as an economic development tool and not try to force a square peg into a round hole on some of these items. Again, local control, local discussion. This is not mapped on any properties, but it is a tool, if adopted by the county, that you could use towards these processes at the end of the day. And, Madam Chair, similar type of thing. I'm assuming Commissioner Parks will keep going unless you all tell me otherwise.

I have some comments about that, but I'll just say it until the end. Okay. Yeah.

Are you 75% there? Or how far along are you in the presentation?

I'm going to go quicker.

Well, no, because I think that the question was going to be whether we were going to postpone moving forward until we get past November versus, I mean, and this is just kind of an overview of where you are now. And then if there's a decision, let's hold off on... moving ahead, at least we will know where we are right now with what you all are proposing. Yes, ma'am.

And I do know we'll say that there are quite a few more slides with information on it again We can go we can pick up the pace a little bit kind of say these are the items that really aren't being touched since I'll call it version three and that way we can save additional time and discussion with the with the board as far as not only the schedule but also the the the two new land use designations as well as the the TDR proposals and

Yeah, I just think that one of the most important things, sort of a premise from the vacant land analysis that you all did, was that there was no need for increases in density. And you took all of the land that was in the cities as well as the land in the county, looked at the existing land use maps in each one of those cities in relation to our map, that we already had. And so I think it's just really important to emphasize that what we're discussing today is not an increase in density. It's a redesignation of land use categories and then potentially shifting of density from one land use category to another, but it is not an increase in density.

Madam Chair, that is an excellent summation. That is the heart of this. We're not saying, oh, we're going to go ahead and automatically do 10 to 20 because that's what we feel like or because of whatever. You're absolutely correct. We're going to be basically taking from one area, preserving that, and moving those credits into another area. Thereby, you know, the goal is to preserve additional rural lands that may otherwise be subject to, you know, say sprawl slash suburban rural forms of development that really don't preserve anything. So, you know, the one thing I will definitely say is, you know, we've come across a number and I've done a number of these to where a one for one swap isn't cost effective. So you've got to start looking at what are some of those densities and intensities or whatever things that are being transferred. So again, like you said, Commissioner, it's going from this portion to this portion within designated areas only. It is not open season to transfer to whatever at this point.

Yeah, and that was one of my points, so thank you. And I'll just say that that is... Huge part. I hope we make a huge change the comp plan that is currently in places. There's some you know a couple good things about it, but I Mean let's face it with the with the situation. We're in and the way how rapidly forward is growing We're gonna unless we change the comp plan the correct way. We're gonna get a lot of the same We do we are over over allocated with the number of units, so I'm glad you brought that up that it would be Let's not add, and I'm just being arbitrary with the number, I don't know what it is from your analysis, I don't remember what it was, but let's just say it's 50 or 60,000 over-allocated units. There should be no reason why any city or the county should ever increase the number of units unless it's withdrawing or debiting that TAP. In other words, find a way to do it to make it work, direct the growth inward, but the county as a whole does not need to be adding additional units through a comp plan. change and and within the cities I hope we have to get their partnership with to do that that's a tool the TDRs is a tool to do it hopefully there's better planning that's put in place with not only us but all the cities to make sure that that growth is directed inwards and it would be I guess I would say I'm just gonna speak for myself I mean if if you don't if we don't change some of that and start looking at more than one or two units per acre mentality of half acre lots and so on and so forth, we're gonna continue to get what we're getting. And we can't stop people moving into the state of Florida. There's a lot of great reasons to live here, especially in this beautiful county. So there's gonna be places where density, I'm sorry, the density's gonna have to be higher than four units to the acre in a city. Appropriate place, mixed use you're talking about, perfect, increasing internal rate of capture so that people are driving less trips and the trips that they are driving are shorter is going to be key to all this as well. So enough of I'm on my soapbox a little bit. I'll let you continue.

This is great. I joked I was going to say, man, I'm hoping we're recording this so we can just put that up on the bumper sticker of the T-shirt.

It's like one land planner to another land planner speaking each other's language.

Yeah, that's part of it. I want to ask you about the rural boundary, too. I still think that should be on the map as well, rural boundary line. I know there's concerns about that, but anyway.

Okay. Any other questions or thoughts? This is great.

I've got some thoughts, but I'm going to wait until you're done.

Okay, yeah, I'll wait.

Another point of discussion that we've had with staff back and forth and we've heard this a couple of times You know the the family member exemption will call it where there whereby there is a way that you can actually increase density by doing I'll say if it's for a family member and I know that Mike Fitzgerald has brought this up and there's a couple of things they've been kind of tracking with that are we taking away property rights and that's going to be one of those things of course we continue to work with your county attorney on but one of the things that we see and I know the county sees and I've seen this in my previous life was you know I give five acres to my son and that gets the exemption and then 30, 60, 90 days he sells it and it's no longer a family member at that point. So that is one of those, I'll call it get out of jail free types of cards that we're trying to right size or possibly bring back into the fold. I wanna go through conservation again. just looking at strengthening the wetland. Policies and I know that there was a comment or potential discussion. I'm on the use of Florida friendly versus Florida native But then also making sure that you know those policies that really should be guiding You know the wakaiba and some of that Moving those into the conservation is because that's where most people should be looking for because that's where we have a lot of our other Purchase a green swamp in the ACSC protection policy. So let's put it under one bigger umbrella at that point. I Economic development and economic element again working closely with the stakeholder group Working closely with staff. We've been making some additional updates. We're waiting on some hopefully what Lake 100 provides some additional thoughts on especially once they see some of this. But there again, the biggest item of that is to look at that goal right there with 4-2, diversification of the economy, or paraphrasing, diversify the economy and tax base through land use innovation, industry attraction, and business development. You might be going, what did you change? We changed land use. Let's make it a little bit more than just innovation, industry, and business development. Let's throw that in there, especially because we're talking about a new employment land use and some diversification in some of those existing land use components. So let's put it out there as a tool and put it out there on the table for discussion. And then currently we're working to revise and finalize a couple of things as it relates to the new policies. including a new goal which promotes balanced economic growth and you know trying there again to improve the county's ability to you know say whether the storm should the the property tax referendum go into place again your current comprehensive plan calls out an extravagant amount of residential properties you have a tremendous amount currently on the ground today What we don't see is how do we move the needle from, I'll call it jokingly, the 70-30 to more 60-40 and being a little bit more sustainable from not only just an economic development, but also an employment and diversification. You're up against 67 other counties for the exact same businesses. Where do we put those industries and those businesses right now? Do we have the tools? And that's the reason we've started to identify, again, that new land use designation. Transportation, not a lot on this. I can say that the biggest change we also talked about in working with staff was Looking at some additional policies that are consistent with your long-range transportation plan, both from serving both motorized and non-motorized, and also starting to layer in a little bit, and this may get pushed and pulled some, but protection for the natural resources. Not just the proverbial blow and go on a new road, but looking at how do we better design, especially listening to that discussion this morning of where's the trail, where's that road going through? Can we do certain things to make it a little bit more improvements for the environment that we have? And then also revising the policy with regards to wildlife crossings. Building off of the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Safe Streets for All initiatives, again, supporting safety for all users and looking at those elements that would potentially improve transportation safety at all levels, pedestrian, vehicular, all the way through. Housing, again, just no significant changes based off of that. Recreation and open space. I love seeing the Lake County Post on the new parks and the lake's features and the trails and all of that. Not a lot needs to be touched in that respect because you do an amazing job of your recreation, both active and passive, as well as your open space preservations. The one thing we did, of course, talk about was adding in not only to the greenway but also references to blueways because that's another tool that we have in the toolbox. not only from the state but also from the federal government as far as additional items, especially knowing that the lake linkages that you have are critical and it's not just fragmented. Look at the Blue Ways maps, look at those connections and how much you can go from point A to point D without getting out, so to speak, and putting your kayak or canoe into another location. Public facilities, adding in the reference to the DWTS, which is consistent with the state statute. Coordination again with the state and the DEP as it relates to septic to sewer, which we've had a number of discussions with that. And then also a new policy regarding nutrient reductions and nutrient loading coming into those systems. Like I said, the one that may end up getting changed, of course, is the five-year capital improvements plan. Depends on what happens and then what direction the county takes at that point. Do we end up having to modify that document at the end of the day? Now, this is where we start getting very excited. We had a kickoff with staff literally last week to start the land development regulation update process. One of the goals and one of the items that was expressed early on was we don't wanna do the comprehensive plan and then kick off the code and we've got these gaps in between so that we are trailing behind or something like that. Can we look at a overlap between the comprehensive plan and the LDRs based off of board decisions and direction. And more importantly are there two or three, I'll call it, targeted items that we know need to be done sooner rather than the full update of the LDRs. Had a really great kickoff with, I mean, we pretty much had half this room filled. A lot of departments were here, a lot of departments we were talking to, so making sure that as we're talking through this portion of the process, one, they know who we are and what we're doing, and two, more so, what are they working on based off of board initiatives and direction so that those documents can kind of come together in a unified front at the end of the day. And that's where we have been maintaining and making that list of items coming out of the comprehensive plan that need to go into the LDRs. So that we've got that running list of this is coming out. It's going in here So again really good a great kickoff the other day with staff So we are starting to identify course that I'll call it like three core topics That we will be bringing back sooner rather than later as we're progressing of course with the rest of the land development regulations update and Commissioners, that is the end of our presentation this morning, and I know we have some questions and thoughts.

Okay, questions?

I've just got a... A couple of questions and maybe a suggestion. Earlier in your slides, I don't know about 15 or 20 minutes ago, you showed where you have talked to the cities about what their plans were and getting in coordination with them, correct? Yes, sir. Well, sometimes the legislature throws us curveballs that we're not expecting, and I'm assuming that it's your anticipation to go back to those cities, whether Amendment 3 passes or doesn't pass. Let's see if anything has changed in their playbook that would affect our playbook.

Absolutely, and I know that's where between Jennifer talking with her counterparts and Kathleen talking with her counterparts of getting the core group back together and going, okay, now what?

I think it's extremely important before we make any decisions to see where the cities are going to land within our comp plan because of what's going to happen. And the only other thing I've got to say is these comp plans happen every 30 years. I would like to see us look at and revise every 10 years, make it a policy every 10 years because Things change. Now, we don't just look at it and see if it's still compatible to what we have now. We don't have to do an in-depth thing of what we're doing here. But just to say, hey, does this still make sense or do we really need to revise this thing? That's just a suggestion.

And I'm not going to steal the chair chair persons or Commissioner Parks But you're actually required by statute to review it at least once every seven years Now you may come up and as a body go we're good based off of X Y & Z We don't need to make changes. But again, you're required to do that at least once every seven years we highly encourage especially as new legislation comes out or in this case a you know, the property tax referendum, that as those items come about, you kind of pull a little bit of almost like a work session and say, how does this affect what we're doing? The Ag Enclave is a great, you know, even if we weren't redoing the plan right now, you would really need to be looking at it from what does it affect for the rest of the comprehensive plan.

Yeah, I like that idea, too. In case you get this curveball, then we'll take it back and look at it. Yeah, that's good. Thank you.

