recording in progress. Is that good morning everyone? Welcome to the November 18th, 2025 Lake County Board of County Commissioners meeting and we welcome you here. Um we're going to start our meeting today with an invocation given by Pastor John Kerry,
First Baptist Church of Umatillaa. Then we'll remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. >> Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. Again, let's go to the Lord in prayer. >> Father, we do thank you again for this day and this opportunity to join together to do the work that you've
called us to do. I pray that throughout the meeting today that the decisions that are made would be uh glorifying to you, helpful to the citizens of Lake County and and for the betterment of the community in which we live. I thank you for this country and this nation and our leadership. I thank you for the leadership here at the county and our
state and the great work that they're doing to protect our freedoms and to glorify your name on high. I thank you for your love. I thank you for Jesus. It's in his name that we pray. Amen. >> 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 very much. Thank you, pastor. >> All right. Um, as far as updates to the agenda, Jennifer Barker, county manager.
>> Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioners, first tab 27, we updated a lap agreement that was attached with a corrected signature page. Tab 28, the language, there was a language update from east to west when referring to
which side of State Road 19 the signs would go on. On tab 33, the year end budget amendment spreadsheet was added. Tab 37, 38, and 39 were all added as an addendum to the regular agenda following the first publishing of the agenda.
All right. Um, moving ahead then to the sales certs committee presentation. Michael Ranken, um the chairman of that group is here to present their committee's findings.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the commission, the audience for the record, Mike Ranken, the chairperson for the uh sales tax oversight advisory committee. Uh Commissioner Smith asked me to spend the next three and a half hours to go line by line. Not going to
do that, but I'm going to tell you quickly that you'll recall this is a committee of eight. um uh from the uh constitutional officers to the two from the commission uh two from the school board and then two from the cities. We review 14 cities as well as Lake County
Board of County Commission and school board reports. In your packet, you'll see uh that full report. You'll also see comments that we had uh and response of those comments. So, that's my report. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Any questions? No, no questions. Just a comment that um thank you very much for everything you and the team does. I know it's thankless, but thank you very much. >> 11 years. I just finished that. So,
>> yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Let's see. Um do we need to vote and adopt and approve or we just get the presentation? >> Okay. Um minutes approval. Um Mr. Cooney isn't with us today, but Christy Melain
from the clerk's office is. >> Thank you. We have three sets of minutes for your approval this morning. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Moving then to citizen question and comment period. Um, anyone
who's joined our meeting through Zoom using their phone may press star 9 virtually to raise their hands. Anyone participating through Zoom online, please click the raise hand button if you wish to speak. Um, if you're in the audience, we have signature cards that have been filled out. Um, these would be
items on today's agenda except for zoning items. And if it's an item that we're going to be discussing later in the meeting, then we'll call on those cards when we get to them. I see a couple of them maybe on
consent. Let me see. I'll figure that out um as we go. But first on general comments um and you have three minutes and then we'll have the timer go off and we just ask that you conclude at that time. Um first um
card speaker speaker card is CJ Blanch set. Good morning commissioners. My name is CJ Blancet. I'm a business owner, property owner, member of the Constitution Party of Florida, and chairman of the Lake County Chapter of
the Constitution Party. I stand here for every citizen that firmly believes that our government deres its just powers from the consent of the govern, not from the comfort of elected officials or from political alliances, and certainly not from the disregard of the very people
you swore an oath to serve. Over the past months, the citizens have watched a troubling pattern unfold. A pattern of disrespect, dismissiveness, and disregard toward the people of this county. Whether it's ignoring public comment, refusing to answer legitimate
questions, breaking trust through backroom decisions, or choosing political expediency over constitutional responsibility. The message you have sent to us is unmistakable. You have forgotten who you work for. The constitution.
The constitution. Transparency, accountability, nor the respect for the people, your employers, is not optional. The county does not belong to bureaucrats, consultants, or developers with deep pockets. It belongs to the citizens, the homeowners, the taxpayers,
the small business owners, the parents, the workers, and the families who built this community, and who expect the representatives to uphold the oath they took. When commissioners silence the people, evade questions, or misuse their positions, they violate not only their office, they violate the trust of every
resident who believe their voice mattered. So, let me be very clear. The citizens will not be treated as your subjects any longer. Today, we issue a simple, fair, and constitutional demand.
Acknowledge your failures, apologize to the people of the county, and commit clearly and publicly to honoring your constitutional duties going forward. Restore transparency, accountability, respect, and integrity, or resign before
you are unseated by the very citizens whose trust you have broken. A government that refuses to listen will inevitably be replaced. A government that disrespects the people will be held accountable. And a government that forgets the Constitution will answer to
those who have not forgotten it. The citizens of this county are organized, informed, and finally united. We are committed to lawful constitutional action. We will petition, organize, vote, and we will restore proper government by the people and for the
people. The consequences of that choice belong to the people, although the path forward is yours. Do right by us or please step aside. Either way, accountability is coming in God for freedom.