Yeah, I was just going to point out to those seven-year updates that have been going on for a long time. But that's how we ended up with some of these different land use designations through the years that, well, back at this year, it was called this. And I think one was we had suburban at one point, and then that turned into rural transition. And then, you know, there... TIMELINESS, THERE WAS ALL KIND OF CRAZY THINGS THAT EXISTED AT ONE POINT IN TIME. BUT IT IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY THEN TO LOOK AT, OKAY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR DOES THAT NEED TO GET FIXED? SO THOSE THINGS ARE, THOSE UPDATES ARE GOOD OPPORTUNITIES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MORRIS, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? COMMISSIONER PARKS?

I'VE GOT A FEW COMMENTS. I'LL KEEP THEM ABBREVIATED, I PROMISE, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AGAIN IN NOVEMBER, AFTER NOVEMBER 3rd. already touched on the urban growth or the rural boundary allocate over allocation units direct growth inward water supply I think there should be a link there needs to be a check where there's some kind of analysis that ties development decisions to at least a body being aware of in this case it's us with our comp plan being aware of how what we might be changing or proposing to change or that applicant is is going to affect the water supply the water supply plans that are required by the water management districts now so I think that should directly be in the comp plan I know the comp plan is not supposed to be LDR or very super specific but there's probably a few things in there that I think could be rather specific that should be one as well as an economic analysis I think it would just be it would be helpful for us to know Again, a certain threshold, what the economic strain could be on in terms of how much service dollars outweigh that we're going to have to supply or the taxpayers in Lake County over a 20 year period to maintain those developments, the roads, how many times the fire, the police and fire are going to get called out on average to that area, to that development. We, I think we should know that in an economic, some kind of an economic analysis, a number to help us with decision making. Internal way to capture, I think that should be in the comp plan. Our development should encourage the reduction of number of trips. That's through mixed use and trip length as well for transportation. And then finally, when the development codes, I think you know what I'm, favor of certainly Euclidean zoning is failing us in this county miserably I think our current codes form based hybrid codes would be appropriate that shouldn't I know it's a little scary a lot of that can be in rural areas that's why I think the rule line is very important not much of that's going to really apply in that area but maybe inward and where we're trying to promote the growth it would apply and then finally when it comes to economic back to the economic analysis certainly promoting for targeted industries creating an extra easy path for those targeted industries to navigate the comp plan process and then the code process as well so that it's it's an encouragement to them to come to Lake County because that is at the end of the day the 70-30 split that you mentioned is a big deal too many people leaving the county So I would like every incentive possible for those businesses that we're targeting to be in Lake County. So very broad. I know we're going to get to it later this year. Those are just my comments for now.

I'd just like to bring up the issue about the rural boundary line. I personally think that the rural land uses, where they are right now, there should be a dark green line in those locations. And considering that in most instances, unless somebody is completely innovative and they come in with a water and sewer concept and it fits everything that we have in mind as far as job creation and so forth, I know we have to go through this exercise, but the reality is that some of these land uses we're talking about, these are land uses that really should be city land uses. And if that boundary line is there, then all of this should be happening internal to the cities. So I just don't want to give the misconception that these changes we're making I don't want to minimize the fact that we have to do it. We have to go through this. But the reality is the economic development, the shifting of residential to more economic uses and all, that really should be happening in the municipalities. And that dark green line should stay intact. And if that were to happen, we, I think, would be able to protect those parts of Lake County that need to stay green, open space, rural and rural lifestyles.

But we do have some urban parts of the county. Like Wellness Way, Wolf Branch, yeah.

We do, but they're already there. They're already designated. So if we call them something else, that's one thing. We've got a good plan for this. And if we address what's happening in them with good land development regulations, that's where we really make our impact. But we're not looking at expanding any areas and creating more of those urban locations.

No, I get it. There's just this misconception that counties should only be rural, and that's not true. And generally speaking, I totally agree with you. It's just that, in reality, as close as we are to... the metropolis of Orlando, we are going to have urban parts.

But they're already on our map is my point. They're already there. We're not asking to add more of those locations. I think that's just super important for people to know. We're not trying to add more of those locations. They exist already on the map. The fact that they're there means that we should have better regulations because our regulations, frankly, are all over the place and they don't line up with the comp plan and we're trying to fix that. But we're not trying to add more urbanized areas, and I think that's really important. We're just trying to have better land development regulations at the end of the day and make everything consistent. And I really, you know, as far as the intergovernmental coordination, to me the biggest, most glaring issue that we need to address, and I don't know that we can do this in the comp plan, but we should at least aspire to do it, and then we should then do it through intergovernmental coordination or agreements, which we have been working on for the last several years. But it's this connectivity to roads that are county roads, county maintained roads, and the fact that if they're going to expand and they're going to annex lands on county roads, we have to have a level of control to say, No, unless it meets certain standards, which include contributions to enhance those roads and bring them up to the standards that they need to be. So to me, that would be one of the most important things we could accomplish in this comp plan combined with interlocal agreements is a way to make sure that those county roads are getting addressed by the cities that want to expand on them.

because we can't stop the city from expanding but maybe we can use that as our leverage to say if you're going to expand then you got to fix this road and bring it up to standards yeah i couldn't agree more and then one last thing i failed to mention that i would like to see pointed out in this in this plan is is the property right personal property rights protection it's also it's not just the person whose land that is being sold but it's the surrounding property rights as well so We need to take in consideration that. And it needs to be addressed in the comp plan so people of Lake County know that the commission is well aware of the property rights issues, not only of the person selling the land, but the people around it.

I'm glad you touched on the family density exemption for family lot splits. I do think that's one of those areas that has been abused, and we've got to get it fixed. Yeah.

Okay. I got lots of comments. All right.

And then as far as the letter that we received from Lake 100, I mean, is there action we would have to take at this point in order to honor that request? The request is to not... I'm not sure I'm clear on what the actual request was.

Do you need a motion to extend the timeline?

Correct. You just need to approve the revised timeline as presented by Mr. Klepper.

Okay. And that would address what they requested as well.

He's going to put it up real quick.

Move approval. You'll beat me to the second before I get to that slide. Nobody second it until we see it.

And Madam Chairman, while he's pulling up the timeline, the other thing we want confirmation for is that the board is okay with us going ahead and doing a reorganized, clean version instead of continuing to work off a massive, strikethrough, underlined document that's very difficult to read. Yes.

I think everybody's in agreement on that.

If that's in your motion, I'll second it. But maybe look at the changes here. Just how long are you extending the time frame? That's, I guess, what we need.

five months okay yeah all right that's i just wanted to make sure i understood that i seconded with the understanding that you're going to do the clean copy so transmittal would be sometime january april yeah okay we wanted to give enough flexibility for this body we didn't want to come i can go hey we're going to be your second meeting in january

yeah no and we got to get it right so i would like to see his timeline not say september but um november to january for your uh revised and final finalized draft because we won't know anything until after november 3rd and if you have september

i will say that there's comments that we're currently working through uh with the county attorney i'll say some of those baseline cleanups that will not be impacted of course by amendment three so go ahead and getting all of that information done as we're talking they're still we know the the you know the rec that regional employment center and some of those things especially coordination with uh the lake i'll say that the economic development stakeholders and some of these other things will still be sitting there when we get past November into December. So, again, some of this is cleanup. Some of it is addressing questions. Some of it is reorganization. We need to continue to move forward with those items. Otherwise, we will be beyond April if we're not careful.

I'm just kind of concerned about your December timeline for the finalized draft. I mean, it's only going to give you almost two months.

Three, five days.

I don't think it's enough time if things are strategically more than what you anticipate. So would it be better to have this timeline in January?

That's...

I mean, I know it just seemed like semantics, but...

I think they're working on alternate.

Right, but it says finalized draft by end of December and transmit in January. January to April. Correct, but the finalized draft is December. Let's give them another month. making january twenty nine understanding though your thought is this is because of the memory yeah and it gives me time sample of something in the comp plan that would change as a result of the memory well it would if the memory three passes in the cities have got to come up with how they're going to find something which may completely change tdr designations and may you may change the whole thing i don't know i don't know what the cities are going to think i'm just trying to give these guys an extra 30 days to have something valid to bring back as a finalized draft because right now i'm going to be expecting this finalized draft at the end of december

Yeah, I mean I'm just not understanding even with amendment 3 like what a city would ask to be changed in our comp plan To accommodate something that they all of a sudden within two to three weeks come up with this great idea that they're going to increase their densities to 25 or 30 units per acre and therefore they need us to change something it just is not making sense to me that you would that would change our comp plan schedule.

So what's not making sense to them is we're not willing to give an extra 30 days in case something erroneous happens. That makes no sense to me.

Again, we're here at the discretion of the board, period. If I can't satisfy these two young ladies plus Kathleen she's gonna be we're gonna be providing an update saying hey by the way this this is what we've heard and Again, this is generalized time frame and schedule trying to at least put something out there to say this is the expectation We will know fairly soon after the I'll say amendment 3 whether or not again some of this is Realistic or not, but to echo what you said madam chair. I mean, there's there's little to Besides the capital improvements plan, there's not a lot that may get changed as part of some of this. We're not gonna change our densities, we're not gonna change our land use allocations, we're not going to change connectivity and safe streets for all and those kinds of items. So again, I think the majority of it's going to be, I'll say, on the capital side of the policies. Personally.

I don't have a problem with another month. I mean, if you feel more comfortable with that. I mean, we've got to win. When is the due date that we have to transmit by?

You need this adopted by, Kathleen, remind me, October, September, October of 27? Or March?

We have an extension right now with the state to November of this year. We'll be sending an update to let them know we're gonna extend out. We'll probably extend it out for another 12 months, I think we talked about, just to make sure we're on the safe side. Again, the important thing is to get this correct when it goes and to be able to defend it to the state for adoption. will extend that out to next november and and notify the state of that so we have time we'd like to be able to publish this in a final format on the website to the public to the economic stakeholder group you know to everyone for a thirty day period to be able to get those comments back before we even bring it forward to planning and zoning for the first uh... public hearing so we've got some time and flexibility built in and i would say if there's policies that we need no matter what happens in november for economic diversity then we need those policies in here no matter what happens on november with amendment three because we need the diversity the capital improvement plan certainly may be subject to change. But if there's goals, policies, and objectives that this board thinks that we're missing, definitely we want to get those in there for the economic resiliency that we kind of bake into this plan.

So you're comfortable with the December deadline?

I think that the January to April transmittal hearing is flexible because we're looking at quarter one of 27. If we get to January and we're not ready to publish a final draft and we say, hey, we need till May, then we'll be happy to bring it back. If you want to extend that to January to May of 27, I think that gives us flexibility.

So move April to May, and then that gives you that added time that you want.

It's not a big deal, in other words. Right. All right, so motions on the table.

So I can change the motion if you'd like me to. Instead of April, January to May 2027.

OK, and your motion also included getting rid of the red lines and doing a clean version.

Right.

OK. We have a second. Okay. All right. Very good. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Appreciate the update. All right. Moving along then to public hearings. This is tab 21. And Jamie Stewart, Office of Management and Budget Director, will present on infrastructure sales tax.

Hello, Jamie Stewart, Office of Management and Budget Director. For the record, good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I have your infrastructure sales tax presentation today, which is going to be going over the proposed five-year projection for revenue, as well as the five-year plan by category, followed by the public hearing and requested action. The revenue projections this year do include $1.3 million in carry forward from the fiscal year 2026. The totals by category per year in the five-year plan are public safety for fiscal year 2027 is 7.2 million. Quality of life is 6.6 million. Public works is 8.7 million. Other public infrastructure is 1.1 million and the debt service is 2.2 million for a total this year of 26.1 million. The aggregate total is $139 million. We do have the five-year public safety plan review, which does include your fire apparatus vehicles and equipment of $1.8 million, the fire and EMS station renovations of $1.5 million, the sheriff vehicles and equipment for $1.5 million, the medical transport vehicles and equipment at $1.1 million, It also includes your public safety support tower and equipment projects as well as the ECOC generator and UPS system upgrades. For fiscal year 2027, it totals $7.2 million and the aggregate total is $45.2 million. For the quality of life projects, we have included here your Southlake Regional Park for 1.8 million, the Golden Triangle at 1.5, the Eastlake Sports and Community Complex improvements at 1 million, as well as various other park improvements for fiscal year 2027, total 6.6 million, and the aggregate total at 36.1 million. Next, we have our other public works. Those projects include the FDOT grant match, the resurfacing and road improvements, as well as the intersection improvements, bridge reconstruction, landfill renovation, solid work and, apologies, solid waste equipment, as well as others. So total 8.7 for the fiscal year 2027 and the aggregate total of 41.3 million. We have our other public infrastructure projects that include the capital building construction and renovations for 1 million, IT enhancements at 125,000, and that includes the fiscal year 2027 at 1.1 million, and our aggregate total is 6.6 million. The five-year plan for debt service includes the road resurfacing debt of $868,000, the animal shelter, Debt, which is 620,000 in your public safety radios is 1.3 million. As you can see here, the bottom line is the revenue from the municipalities, their portion. So the total debt for fiscal year 2027 is 2.2 million and our aggregate total is $9.8 million. I'm gonna open it back for Madam Chair for the public hearing.

All right, so this is a public hearing. I don't have any cards on this particular item. I'm bringing it back to the board. Can you go back to the list and the beginning, the beginning list? That's the beginning list. So we've got the public safety, quality of life, public works, other public infrastructure, and then debt service.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. And then if you can move to the next slide. Let's move to the quality of life. Okay. All right. Anybody else want to look at any particular slides or have a discussion about reprioritizing where funds are allocated?

I mean, the discussion with the penny sales tax for roads, which is a great discussion. I mean, until the formula changes, which we'll look at in a couple years with renewal, there could be significant changes there as well, but we are allocating out of this for roads too.

Yeah, and I know when this was initially adopted, we had a lot of public meetings, a lot of public input, and what we received was sort of a wide variety of people who had priorities. They wanted roads addressed. They wanted public safety addressed. They wanted quality of life projects addressed. We kind of have achieved that by spreading it across the board up until this point, and I thought maybe today we were going to go in a different direction, and maybe you wanted to re-look at the quality of life projects and reallocate everything to transportation.

Not yet. Okay.

All right. It might fix itself in November. We don't know.

Okay, so we don't have any cards. We would just need a motion to approve. Okay, we have a motion, a first, and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the next item is tab 22. If we could just take like five to ten minutes, make sure that we're back no later than quarter till, and then we'll restart. Thank you.

Five or 10?

All right, the next item is tab 22, and I will call on Melanie Marsh, the county attorney.

this will be an ordinance the board of county commissioners lake county florida amending sections 308 00 and 30104 subsection 10 lake county code appendix c lane development regulations entitled cemeteries providing for administrative rezoning or lane use approval in accordance with section 261 21 florida statutes providing for severability providing for inclusion of the code providing for filing with department of state providing for an effective date we choose to approve this today become ordinance 2026-37 and these are changes that are required by state law

Okay. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak on tab 22? I don't see anyone online. I don't have any cards. Bringing it back to the board. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That passes unanimously. Moving then to tab 23.

This will be an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, amending section 140901, Lake County Code, Appendix E, land development regulations, entitled site plans, simplifying application requirements, clarifying applicability of requirements for major and minor site plan review, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for filing with Department of State, and providing for an effective date. If you choose to approve this today, I become ordinance 2026-38. And this is just making minor changes so that people understand what qualifies as a minor site plan versus a major site plan.

Is that correct? to open the public hearing all right this is a public hearing and i don't see anyone online i don't have any cards i'll bring it back to the board i'll recognize the motion to approve do we have a second second all right all in favor say aye aye any opposed that passes unanimously moving then to tab 24

This will be an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, amending Chapter 17, Lake County Code, Appendix E, Lane Development Regulations, entitled Rural Conservation Subdivision Design Standards, clarifying certain provisions and requirements, refining the approval process, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for an effective date. We choose to approve this today and become Ordinance 2026-39. You talked about this at a previous meeting. The request was to bring back some language to replace... Density bonuses, currently you have density bonuses for open space and public space. Commissioner Parks had requested that we replace that with density bonuses using TDRs. We do have that language available if we can pull that up on the screen. Affectionately call this the purple version since this is a color-coded ordinance with the amount of changes we've made to it But again, you can accept this you can leave it as is you can remove density bonuses Altogether, whatever is the board's preference?

Okay, all right we do have one card on This item. This is Catherine de Jong. I

Good morning. Catherine DeYoung speaking here as a private resident or citizen. I do have a couple concerns about the addition of the TDRs. I feel in light of all the comp plan language that's going to be encompassing TDRs that I think adding it now and approving it now is perhaps premature. I feel that TDRs will allow an avenue for increased density in these rural conservation areas. The areas that we talked about are limited. We don't have an abundance of rural areas set aside. And I think allowing for... TDRs to be used in some of these areas allows for a second avenue of increasing density. For example, the commissioners have the discretion to allow award density bonuses. Now we have these TDRs and they're going into an area that is supposed to be, the purpose is a conservation subdivision and it's just going to increase density in an area that we're trying to limit density. And the prop who profits from this well obviously the developers because they can build more homes and then more tax dollars can be You know received through having additional homes but who ends up ultimately paying the biggest price for having more homes and is the taxpayers because the additional infrastructure that we need to have in place to support these these increases and TDRs are a hot topic. They're coming up in this new comp plan. And I feel that until it's finalized that we perhaps should table this because I know we've put a lot of time into this, but I don't think we should use the excuse that a lot of time has been invested in this just to push it through. We've got one shot to do this right and through compromise. I think residents are quite frustrated with the traffic and the increase in building and a good compromise and a way to balance what we want and what will come inevitably is to listen and just hold off until we know what's going to happen with the comp plan. I think that's about it. Just that our priority is to our county and our residents. We have to stay within the guidelines of what is in our comp plan and what's in the law. But these investors that come in from other places, they don't live here. And our loyalty shouldn't be to them. It should be to the people who live here. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right, bringing it back to the board discussion.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. And obviously, I'm completely supportive of the language that's in purple. Just keeping in mind, again, this is an optional code. Not just the density, the bonuses that you see there, but this code for conservation subdivision is optional. Until we change our codes, if that If a conservation subdivision was a requirement which I'm supportive of, then I would say take that out. But there's no incentive for anybody to use or much less of an incentive for them to do a conservation subdivision. And keep in mind, this is not adding density. This is moving it from one part of the county to the other. Nobody can say that this would encourage increased density. This is moving it from, which as we had said earlier, is a problem. We're over allocated. And again, it's optional. So I'm in full support of keeping it in there now. It will change, you're right. There'll be some changes to TDR codes and through the comp plan and things like that. But I mean, I just, you know, I don't, I think this is actually, I think it's actually good policy for conservation at this point. So it limits it, it ratchets it down. It's 10% again, but it's not adding a density. It's moving density around. And you have to have some kind of incentive right now until we change your code, which as I said before, our codes are not good. But that conservation subdivision is optional. And it'll be very optional. To be sarcastic, it'll be very optional unless there's any kind of incentive. I doubt we'll see it again.

I have a question for the attorney. Currently, we have this rural protection. We have this in our code currently, correct? This is a change to our code?

Correct. Rural conservation subdivision is already in the code.

Correct. So we already have rural conservations in our code, and it allows densities that I don't like at all. And the TDR, we don't know where the TDR things are. I'm okay with approving this now, but I don't think we should have any density bonuses personally in a rural conservation area. But I do know that we've got to do something different than what is currently on the books today. And if this is the best that we can get for today, I'm okay with it.

So question on where rural conservation design subdivisions are allowed to occur. Is it the rural transition area and the rural area? Are those the two land uses?

I believe they're allowed in all other than urban.

Yeah, I think so too, and it's optional.

Correct, it's optional. Because if you look at what's in the existing code, there's minimum required open space, and it lists your rural transition, Ferndale, Wekiva River Protection Area, the other RPAs, and Green Swamp. So pretty much everything other than urban.

And then in each of the land juices, you could cluster and create your own version of a rural conservation design, couldn't you?

Yeah, the clustering is part of that.

Yeah. I mean, you could do that anyway.

Yeah, you could do that. Yeah, again, but what's being set up is that so to use the conservation subdivision isn't optional. So you talk about track home builders. What incentive would there be for them to do that if they're just going to go through straight zoning and our lack of good code? So that's the idea.

The problem is, though, you're incentivizing them by giving them more lots. And therein lies the problem.

You are, but it's moving from the total overallocation that we have. It's debiting that tab is what's the benefit out of this. Otherwise, if we make the conservation subdivision criteria mandatory, which I'm okay with, which we'll get to when we change our codes, then we can certainly take that out or do some other TDR program.

I'd rather address it later down the road and potentially make it mandatory in certain instances, but I wouldn't want in this gap to be incentivizing adding densities as a result of using the conservation design subdivision. I mean, from me personally, I feel like it was used in my district, the only time it's actually been used, and it's opened the door for a project I don't think should ever have happened. And so I just have a bad feeling about conservation subdivision design. And so I'm not going to support adding. I understand what you're trying to do in concept, in theory. But in practice right now, I'm not comfortable with it.

So the only issue I have, and correct me if I'm wrong, Melanie, is today they can continue doing this with their current what's on the book density bonuses today.

Correct.

So this would change the density bonuses to a TDR system at a future date, correct?

Yes, if you approve the purple link.

And that's the reason, Chairwoman, that's the reason why I like this is because today they can have a lot of more homes than if we didn't approve this today. This is actually reducing the amount of homes that they could have. Because this plan is already in place using old density bonuses this would add This would take away the old density bonuses and change them into a TDR system Which is be pushed outside of the rural protection areas.

Yes I thought we eliminated density bonuses when we were doing the rural conservation design. I thought that when we were

So it was in a previous draft and at some point with board discussion, the density bonuses were left in because we've been talking, we've been working on this ordinance for many, many months and there's been many renditions of it, which is why we're color coded. So, but the last discussion that we have with the board is that the density bonuses would stay in and then pending somebody adding it to a motion to remove it entirely.

So that's why it's currently still in the code and still in this this document Okay, so I will pass the gavel and I will make a motion that We remove the language in the rural conservation design LDR and get rid of density bonuses second Okay, is there any other discussion I will say that I'm still so completely supportive of the the language here that's in purple again

Nobody's going to use the code. Nobody's going to go to the conservation, the 50% open space. So I view it as a step backwards in what we're trying to do with growth management.

I disagree with that, because we had the same situation down in Howie not but a month ago to where they were wanting density bonuses or they weren't going to build. We denied them the density bonuses, and they're still building with what they're allowed. So like I said previously during this discussion, I didn't like the density bonuses to begin with, and that this was the only way to stop them. those what's currently on the books, but we have a motion to remove density bonuses completely. I am in 100% favor of that.

All right, so I'll just ask the question then. So how do you address the over allocation that we have in the county then?

How do I address the over allocation?