Thank you. Do Do we have anyone online? No. Okay. All right. Um, let's see. Katherine Wright. >> Good morning, commissioners. Uh, my name is Katherine Wright. Do I say my address and everything?
Okay. Sorry. Kind of new at this. I'm here I'm here to express my concerns about a proposed development adjacent to Lake Griffin and Highway 44 441 in Leburg. This development started as a upscale RV
park with what was probably better drainage, but it's now being proposed into a multi- multi-level multifamily apartments with two to four stories, boat house, boat docks, restaurants, and other business
spaces that will require a lot of parking and can be over 500 spaces of black top. Where is the water going to go from a hard rain or a hurricane? Because they will have to bring in fill. How much and
how high will they have to go? This development can flood a facil a park in and some nearby residents called Britney Estates, which is a 55 and above community along with our other neighbors in Highway 441.
Highway 441 being flooded is not a great thing. This will also have a negative impact on Lake Griffin with runoff and will deteriorate the and harm the wildlife such as the birds and the manatees. Highway 441 is already a challenging
road, especially to go left. Honestly, I feel like I'm playing Frogger every time I try. Can you imagine a school bus trying to pull out onto a 441 from this apartment complex that is going to be proposed to the city of Leburg? It
requires a person to turn right, cross over multiple lanes to then make a Uturn and if there is an accident and could take 45 minutes just to pull out of Britain Estates to get onto the highway of 441. Adding this development will make it
even more difficult to enjoy our surroundings and maintain a quality of life. I urge you to please assist in any way to put a pause on these types of developments that can cause flooding and damaging to our fragile area. We need to come together and prioritize the
well-being of our community and the environment. I thank you for your time. I know this is not the city of Leburg, but these developments are getting rather out of hand and they really are putting
some sort of a, you know, push on people that have the capability to move and they're 55 and above and most of them are over 70 or 80, you know, and flooding is not fun. So, appreciate your time. Thank you very
much. Okay. Um, moving on to our consent agenda. And then I see we have two cards that are items that are on the consent agenda, six and 18. So
I think what I'll do is is anyone going to pull items off the consent? >> Okay. Okay. So, we'll hear from these two comments. >> Approve the consent agenda first and then minus those tabs.
>> If you want to make a motion that way and then we can hear the comments and decide from there >> and it goes a regular agenda item. >> So, it's six and 18 are the it'd be less six and 18. >> Make a motion to approve the consent agenda
agenda minus uh 6 and 18. >> All right. Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. I All right, that passes unanimously. Let's pick up the clerk of court's consent agenda first on tab three. >> Christine Mlain again for the clerk's office. We request approval of the consent agenda.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? All right. Now picking back up with items six first. Um, I have a card for Dave Williamson, and this is on the
um advertisement of the ordinance establishing a municipal service taxing unit for the unincorporated area of Lake County provide for law enforcement services through the Lake County Sheriff's Office. >> Good morning. My name is David Williamson. candidate for county
commissioner district 4 2026. My address is 41634 Ray Haron Lane Umatella Florida 32784. Uh my whole life native Lake County resident uh always been in that rural
area of uh Lake County. Always been in Umatillaa apart from off for college for a few years. um having even an idea of establishing extra taxes as many of
us have uh fought that just doesn't even make sense. Um the county sheriff's office is for the county. Uh municipalities and cities have their own departments. Um I know that the county gets called on a lot, but the county is set there for these
rural areas. Um, so to put a tax on these more rural areas just it it it doesn't make sense. Um, and I'm totally against it and I think a lot of our citizens are against yet another tax that could get passed. Um,
so I just ask that you think about this before you go and place a tax. Um, it it just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. >> Thank you. And I would like to address it just so there's a better understanding of what the discussion is
and what the item is. Um the the county the sheriff provides services to both city and county residents and currently that comes under the general fund and that's on our millage rate. Um there has
been a request um to bifurcate those services that the county provides only to uninccorporated residents so that people that live inside the cities aren't paying for
services that the count the sheriff is providing in only the unincorporated area. So there are certain things that the sheriff does that are countywide. Um he runs the jail. Um he does homicide investigations. Um there there there's a whole variety
of things that are considered to be countywide. Everybody, whether you're in the city or the unincorporated area, you get the benefit of those services, including mutual aid, which is where the county sheriff runs calls for the city police or the city police run calls for
the sheriff. Um but this particular item is about pulling out those things that are only in the unincorporated area. And the argument has been by the city residents is that it's double taxation. So it's not about putting a new tax in
place. It's about carving out those services that are only in the unincorporated area and having those separated out. So that just just to give a better overview, it's not about adding a tax. It's about separating a portion
of the tax that now comes under the general fund so that county residents know here's what we're paying for for just our unincorporated services and city residents know we're not paying for the sheriff to run calls in the unincorporated area. Just like we I'm a
county resident and unincorporated residents. I don't want to be paying for calls that the city of Eustace runs inside the city of Eustace. So that that's the basis for it and this is just an advertisement. So we will have a public hearing on this at the next >> December
>> December 2nd. So but appreciate your comments. Um do we have a motion to proceed? We have any further discussion? Does anybody want to pull this and move forward? It's my understanding that this MSTU uh if if the MSTU is approved, of
course, we got to read the whole thing, but if the MST is approved, then our mill rate would go down proportionately. >> Are you a city resident? >> I am. >> Yeah. So, yours are >> Yeah. But but the county but the county mill rate would go down proportionally
to the MSTU basically >> by by whatever if if the board chooses to reduce the general fund millillage by a like dollar value that is attributed to only the unincorporated residents and apply to the new MSDU. That's what we would do. >> Correct. Yes.