How are we going to? We, not you personally, but how would we? And maybe this is a broader question outside of this motion, but how should we address the over allocation And with the current codes, well, we have like some ungodly amount of extra residential density approved in the county, right? Well, if it's one to one, then it's one to one.

No matter how you design it, it's one to one. If it's one to five, it's one to five. No matter how you design it, it's one to five. It's what the builder wants to do. This rural protection or this rural conservation subdivision design standard does not change the densities of the land. You still have to abide by the one-to-one. It just makes it where you can squish it in together.

But this conservation criteria requires, if they use it, would require much more open space than our straight zoning requires.

Which is a more beautiful... A place for people to live and if you want to live in Lake County, that's one of the bonuses you get right right.

But if they go through the straight zoning there that like we see like for instance down in South Lake recently with a particular zoning case, there's no. There will be no incentive for that. So.

But I do think Commissioner Smith made a point of the situation in Howey. They went forward and they continued to do it. It worked for them, that location, and they used that design. I'm in favor of, in the future, creating a way to incentivize it, but I don't want to incentivize it by adding density.

Yeah, I'm not sure with the one in Howey if they got, because there was a reduction in the density on that, that everything that they proposed to do originally was going to be prepared, but are going to actually be done, like the road and all that. I think that because that density went down, I think there was some lessening of the requirements on that. So anyway, any other discussion? OK, so the motion would be to, I don't, I mean, I guess the motion is to just remove the density bonuses entirely.

That's correct. That is the current motion.

Okay, and then what about the rest of the code? Is that the change?

You'll need a second motion for that if you want to finish up the density bonus.

Okay, so all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Okay, so we'll take the second motion, which is we'll need a second motion to adopt the rest of the code.

Yes, to adopt the remaining changes, the red, green, and blue changes.

Second, any final discussion on that? Obviously, I'll be voting no on that as well. All those in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Opposed. All right.

What's that?

Okay. All right. And moving along, then, to this is tab 25. This one, we've got...

three speaker cards we'll see if we don't have anybody online at this point um and i'll turn this over to the county attorney so this will be an ordinance the board of county commissioners of lake county florida establishing a temporary moratorium for the construction or expansion of and for the issuance of building permits development orders or rezoning of property for data center facilities within the unincorporated areas of lake county providing for repeal of conflicting provisions providing for severability providing for inclusion the code Providing for filing with Department of State, providing for an effective date. This is first reading only. There is also an errata sheet that adds an additional exception to the definition of data centers. This ordinance is based on a version that Commissioner Sabatini brought forward from Citrus County, which did not include any exceptions. So you do have that errata sheet with an additional exception requested by Comcast. So if you approve it today, it'll come back for second reading in September.

Okay, all right, let's, we'll take our speaker cards. Rick Carlins.

Hello, Rick Carlins. I'm a Fruitland Park resident in Pixiola Island. And I guess I have a couple of questions that I'd like answered after the fact. One is how long the moratorium is that you're looking for for that? And the other question about restrictions, you know, I would like to know a little bit more about that. But the, I am in, you know, I'm in favor of moratorium on the data centers just overall and I would like to see more of a permanent ban on data centers. And the reason that I'm saying that is data centers are, you might say, you know, that they're collecting our information right now in many different ways, you know, cell phones, emails and credit card information, a lot of things that you're doing. and so why do they need these data centers they're just gathering all that information the data centers are analytical uh you know they they are they're actually doing you might say reasoning you know they're doing predictive behavior um and i don't that's just no way to live in you know under our constitution in a in a in a liberty loving uh you know freedom loving country I don't want my every move monitored. I don't want people to be logging information on absolutely everything that I buy. My phone conversations, as I said, emails, and who knows what else, because the cars that they're making today, they are going to be able to shut them down. Now who is they? I don't know. But whoever they are, are gathering this information for the data centers. And even though it could be used for good, then why do they need my personal information if it's just going to be used for good? You know, and this is what the LPRs, the license plate readers, the flock cameras, all this information that everybody is gathering, they know where you travel. You know, this is the data centers are necessary in order for, them to you know the people that the government the bureaucracies to be able to monitor and watch what it is that you do and you know we are going to It's just I don't know. It's like if you look at lawfare, you know, it's they it's you're you're going to have to behave a certain way in order to not be harassed it's just data centers are And so what I'm gonna say is you might say that they already have, if I'm correct, they're already getting all this information anyway, but the thing is I don't want them to have, I don't wanna comply. This is the only way that I know right now how not to comply is to say I don't want data centers in my county. I don't want any restrictions. And so that's really, that's all that I have to say. If you could answer those two questions that I had, how long and what restrictions.

Melanie, can you help us with that on the? So the terms of the ordinance would be a 12 month moratorium or not to exceed 12 month moratorium and it requires the board if you impose the moratorium to then engage in a study and evaluation period. There's six different items that would need to be studied and then brought back and then at that point the board would determine what regulations would be imposed, if any, or how you would want to handle it at that point.

Okay, so that answers your questions on... Yeah, thank you. Okay. It does. I did want to ask, since it was brought up about the limitations, we know from our presentation that we received from the UCF professor Like the college has a data center. Our dispatch center has a data center. So it's like, is there something that designates that, yes, there are places where you have a certain amount of computer systems that are, I mean, hospitals have data.

It's pretty well defined in the ordinance.

But you're saying that our proposed ordinance today...

If I could, I mean, she did a great job, Melody did a great job on it, because it defines the, what we call, I mean, it's all data centers, right? Everything has to do with data, it's a data center. These are the large load data centers that have to do with external data processing and storage versus a company like a telephone company, telecoms company that has technology that could be defined as a data center that's purely internal and only has to do with them communicating amongst their own people and apparatus. And so I think we've done a good job with that. Nobody else has bifurcated it in that way. So thank you.

So yeah, I wanted to confirm for the benefit of the public that we've excluded those types of operations that are related, for example, to a hospital or to Duke Energy or to any organization that has a certain amount of data that they have to have access to and process.

And that's correct. Again, there will be four exceptions to that definition because you do not want to exclude the county from having our server system or our EOC or hospitals. So those are all defined in that exception part of the ordinance.

Okay. And then over the next 12 months, we would be studying if there's somewhere in between what's considered large load and what we excluded, is there something in between that – we would create some criteria, but we don't know that until we use this 12-month period to do our studies and our research and collect information, maybe visit locations or any of that. So that just gives us a 12-month pause to work on that. Okay, all right. Commissioner Parks.

Yeah, I'll ask the question of, Um, why couldn't, why couldn't, um, above that the threat, the exceptions that are in the four that you listed, right? That was four exceptions.

Correct.

How easy would it be for us? Like you've read at this moment to say anything above that would come to the commission for a conditional use permit. That way we could weigh every single concern, water, energy on a case by case basis.

So what you could do if you move this to second reading and adopted at second reading, in between that, I could work with the planning staff to amend the zoning matrix to add data centers as a category as a conditional use in whichever appropriate zonings it would be. That ordinance, of course, would have to track separately because it would have to go to the planning and zoning board and then come back to you additionally for two hearings. So it's just a timing if you wanted to go ahead and this would get adopted first before we would be able to get that back to you.

I support Commissioner Park's idea, but I would say let's just, why don't we create the moratorium and then broaden it from that point, because if we do pause, then it goes to P&Z, and then, of course, we're at another six-week cycle. Well, how quickly could you do that?

Well, it would not go to P&Z until October, and that would be getting it drafted in the next week in order to get it reviewed and advertised on time, which means it would not come back to you until November, December timeframe, depending on how your meetings fall.

Yes, so I think Commissioner Sabatini's point is if you adopt the moratorium, the moratorium's there, but you can go back and revisit at any time in that 12-month period if you decide, okay, let's do a conditional use permit, but these would be the criteria that we would use for a conditional use permit. So you at least get something in place, so you're saying don't even bring it in right now because we're not ready to even consider it. We want to just be on the safe side.

There's negatives to this also. So do you want to hear them now, or do you want to?

Well, let's get two more speaker cards, and then let's come back to that. Okay, so T. Scott Walker, and then after T. Scott, then Carol Donnis.

All right. Good morning, all. Still morning. A bit. T. Scott Walker. I'm from Precinct 105, District 1, Lake County resident. And some of my questions were answered already about the time period on the moratorium. But myself and my constituents are very concerned about reviewing and taking caution and observing. My other question would be, how do we control what the data center will gather? How do we control what the data centers will gather? I mean, you've got the flocking thing, you've got all these different things. And then my other comment would be we're hearing a lot of things in the media. In fact, even Jensen Hahn of NVIDIA made comment that ChatGPT had banned accounts that were created by the Chinese to stir up the public against data centers. So my concern and my constituents just want to make sure we do the review. I think you're all on the right track. I just want to support it from the public that the temporary moratorium would be an advantage for us to review everything and work through it so we can continue to discuss it in the future. That's my comments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And Carol? Is Carol still here? It doesn't look like it. No Carol in the audience. Okay, all right, then we'll bring it back to the board. And Commissioner Morris, you had some comments?

Well, there's good and bad in everything that we make a decision on. But you need to know the negative side of this is it's going to be an economic impact if we do this. The people that come in to do site selections for large corporations will not even consider any county that has moratoriums. It doesn't matter what moratorium.

What's your evidence for that?

I'm sorry?

What's your evidence for that?

LEED. LEED has it.

Okay. Do they have a representative here?

No, they don't.

Okay.

I'm just telling you, having a conversation with site selections, if you have a moratorium, you're not considered.

For anything or for a data center?

They made the statement that if you have a moratorium, site selections cross you off the list.

For data centers.

Everything.

Anything. Moratoriums.

I respect you taking the stance of skepticism towards this, but you do understand that's a very heavy claim. And I would love the opportunity to cross-examine someone who made such a claim considering the— I'd file a lawsuit if I were you.

That seems pretty standard for you now, doesn't it, Anthony?

All right. Let's just go back.

So anyway, there is an economic impact to this. I'm not saying that I'm for or against it. I'm just telling there is a negative impact to this.

And I would just add. That's it.

I hear you.

So. This whole, to me, this whole thing came up with the consumption of power and the consumption of water that a data center and the noise that a data center uses. What's a data center? There's no definition, really, of what this moratorium is going to do other than we're going to do a moratorium on data centers. OK. So I have one little spot that has three servers that doesn't take any water. and uses very minimal power, but now I can't start a business because it's a data center and I want to do weather tracking. I want to track hurricanes coming through or severe weather. So the problem I have with this moratorium is there's no definition of a data center. Now, if you said data centers that are using 50,000 kilowatts or more and using more water than blank, i don't know five hundred thousand gallons a month if we had specific criteria for a data center that we were doing a moratorium on i'd be in favor of it but just to say i want a moratorium on a data center i can't support that because there's no definition everybody has a different idea of what a data center is when you say data center everybody's thinking These five-story buildings with lights all over. Well, that's not a data center. Data center could be two servers in a room. If you think about it, anything that holds data could be considered a data center, and that's the problem I have. There's no definition. in this ordinance or in this moratorium request about what a data center is. Now, if you want to add specific noise requirements, you can't go over this many power consumption. You can't do this much water consumption. Anything over that will stop. I'll consider that. But the way it's written now, I can't consider it because there's no definition of a data center.

Can we go to the ordinance itself? What were the four exemptions that we... Yeah, can you put that up on the screen?

Data centers that are internal. I'm happy to have the attorney read it, but it's all right. Yeah, I'd be more than happy to read it. I got it highlighted. Right, so pretty substantive definitions.

Yeah, I don't mind to read it just for those that don't have a copy of the ordinance. So what would be exempt from this would be data centers, server rooms, computer rooms, or information technology facilities owned or operated by a business governmental agency Educational institution, healthcare provider, or nonprofit organization for the primary purpose of supporting the entity's internal operations, information systems, cybersecurity communications, business applications, or data storage. That's one. The second exemption would be facilities used primarily to host enterprise information technology infrastructure, cloud services dedicated to a single organization, disaster recovery, backup operations, or routine business computing. The third one would be incidental or ancillary artificial intelligence applications that support the operations of the owner or operator and are not offered as commercial artificial intelligence computing services to third parties. And then the errata sheet. would add a structure, facility, or use shall not be deemed or classified as a data center where its primary purpose is the provision of communications or telecommunication services, including but not limited to wireline, wireless, broadband, fiber object, internet, or network connection services, or the operation of emergency communications infrastructure. Such facilities shall not be subject to the zoning, siting, permitting, or operational restrictions imposed by this moratorium on data centers, provided that the facility is not designed, constructed, or operated for large scale computational processing artificial intelligence model training or inference cloud computing or commercial data storage services so i think your little business that you described could be fine so no can you go to definition section 4.1 and read that definition of a data center So the basic definition is data center facilities and data centers utilities is a building, a dedicated space within a building or a group of buildings housing computer systems and associated components such as telecommunication and data processing systems to be used for remote storage processing or distribution of large amounts of data. Examples of data include but are not limited to computational intensive applications such as cryptocurrency mining, artificial intelligence computing, weather modeling, genome sequencing application hosting cloud storage video and technical streaming services etc such facilities may include air handlers power generators water cooling and storage facilities utility substations and other infrastructure to support operations but then you have number two and it says notwithstanding the foregoing the following shall be exempt so basically everything that was just mentioned there as long as

fits into that right then you could probably do a business that if your business is just weather modeling you could do that but what you can't do is this whole data center thing came up because of the of the environmental impact the power and the water

None of that is mentioned in this ordinance.

Not one bit is mentioned as a cap or a starting point, and that's the problem I have.

When we do the permanent ban, we can include those components. This is just the moratorium. I'm kidding. The truth of the matter is these carve-outs were very intelligently discussed. Every stakeholder came to the table. Lobbyists and folks working for the Comcast and all these companies reached out and said any of the infrastructure they already have, which no one has any issues with because they're not outward facing to third parties, their economic model is not to be a storage unit for large emerging parts of the economy, but instead they're associated with, for example, a utility company. are spoken to in this. And you don't have to expressly invoke those specific terms to have an ordinance that deals with those terms. It's not modeled purely on that, but it completely and totally protects the things you just mentioned by casting a broad net and then having a carve-out section that focuses on Types of computing that no one has any issue with so I think it's a great ordinance. I think it's the best in the state I looked at four or five other counties and cities and this one is very streamlined and thoughtful and I think all the other counties that are considered will be looking at our model ordinance now and

In fact, back to the impacts, though, can I just add the things that you talked about, the things that we're concerned about as residents of Lake County where we don't want to have vibrations, we don't want to have a strain on our water resources, we don't want to have the lights, the noise, and all that, and that big draw out of the... grid or even and what we learned the other day is that we might not even have that capability anyway if somebody wanted to put one here but the reality is that that's what the 12 months is for is to figure out okay what would be the maximum limit that would be acceptable what would be the maximum amount that you could allow and what types of things could be put in as conditions that would address water all those things so that that is the concept behind having a moratorium is that

So who would do that for us? Who would come up with those numbers? Melanie.

I believe the state already has numbers out there. The other question is, I think the state already has a criteria of what they consider high usage, and we could use that criteria. in this ordinance but it's not in here so i can't approve it like you know high usage you would think that if someone uses i don't know 75 000 gallons of water a month is that high usage well i know they whatever they defined in that statute i mean turned it over to the water management district a month of water would you consider that high usage

It's very relative. I know golf courses and other types of uses are way higher than people think. But what I would say is this is a starting point. This pauses things.

75,000 gallons a month.

But what this does is it pauses things, and then all the great, thoughtful ideas you're throwing out right now can be incorporated into some more permanent ordinance. So I would move to that.

Let me ask the county commissioner or county attorney. If an AI center came in today and wanted to – build in Lake County, would they have to come to us for the ability to do that? Would we have the say-so of yes or no?

I mean, depending on the zoning district, I would say probably not, because they're probably going to go to an industrial zoning district, which is a straight zoning.

Yeah, and that's one of my, goes to what I propose, and that is, I think it is a great ordinance for a moratorium. You do have the four exceptions. So I would propose that you could just right now, within two months, you could do a conditional use requirement for anything above that's not in those exceptions. And there is some flexibility with it evolving, because I'm going to go see a bunch of data centers in October and explore the subject a little more on site. With that approach, I think you could, as the more information comes out, this is new, next year, two years down the road, if you have the CUP requirement, then you can adjust at that point. You don't have to go back and change codes. You're gonna have new data on data centers, no pun intended, that might influence that particular individual case that's coming in front of the county commission above those. So I think in that approach, you could actually get more protections.

But do you support a moratorium until your discussion, your idea can be actually written into a document proposed form?

I mean, I'm careful about moratorium. We've had discussions about moratoriums in the past. And there is a business connotation that can be very negative with that. So I wouldn't, I think. No, I think we could just move forward with having them do a conditional use requirement within a couple months.

But just so you understand, because now we're changing the topic, I'm moving to approve this. This is a moratorium on data centers today in Lake County. Your proposal, which is that you want a new ordinance several months from now that gives options for a future commission or this commission, some commissioners to potentially approve, is a completely separate, distinct ordinance that quite literally is totally adjacent. It's completely apart from this. This is a moratorium for data centers in Lake County today. So if you wanna propose adding on to another document, great, that's a great idea. But that means that's a no vote on a moratorium today. So I thought this would be a 5-0 vote, actually. on creating a moratorium today as all the ideas from three or four commissioners all of which have been interesting ideas and they've all been thrown out, can be incorporated into the permanent ordinance that comes after a temporary moratorium. But why would we pause on a temporary moratorium today to protect Lake County today in conjunction with the super majority of people who don't want data centers here because we have nifty ideas about what an ordinance should look like months from now in the future

Is beyond me so I I stand by that argument and take just add on to that and that would be that Industrial zoning in Lake County right now if you don't move forward with this moratorium means that you could get an application in for a data center in An industrial zoning right now, so if you're okay with that gap before you get your conditional use permit in place, then that's, if you don't vote for this today, then you're allowing that gap to remain.

Well, then why don't we do a two-month moratorium?

Yes, until they...

Well, let's just be completely real and politically pragmatic here. Two no votes seems like two yes votes, so it all comes down to you. You're more in favor of a 60-day moratorium than a 12-month moratorium. If that's what we're stuck with, I'll do it, but I don't want that.

I want a 12-month because I think that's a very humble— I'm more in favor of the conditional use because I think that's going to give us more protection, and I don't think it takes that long to do that.

Can I go back to Commissioner Campion's example of an industrial park? Well, if a data center goes into an industrial park, they're using no more water and they're using no more electric, which is the reason why this even came up. Why would we be concerned about that?

using no more water or electric, but we know that a data center does use, I mean, I'm not sure where you're going.

Not if they're in an industrial park. They wouldn't be, I mean, unless it's a three-phase industrial park, but those are far and few in between. I guess down there at Ford Commerce Center, you could have something what you're talking about, but But up here, like the one off of 561 would not be able to house a large data center that would have a big consumption in the city. Tavares couldn't. couldn't supply them with the water so I'm just kind of I'm just kind of concerned that there is no definition of a data center not one definition everyone out here has a different thing in their head of all the 20 or so more terms that are now in place some of which include state actual bands and that's just Florida obviously this is a national subject we have the most

articulately crafted set of definitions and bifurcations and exceptions and carve-outs and everything in the whole state. And that's not an accident. It's because they literally looked at all of them and incorporated every single element to make a reasonable ordinance that wasn't overbroad. And this is very humble. I would stand by the motion to make it 12 months. If Commissioner Parks wants two months before we craft it and add an extra component, then obviously I stand by the motion. If it goes down, I'm happy to make the motion for 60 days instead. Because I just think it makes sense to put this into place while all the good ideas from all these very intelligent commissioners can be incorporated into a final product here in a few months.

I think you said it. I want it. Right. I want it too. You want it also? No, that's what you said. I want it.

And you don't. That's fine. Both of us have our opinions.

I don't understand. You use AI. I don't understand why you've got a problem with it.

I think that's sort of a red herring argument, but the use of AI means that we have to vote against a moratorium on data centers in this county versus another county or another state or outer space.

This is a serious topic and any personality things that are going on up here should be set aside. Opening up a window so that we could actually have somebody come in tomorrow with an application for a just below the threshold of what the state says is a large load, right? So you got the state threshold. We know that that requires a CUP because the state already said it. But let's just say they come right underneath that threshold. That's gonna be a problem, and people are going to be very upset that this county commission couldn't at least put some moratorium in place. And if all we can get today is an agreement to do two months, we should do two months. It's the responsible thing to do. And between now and then, I guarantee you, I will come up with that definition, Commissioner Smith, to make sure that we know what a data center is that you're not okay with or someone else is not okay with. So give us two months to make sure that we've got some protection in place. That would be my argument. Janet Earn, someone, Janet Earn just filled out a card. So unless we have any other cards, this will be our last card, and then we will decide what we're going to do next.

Thank you, and good morning. My name is Janet Earn and I currently reside in the Lake Conway and Belle Isle area of southeast Orange County. But I drove a somewhat harrowing 43 miles this morning on behalf of my friends and family who live here in Lake County and also because I might like to become a Lake County resident one day here as well. I came today to address the topic of the data center moratorium. There's so much that is still unknown about the effects of these giant installations. But it is becoming increasingly clear that what we are learning is not very good. As some here may already know, Erin Brockovich and others have been very actively engaging with people living in these data center areas. The negative impacts that are being reported and investigated are seriously alarming. We're being told that these massive installations will benefit the economy by adding jobs. While this will be true on a temporary basis, all indications are that this temporary benefit will very quickly be far outweighed by negative impacts, including to our critically valuable water resources and ultimately to a potential catastrophic loss of jobs as AI marches forward. I believe that we likely have a very short window at present where we as humans still have greater control over our lives than does AI. As a grandparent, I'm very invested in and concerned about preserving the status. So I commend you all for supporting a moratorium. And I would also like to see that we have a ban in the future. Thank you so much.

Move to approve with 12 months.

OK. I will second the 12 months, but you'll have to call for the question.

OK. Yeah. Any final discussion on that? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. Opposed? Motion fails two to three. Move to approve.

What was that?

Move to approve with 60 days.

OK.

Madam Chair, before you second that, I'm going to respectfully ask that if you're going to do something less than 12 months, you do until the end of December because 60 days is not going to give me enough time to get to the planning board and bring it back to you. So I would ask end of December.

Move until January 1st.

As far as I know, this tab has failed, so we move on, right?

Move to reconsider until January 1st. We're not constrained by Robert's rules, pedantical stuff like that. Move to approve the same ordinance with an extension of December 1st? Or January 1st? We're talking about a few months here, folks.

I'll second to January 1st.

Wait a minute. So what's the motion?

Motion to approve this ordinance through January 1st.

And Melanie, should that be item one only?

So item two is to waive the 505 hearing if it comes back and have it at 9 a.m., but we can deal with that as a separate motion if you want.

Would it take as long to write a conditional use on this? Would it take the same amount of time to do that?

I mean, yeah, I thought, because I heard you say that a conditional use could be done in October, so that's why I said two months.

I could take something to the Planning and Zoning Board in October, that it would come to the BCC November, December, depending on where your board meetings lay out.

Okay, so you could say through November then?

Well, the motion is through January 1, right? So in that period of time, in that window, you could get your conditional use permit ordinance back to us. So, I mean, you could potentially have that happen. So instead of, like...

I just think it's, yeah, I think it's pretty easy. I mean, I know you've got a lot to do, but it's those four exceptions and then everything else is a conditional use.

So you're against even a 60-day moratorium? I thought you said you were okay with that, 60, 70 days? 60 days is November, though. I mean, that's right. Okay, so 90 days? What's the significant difference there?

Well, because I think that there is some validity to the argument about if you go a long period of time, how that affects what that looks like in the business world. I think that there is some, and we've been very careful. Especially what's the merit?

What's the evidence for this argument? Who is the person asserting that?

It's just talking to business people, people in the business community.

I think that has traditionally applied to, like, building moratoriums. I mean, building moratoriums are... Because a building moratorium is kind of like a blanket. We're not doing anything. I think that there is some validity to the idea if it's a building moratorium. But right now, across this country... Across the state of Florida jurisdictions are doing exactly what we're doing saying hey, let's get more information Let's figure out the parameters. You know what I mean? So this is not your typical And I you know, I I would agree like a overall building moratorium Maybe what Commissioner Morris heard at a lead meeting would apply but I don't think in this context of a data center that that's gonna change you being able to recruit other businesses to Lake County and

These are large-scale data centers. Oh, I know. If that's what you want, you want large-scale data center applications at Lake County?

Be careful. Don't go there.

I interpret that as what you're saying. What is the business entity that's prohibitive?

Long before you were on the commission, I've talked about water issues, issues with electricity. So, I mean, anybody out there that doubts that as far as the intent, really for anybody on the board about the concerns over water use is just false, so. I mean, I'm trying to work through this to try to make a business move as well as address all the valid concerns about water as well. I think the conditional use permit is actually more strict in many ways than anything and could be better because as we get more data on the data centers next year, the year after, If it's a conditional use, it's always got to come in front of us. We're going to have a higher, we're going to have, but you can't create the ordinance yet.

You're talking about creating an ordinance that would come into effect three or four months from now. Right. I love the idea of having that discussion three or four months from now when it hits our desk today, we have a moratorium that can be put into law. Today. So you have a black and white vote. It's either you're for a moratorium or you're against it. This red herring about what a perfect ordinance would look like three months ago is an indirect way of saying you're against a moratorium today. So I just don't understand why we're evading that discussion.

I know that works a lot for you. And we agree on a lot of issues, Anthony. But the whole black and white thing and trying to paint, I don't worry about that. I'm trying to make good policy here. I'm trying to make good policy. If we want to do 90 days and then it comes back, that'll be towards the end of the year, and then we would characterize it as we're going to come back with a conditional use ordinance for everything above those. Then I'm happy to amend the motion.

And I would second an amendment to the motion if that's what it takes to get us 90 days. I just think that if you leave the gap open, you're opening yourself up for something could potentially be very catastrophic and people would be very unhappy about.

Now, so I'd be interested to get Commissioner Smith's and Morris's.

Would you support 90 days? Or do you not know? Do you need to talk to someone to find out?

You can't get a permit. If you went out and pulled a permit today or asked to get a permit pulled today for whatever building, you couldn't get it built in 90 days. You couldn't even get through the process in 90 days. having that 90 days I like the I like the conditional use much better because it makes everything come to us I don't see there's there's nothing on the books now for data centers not saying there won't be some guy listen to this meeting and they'll show up tomorrow wanting to do one but I kind of like the conditional use thing, and if we want to put another pause on this thing until the conditional use permit has been satisfied, I'm okay with that, but I'm not okay with moratoriums. I do like the CEP process because it makes every data center CEP process come in front of us. I like that.

All right, so two, okay, so Commissioner Parks, you said 60, you're okay with 90. I'm fine with anything. Is there any number that you would feel comfortable with while your proposed ordinance, which I think obviously will be debated and, you know, obviously probably passed, can be created. Why not just 90 days? I mean, 90 days is very reasonable.

Would you mind me trying to make a motion?

We have a motion and a second on the table.

We have a motion.

Until you make that motion, you could, during discussion, tell us what you're thinking about.

I'm thinking about that we allow no additional I don't know, building permits for specific use of data centers until the CU process has been.

It's development permit, development order, land use application, or rezoning. It's all in there.

That's what this says.

So they're not going to get it done in, if you have to do all that, they're not going to get it done in 90 days. It takes almost a year.

Okay, but the problem is somebody puts the application in, let's say, next week. They put an application in, now you're in a Burt Harris situation. So that's what you're trying to avoid is that application that gets submitted. You can't say, oh, yeah, but you're not going to get through the process. No, they have a right to get through the process as soon as they put the application in.

Sometimes people on this board don't care about Burt Harris in certain cases, and sometimes they do, but.

But we're talking about not a hypothetical in the sense that...

I understand. There's still no definition in this ordinance.

What about wording the definition in this top part, Section 4, or even referring it to it as a moratorium, if it's a pause?

while we write, the condition is... Well, I mean, in a respectful manner, is the real issue just the legal term, the Latin term, moratorium? I'm fine changing the word if that's what it takes to get a pause put into place. It is legally a pause. It just happens to be an old...

whatever okay what about is there a way to phrase moratorium as we would not accept applications or is there some other way to say it that would make absolutely we will not accept any applications that are that are moving forward with any type of computer system

until uh cv process i moved to amend the motion to pass this ordinance but removing the term moratorium replacing it with pause and analogies to pause throughout it for the second reading through december 1st or i'm sorry january 1st well 90 days 90 days from today or upon the passage of the second reading 90 days from then i thought we could get a cup process done before then

Yeah, I would say 90 days from today, you're still going to have approval of it, because I think you'll get it done pretty quick.

Melanie, do you need to weigh in on the terminology because of a statutory requirement for moratoriums?

Yeah, I don't think there's a statutory requirement that you use the word moratorium. I mean, we can come up with a different word, but it's kind of like a rose is a rose. I mean, it's a moratorium, regardless of what you call it.

Dispension, delay, freeze, pause, postponement.

Right. I'll have to find something that works with the development orders, but I can certainly find another term.

Well, I made the motion, and the amended motion is to include terminology similar in nature and legal... legally similar to the term moratorium to incorporate here and have the same effect for 90 days upon passage of the second reading.

Okay and I'll second that and when it comes back for that next reading we will have the language that we're going to use.

So it's going to come back for another reading?

Correct.

And the 90 days is built into it from today? Well 90 days from passage.

90 days from passage. Well, when's the passage?

Second reading soon.

It's coming back September 8th, so that will be...

So December 8th.

December 8th, okay.

Okay, so we have... You have a first and a second on the table.

Okay, any other discussion?

As long as it comes back for a second reading.

Yep. All right, so anything else? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Okay, you got us to unanimous. All right.

Okay, so we have one more part of that agenda item. The second reading under statute has to be at 5.05 unless you waive that requirement so that it will be at 9 a.m. or soon thereafter on the 8th.

Why is that again? Remind me legally why that's required.

The statute says your second meeting has to be at... On the board. on any where you're changing the conditional or permitted or prohibited uses.

Okay, you made a motion. Anyone want to make a second to move to waive that requirement or do you want to leave it at 505?

I'll second.

All right, now for discussion. I'm more inclined to do 505.

I'm sorry, why are we, I'm fine too.

It's because it's to make it more accessible to the public and an issue of great public concern. So why wouldn't you make it at 5.05?

Yeah, I'm fine with 5.05. I thought it was because we were meeting at a certain time.

Madam Chair, as a reminder, September 8th you will have a 5.05 budget public hearing, so you'll be here any way we can add it to the agenda.

Well, in that case, I would draw my motion and wish to keep it at 5.05.

Who made the second?

I'll withdraw the second, I guess.

Okay, so now we're back to, if we don't move forward with the change, it's automatically gonna be 505. We would just add it to our agenda for that meeting. Okay, all right, so that settles that, and I look forward to that word that Melanie's going to come up with. Freeze, pause, anyway. Now we're on tab 26. And this is Commissioner Smith.

Yeah. Last week you were bringing up something to do with the fairgrounds, and I asked you to hold off until this week until I got some more information because I had a meeting literally the next day with the group, me, Melanie, and Jennifer, with the group that was – proposing this public-private partnership, which I personally like. I mean, there's several public-private partnerships that we do with other entities. Well, they're not public-private. They're public-public partnerships like with us in the city of Tavares, us in Groveland, you know, to where there's share costing. So anyway... We had this meeting. I thought it was very productive. Jennifer is going to start it off, and then I'll finish it up with some other thoughts. And I believe everybody received the information? Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead to the next screen, please. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. So as Commissioner Smith indicated, we did have our meeting last week, so if you remember, we did get approval from this board to move forward into a P3 partnership with AEM. Cory Warner is the president of AEM, and we were moving in that direction. Mr. Warner has since brought in partners, which is the Nicholas family of companies, to take over the financial assurance and the oversight of the project at this point. So because a new company has come to the table, we are looking for board approval or not to move forward with a new P3 agreement proposal that was submitted to us last week by the Nicholas family of companies to not only design and build the event center at the new fairgrounds site, but also to manage, operate, and maintain the facility after the facility opens. So with that, I'll give you a little bit of information about the company. The Nicholas family of companies has three main entities that would probably enter into this structure at some point. The first one is Nicholas and Associates. They would do the construction management and the design build. Next is the Wingspan Development Group. They do the mixed-use sports and recreation, multifamily projects, and then they have the Spectate Group, which operates arenas and recreation centers, and they do have these nationwide. Next, please. The company was founded in 1978. They have $3 billion in public entity construction completed in the past 15 years, $350 million in annual in-place construction for public entities. More than 75 athletic projects have been constructed, $400 million in aggregate bond capacity, and 90% of the work completed under the construction management delivery model. To date, there are no claims or litigation. The Nicholas & Associates proposal for the design and build of the event center includes 128,000 gross square foot event center, a $10 million maximum county contribution. Nicholas Company will staff, operate, and maintain the facility. The net profit distribution would be 60% to Nicholas, 40% to county. Two months would be reserved annually for the county fair and the Renaissance Fair. And then the county would provide a ground lease to Nicholas. The term of the ground lease would be construction period plus 29 years. The county would retain the fee title throughout. And then the leasehold improvements would transfer to the county at the expiration of the lease at the end of the 29 years.

OK, so some of the concepts that were brought forward. This is the main building. As you can see here, these are all just concepts of what it would be used for. This is a 20-foot or 20-court volleyball area to where indoor volleyball is a huge sport. The Orlando Convention Center sells that all the time. We have Valkyrie, who is a professional indoor volleyball team here in Orlando currently. Next slide, please. This is an indoor rodeo within the same space. Now, this rodeo design concept was gone over and looked at by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association. The size meets size. their criteria for the layout for both time-dropping events and the regular rodeo events. So next slide, please. And then you have an event trade show expo center. So this building here would be a multifaceted, multi-use building. that would be able to split and do multiple shows within the same weekend or whatever. But I just wanted to... bring out that the Nicholas group seemed very committed, very professional. They brought their whole team to us last week. They're excited about this project. They are putting a substantial amount of their own money in here. to get this thing finalized and moving forward. And I would just request that the board would move forward with the P3 agreement, at least have staff work on the P3 agreement to come back before us to approve that P3 agreement. If we move forward with this today, it's only to move forward to finish up a P3 agreement between the Nicholas Group and Lake County. It'll still come back to us for final approval.

Move approval.

Second. Just a quick discussion. These are concepts that you went through I'm sorry, I know I'm being repetitive, but we're gonna come back and look at the actual P3 agreement.

Correct.

And, because the capital outlay was up to 10 million, is it gonna, are we gonna cover like, is that all at once, or is it? I'm sorry? Isn't there, can you go back a couple slides? The 10 million capital?

The 10 million would be on a drawdown basis. That's our maximum contribution. It would be based on drawdowns during the construction process.

We already have that written here, Mark.

We do.

okay so just just to clarify the p3 process um this is just the beginning step we do have to start over since it's a different player different company and different proposal there will be two public hearings that have to take place and then there will be some advertising requirements prior to you approving a final agreement and moving forward but you're saying it wouldn't have to go back to the um the process whereby you let other vendors So the statute has two different processes. You have to have the two public hearings and then you have the option of putting it out to bid to see if anybody else is interested in it or you can publish it in the Florida Register. Because of the timeframe with the FDACS grant, I think we were opting more for just doing the two public hearings.

publishing it in the Florida Register but if the board prefers we could certainly put it out to bid and go through that process in lieu of the publication so my immediate thoughts are that weren't we doing this a year ago and here we are one year later and nothing has happened so so there was some there was some questions on we didn't have the Nicholas group

We had AM, American Event Management Group. So we have moved toward the Nicholas Group two months ago, three months ago. And the Nicholas Group is the one that's doing Lake Sumter State College as well. That's the reason why there was a pause on this, is because... we didn't have this kind of group with this kind of a backing to begin with. So we didn't move forward with the P3 agreement until we were 100% sure that the citizens of Lake County were protected wholeheartedly from anything that may go wrong.

But they were before? I'm like 100% against this, 100% against this. This is a major, major financial decision, and it's being rushed. And they may have all the money in the world, but they're obviously looking at this as a way to make a whole bunch of money because they're going to turn over all these improvements to us 30 years from now. I mean, they're going to make a ton of money off of this. At least they think they will, right? That's what it looks like. You've got to put this out to the rest of whoever does this kind of thing and see if there's somebody else out there that wants to do it. In the meantime, I don't want to lose that grant that we have. I don't understand why we wouldn't go ahead and try to move forward with a site plan, get our utilities in place, look at whether other options we have. We talked about an arena. I brought it up at the last meeting. I think it makes a ton of sense. You still could do this. You're not going to lose any time. But at least you're going to keep your grant money and you're going to have something in hand. If all of this sort of what seems a little bit too good to be true falls through, just like it seemed too good to be true a year ago, I think it's fantastical. And that concerns me.

I'm against this, too. I'd like more applicants. And if we need to take, as you described, Commissioner Campion described Chairman Campion, more steps to create a vision, for example, site plan that would entice other applicants to apply to look into what they can offer, then I'm okay with that. But I wouldn't feel comfortable moving forward with this until we have just more of a broader reach here on

mean this could be the end person maybe this is the real deal and all of that but why not move ahead in such a way as that we have something in hand had we done that a year ago we could potentially already have utilities to that site we could potentially have a site plan that's ready to go we could potentially build with the grant money that we already have an arena that could start generating money immediately. So it's kind of, I mean, there's no reason why you wouldn't still be able to do something like this in the long run.

Yeah, I don't think this is rushed. Now, it may be rushed to you because we're not allowed to talk to each other, but there's a lot of time spent on site and looking at different concept plans for exactly what you're talking about. Talking to the city of Tiberias bringing the infrastructure out there Getting their partnership to bring the infrastructure out there So again, this is just to move forward with the to have someone look At the p3 agreement if you don't like the p3 agreement, then we'll change it from there if Can we can we do both of them simultaneously? I?

That was my question, because I really like the idea that chair.

I'm okay with taking out the big because I don't think anybody else is going to.

I mean, I wouldn't mind hearing this, but at the same time, you know, if there's an option that, you know, the chair was talking about last time did not lose the grant money.

Oh, we're certainly not going to lose any grant money. We'll use that. And I think there may be a plan in place with the city to vary with the utilities and the grant money. And what was the criteria, Melanie, for that?

For the grant money?

Yes. We have to have something in contract.

Yeah, I'll let, Jennifer's got more information on the grant.

So we did extend the grant for an additional year until the end of June of 2027. We have to have the funding expended at that time. Funding expended. Right.

So all, I mean, you could totally, you could draw up a plan and still leave on the footprint of the plan this gigantic arena that will, be able to do all of these things that you say it can do. you could incorporate that into a site plan and still have a facility that could be used as an outdoor basic look at what sumter county has you there are several around the state that are just very nice but very basic places for barrel racing and rodeo so you at least get something in hand that could still be on that site and you could have this if that's what you ultimately want to do this big you know with all of these locations for volleyball courts and all of that. Yeah, I mean, that's gonna be a really expensive facility, right? I mean, I don't know how, that's gonna be a really expensive.

It's gonna be no more than $10 million to Lake County. However, if you do remember, we did have this concept planning group come in three years ago and and they gave us this concept plan and phase one was 110 million dollars for a 55 000 square foot building and infrastructure so you know i don't know you know i'm just i just know a year ago it was all you know we were going to

Be in the ground by now and I just like this. This is fair. I'm just this is not.

This is not quick. It was quick to you because we're not allowed to talk to each other. There's been a lot of work put into this by Melanie, her team, Jennifer and myself.

What happened from last year to now? That's not what I'm not. I'm just not understanding if so much work was put into it. What happened between a year ago and now with the company that was supposed to be so great and be able to do all of these things?

We were waiting on some financials, and the financials didn't meet the criteria, so we moved on to a different, so this company here is.

Since we're digging on this modified, just a couple questions. How did this shift to the original entity, which was a newer entity, which made the original application, to this organization, and then how would you describe the relationships between the original applicant and this new organization that's formally named in this one, Nicholas? What's their relationship?

I can answer that. So I believe that the original applicant has the management experience, but couldn't come up with the amount of of the bond financial things that were required. So Nicholas, who is doing the college, came in. And they actually asked for a step in. So if anything happens to, let's just say, the original applicant, they would step in. And I don't know if Nicholas is going to use their group or not. I haven't seen the P3 agreement yet. So OK.

I just think it's too big of a decision to make at this point. I think the better idea is to just allow more applicants to show their proposals in a formal way.

And I just don't want to lose that grant money. And you can get your utilities to the site. You could do a design and at least end up, at the end of the day, if we end up with nothing else other than that fairgrounds property having an arena on that could be used for a lot of uses that could be later. At some point, you build this. Later, at some point, you have the fairgrounds there. You've got an arena that can be used for that. And a lot of people, I think, would be excited just to know that we actually had something that would be a revenue producer. And all of this, maybe it falls into place and you make it work. But I just feel like, I mean, I feel a little bit deceived from what was represented that was going to go on a year ago to now. And I do, I'm concerned that, I mean, honestly, I mean, you're very detail-oriented. And to me, this is just a little bit too roughshod.

Because you haven't seen the details. And I thought we sent you all the details. Maybe we didn't give them all the details. But the problem with just putting a building out there is it may absolutely destroy whatever the design is for the ultimate project. So you have to have that in mind as well. If you're going to build a house, you don't build a garage just anywhere. You have to know where the house is going to go to build a garage. So that's the only thing I'm saying. And I'm just saying let them work on the P3. You might not even like it. I might not like the P3.

I haven't seen it yet.

But if we don't like it, it's going to have to go through two public meetings, let the community hear the thoughts of that, and then we'll go from there. And at the end of the day, if you want to – use the money for something on the infrastructure and putting a building somewhere out there i don't know where we would put it because i don't know what the concept plan would be but we could certainly find that out make sure it's not going to get in the way of the future plan of whatever um but i i and there was no absolutely no intention of deception on my part to anybody on this board or the citizens of the county i thought i've been up front um just we're not allowed to talk to each other in private The only way we can talk to each other is here, and this is the opportunity that came up. So I would like to move forward with the P3 and just see what we get.

All right. So what I'm hearing is sort of these concerns can all be addressed. This is an update. I just want to have a question. This is an update, an update only with some direction you said?

We're just looking for direction if you would like to pursue a new P3 process with the Nicholas and Associates Group.

That's the registry version. That's not going out to bid and letting other people weigh in.

I understand.

I'm frustrated, too, on the record, since we're talking about that.

I'm not going to go into too much detail. I'm looking at the Renaissance Fair, and ironically, now they wouldn't have had to move. They could have had their Renaissance Fair this year, but needless to say i'll move on um the could we do the could we look at get more information on the proposal but at the same time move forward a parallel track with what the chair has said about using that money that has by june 2027 has to be used i mean can you can you bring these to us at the same time in two weeks or a month

So you're looking, just to clarify for us, you pursue the P3 agreement concurrently with pursuing an RFP for design services from an architect?

We don't have to decide right now, but I mean, if we have a parallel track and you're able to bring it to us in a couple weeks or whenever this is, then maybe we'll be able to make more of an informed decision. I mean, I agree there could be a question about...

It's not going to be a couple of weeks, just for the record. Well, whenever it is, but I mean...

When it reset expectations. You have to be careful with the June 2027 deadline, but... Because I think that's a great idea, too. I'm just wondering if we can sort of have our cake and eat it, too, when it comes to this today. With looking at this, maybe intrigued by this. They are a good group, I know that. Probably a lot better than what was maybe contemplated first. But I respect the question about it. Should this be rebid or being competitive? But at the same time, because time is of the essence here, can we at least look at this, but then at the same time what the chair is suggesting as well? And maybe that's first. Maybe that comes up in a couple weeks to how to pursue that, start pursuing that.

Right, if these guys are interested, then just let them hold on. You're not going to get... I guess, I mean, in a perfect scenario where everybody was super comfortable, or at least three were comfortable with going down this road, you could potentially tie up your contract and spend your money, your grant money, by June 20, 27, if everything fell into place.

Is Tavares going to do – they'll have the infrastructure, right? No, we have to pay for it.

No, we have to take the infrastructure out. Well, they got it there at the – It's at the animal shelter. Then it's got to be moved in there. And there's some site work. A lot of site work's got to be done. No matter what you do, site work's got to be done.

Exactly. So, I mean, the $2 million will go quickly.

If you're actually, yeah, using it. But it was supposed to happen a year ago, and nothing's been done.

It really wasn't supposed to happen a year ago. It was the process. You all gave me the ability to go through this process a year ago. It wasn't supposed to be give me something in six months.

You all gave me the okay to move forward.

I couldn't move forward with anything unless you all gave me the okay, and a year ago you gave me the okay, and I moved forward, and here we are.

No, that's not how it worked. That's not it. That's not what happened.

All right, so can we get – can we – I'm okay with the parallel thing. Okay. You know, I'm good with that.

You could come up with a win-win because you could end up with being able to have – Absolutely. Someone that does – Site design. Could look at that. the size of that they could look at where parking had been proposed before we have some concept plans that have already been done and you could look at whether there was a way to locate an arena in such a way so that you could have a livestock pavilion because let's just think about this realistically if this is our fairgrounds in the future and you've got this gigantic expo building you're not going to be able to have livestock sales inside that building when the fair's going on because it's going to be being used for whatever you've decided to Now, maybe you decide at the fair time you're going to have the whole thing be the livestock pavilion, but maybe it would make sense to have one that's an outdoor arena. You could design this in such a way so that one is phase one and the other is phase two. uh... i personally think it's it's to have your rodeo inside that building means that whenever sorority oh it's not anything else so i guess you know you have to make decision at fair time are you gonna have another building that's going to be your indoor building where you have your exposed up or is everything Do you see what I'm saying? You're limiting yourself with the only place you have for your livestock pavilion is inside that building.

No, so I think, okay.

See what I'm saying? Why it might make sense to have a separate outside that's not all the bells and whistles but can function for that purpose.

And there's RV parking, right? So you've got to have RV parking for your people who come in for rodeos and have trailers and all that's in there.

Which could be with, as I understand it, you can have places for them to connect. or you can have ones where they don't sometimes they don't you know so you could someone designing the site could look at that and you could actually um i mean you think about it those locations could be where um your when you're fair when you're having your fair you know how they bring rvs in and they've got a place to they need a place to connect so somebody laying this out could do this in such a way as that it could it could function multiple ways depending on whether the fair is operating or whether you're just running you know I mean, the barrel racing and the rodeos and all, I don't know that you have to have this gigantic under air thing in order to be able to have a nice place to have once a month barrel racing events. So I think that there's room here, maybe in a win-win, you get what you want, and those of us that would rather see at least a basic facility built, we get what we want.

And then everybody wins, but we don't want to lose that grant money, and I think that and I don't think we're going to lose that grant money personally and What you're talking about what what's? Not on here. I just showed the building but The concept was RV parking with connections and, of course, a parking lot and all that's in the concept. And I believe there's some outside buildings, but I'm not 100% sure, so I can't say that for sure. But if we at least get this process going and get the process going of what you're talking about simultaneously and see what comes up, we'll do what's best for the county is what I want.

Okay.

Plain and simple.

And just one little practical thing is, I mean, I've seen these multi-use facilities where, you know, something goes from being a basketball, you know, arena to an ice skating rink and all. It's a pretty big production to make that change. So when I looked at that and I saw, like, a rodeo inside or a facility for an indoor rodeo, but then you can switch it over to volleyball courts, just being realistic about this, you know, this group's going to do whatever makes them the most money. And a lot of thought needs to go into whether what makes the most sense for Lake County and Lake County residents.

Yeah, and you may be right. Maybe an outdoor rodeo may be the best thing. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. Right.

Yeah, we've got to get those details. They may come back and say the rodeo, you can't have the rodeo and the dirt floor. dirt i'm using that loosely yeah right versus the what you need for a and i would love to have silver spurs come up to lake county and get out of kasemi that would be cool yeah so so yeah all right so we're gonna do parallel tracks then

So we have a motion and a second.

So we have a motion and a second on the floor.

And that was to go forward with this as a no bid.

No, it should move forward with the P3 process.

Yeah, but as a no bid. I mean, what you're asking for is we're not taking it out to anyone else to bid.

So we could put it out to bid. We've got to look at those time frames. If the board wants to do that, we can certainly do that. The other part of this agenda item that I'm seeking permission for is to retain Scott Cole with Gray Robinson. He has a lot of experience in these P3 agreements. And since we're on a fairly tight timeline, it would be more efficient for him to help us review this and work on the contracts because you're talking, if you move forward with this, you're talking a ground lease, construction contract, operating agreement, all of which would need to be turned around in a very tight timeframe.

So we could do a P3 agreement and send it out to bid?

Yes. The bidding process is built into the P3 process.

I would be open to it.

Okay, so we can certainly utilize that process if you want to move this forward.

That would take care of y'all's concerns.

All right, so we're talking about using the consultant attorney that has expertise in p three going out to bed and also uh... this would have to be an amendment to the uh... motion that is to jennifer before with an rfp for design services that would be focusing on a site plan that would include the center and at a minimum the arena that you're speaking open-air arena uh... agree to that made the motion and i'll make that

Second on that one. Okay.

All right. We have a motion. We have a second.

Can you restate the motion again? Because I know it's two parts. I just want to make sure I got 100% right.

Okay, so the motion is we will be moving forward with working on a P3 agreement. We will send it out to bid rather than just putting it with the registry. We will also secure the services of Scott Cole from Gray Robinson to assist with the P3 agreement. And then we will also be putting out an RFP for design services for the concept, the site plan for an open project arena as well as an event center as a parallel track as a parallel track

Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Well, it's amazing. We're getting it done today, but it's kind of... That's what this is about. It's not easy getting there, but we're getting there.

I like it when it gets feisty up here. It's more fun. Okay, all right.

This is why this board, you don't have to be unanimous all the time, but you come up with ideas, and I think it's fantastic. I really do.

Tab 27, this is a county attorney item.

Right, so I can explain this real quick. So Lifestream has existing bonds for facilities that are in Citrus County and Lake County. They want to refinance those bonds and I believe do some additional improvements in both counties. Rather than having two bonds issued in two different counties, they're requesting us to sign an interlocal with Citrus, which will allow Citrus to issue those IDA bonds on behalf of both counties.

Would you approve? Second. All right. And just for discussion, we get the benefit and our residents get the benefit?

Yes, for the facilities here.

Okay. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Moving then to TAP 28, Mike Fitzgerald.

Thank you, Chairman. Mike Fitzgerald, I'm the Office of Planning and Zoning Director. This is a request to advertise an ordinance entitled Administrative Fees. It's amending section 22-17 of the Lake County Code addressing the administrative fees related to the processing and collection of impact fees. It will remove the current hard-coded fee out of the code and move it into the fee schedule that will be adopted with the budget. It also includes a cap of 5% of the total of impact fees collected.

And if you approve this for advertising, it'll come back in September for adoption.

Okay, do we have a motion to move forward with advertising? Move to approve. Second.

Second.

All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Moving then to county attorney's report.

just one report that we will be closed the county offices will be closed on september 7th or yes september 7th in observance of labor day okay all right commissioner sabatini

Only that next month, Commissioner Parkstein will be at the Florida Association of Counties Technology Conference. I encourage everyone to come. We're going to be having a lively conversation about AI, I'm sure, so that's all. I felt so inspired by our vote on the trails that last week I went to the bicycle shop that's five blocks from my law office, and probably five blocks from your law office, too, Adrenaline, and bought a pretty nice road bike. So you might be seeing me riding around now on this very cool bike.

You better wear, like, a bright yellow shirt, and you better be careful, because, you know, I could... Commissioner Morris...

I was going to say, you better be careful. You should wear a helmet.

Yeah, right.

You should wear a helmet. I wouldn't put my name on the back of that shirt. Yeah, I tell you. Just saying.

Bullet. Bullseye. No other updates.

Okay. Commissioner Parks.

Yeah, I think I have one thing. So the Islamic Center of Claremont has been a topic that's been hearing more and more about, and I think it was scheduled to come up on the agenda for September 1st. So I have an update on that. I've heard a lot of concerns about traffic and the typical planning and zoning concerns that we get. I actually met with the applicant for quite a lengthy period of time. I encouraged them to withdraw the application, and they have. They withdrew that, I believe, this morning. So just an update on that, that that withdrawal has been made, and that's it. That's all I have to report on. I'll get out on the trail. If you want to come and do park run, you can mix it up a little bit on Saturdays. It's at 730. You can do the trail.

You can bring it.

No, no e-bikes. No, they won't allow that.

All right. Commissioner Smith?

Yeah, I had a meeting with the city of Tavares to go over economic development, and some of the economic development included the trails between Tavares and Mount Dora, which I think is going to be phenomenal. I can't wait to see you with the little helmet on and riding your bicycle. from outdoor to Tavares. I also had the opportunity to go to Discovery Gardens and learn a little bit about the Master Gardening Program. If you do not know about Discovery Gardens, I implore you to go to the Ag Center. Look at our Discovery Gardens. It's absolutely phenomenal. They have done a great job out there We have a master gardening program that teaches you how to garden. I think it's fantastic what IFAS and Lake County is doing to help with the native Florida plants and teaching people about fertilizers and water. I think it's great. So go out and look at Discovery Gardens and if you're interested, talk to Dallas and she'll get you into the Master Gardening Program. That's all I have for now.

Okay. Commissioner Morris?

Just congratulations to you and Commissioner Parks. Thank you.

Appreciate that. All right, and then under my business, yesterday the Haines Creek Bridge began, the work began on the Haines Creek Bridge. And I was just wanting to get an update from Mike. I know that yesterday being the first day, our staff had already put out a lot of notices. They've been working with multiple agencies, making sure that this was as painless as possible knowing it was going to be painful no matter what because it goes down to one lane and this is going to be for 45 days. So if you could just give us an update on, and one of the questions someone asked me was why can't this work be done only at night? Yes, I know and in this case we're talking about two lanes. So if you're working on one lane, you're still working on one lane.

Yeah, so anyway Mike if you could give us an update so for the record Michael could like kind of public works The update is that the yes the construction has started the temporary barrier has been put up to Safeguard the public from the deck replacement that they're doing which is part of the short-term replacement the reason the deck the work can't be done at night is we're actually been trying working 24 hours to condense the construction schedule so to get it done faster we're going around the clock with the contractor just to give everybody a spoiler alert there will be a shift once they finish the one side of the bridge right now they're currently working on the north side of the bridge addressing the three areas that were identified by the Florida Department of Transportation as areas of concern, one of them being the deck hole that opened. And then the barriers were actually going to be shift as the contractor moves to the south side. So there will be twice where there's going to be kind of painful where they have to go to manual flagging operations instead of just a signal, but that's where they're going in and replacing and shifting that temporary concrete barrier to shield everybody from the drop off.

Okay, and is there, I mean, do we have signs at the location where, say, a driver would be able to make the decision to try to go a different route? Or is the problem, I mean, I know a big part of the problem is the lake is there, and you're either going to go all the way through Eustis and around.

Detour signage would have to be put out at like 44 and 19 and 44 and Radio Road. If you would like, we can look at installing detour signage.

I think that that would be beneficial for someone who's not from the area or hasn't seen it on social media, and it would at least give them a chance to figure out what they might want to do other than because in some of these instances, like when you have the shift and all of that, you're going to have literally like yesterday I heard from someone who was 45 minutes in traffic, so they said.

Correct. So with the lane shift, they had to do complete shutdown at temporary times just to be able to put the barrier in. So once the barrier is in place, it's going to be the signal. And so that can continue more smoothly. In the past, when the deck first opened and we got the signals in place, we actually got the delay down to... just a few minutes with the signals, but we can look at installing temporary detour routes just to alert people of alternative methods.

Okay. I appreciate that. I think that would be a good thing to do. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that update. I appreciate that. And that was all that I had. So we will then, will we move straight into the... We're going to adjourn. Okay, we will then adjourn our Board of County Commissioners meeting and then we will reopen. Five minutes and we will restart our CRA meeting.

How's it going?