>> So it wouldn't be a tax increase. It would be just a here's a line item more of a line item detailed than anything else. >> Correct. So, if you added the two together, you would get what we have today. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Do we have a second?
>> I'll second to advertise. Second. Y. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I have to sound like a slow learner, but I definitely need to >> Yeah, we need to advertise it and then look. Well, the reason why I made the motion to approve is so we can get the whole documentation down. Right now, we just have a little bit. >> But I I guess I'm jumping the gun here.
I just mean to say when this does come back up and we actually have the marriage discussion, I just want to study a little bit more. >> Yeah. And it's definitely worth more study because when this first came up a couple years ago, several years back, the idea was to actually pull out the sheriff's millage alto together so that
when you looked at your tax bill, you could see, all right, here's what I'm paying for the jail, here's what I'm paying for the sheriff, and it wouldn't be all wrapped into the county, the millage general um fund. Um but over the
course of studying this and getting the legal opinions on it, um you can't do that. So the all you could do was pull out the part that's just for the unincorporated area and separate that out. And we had been um those advocating
for this um were using Marian County as a as an example, saying, "Okay, this is what they do in Marian County." Well, Marian County only has a few cities compared to our 14 cities. And so it's a really different scenario because so much of it is unincorporated. And so a
big part of the sheriff's budget comes from his MSTU. Um so so anyway, so yeah, there's a lot I think to take into consideration between now and when we would actually take the vote on the ordinance itself. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and again just to advertise and I think we'll know even
more uh as we all know um the talk at the state is to um you know reduce or get rid of home you know homestead uh property taxes you know the big big effect from that. Um so it' be interesting and but but yet the claim is that that it will not affect uh public
safety. So it'll be interesting uh if this is set aside then it wouldn't affect that public safety and maybe you know I I I don't know. We'll see how it all plays out. There's all different kinds of proposals we're hearing about now for property taxes, right? But >> Right. But it would still be on the
millillage for >> um >> Yeah. >> You know, somebody's homestead. So it it even if you did this you if they pull out like homestead properties or whatever. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just I'm just interested to see what they're if the claim the claim
is that it won't this homestead will not affect public safety. But so much of the, as I think everybody in the room knows, so much of the, well, really the sheriff's department of public safety, uh, and just in general is 65% property taxes. So, you know, it'll just be
interesting to see how this goes. But all the more reason just to advertise and get the discussion going. >> All right. So, we have a we have a motion to second. And Jennifer, >> I just wanted to provide a little bit of clarification, too. So this is to create the MSTU and the public hearing will be
to create the MSTU. There will not be a lot of detail at the public hearing just to create it. If you want to create a new MSTU to be available for the tax role for the following tax year, it has to be created by December 31st. So
that's just creating the MSTU. Even if it's a zero and we do nothing with it, at least it's created. However, we are in the process after board direction of um a study. We have a consultant that is performing a study to determine exactly
what portion of the sheriff's budget is for unincorporated residents only. And for the most part, it's road patrol. There is some percentage of road patrol services that are provided to the cities. However, a majority of the road patrol only is attributed to only the
unincorporated areas. So, the consultant is currently going through the budgets, going through call data with the sheriff's office cooperation to determine where that split is and what should be attributed to the new MSTU, if
anything. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a first and second. This is an approval to advertise. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Then moving to tab 18. Um, before I get public comment, could I just get a brief overview by staff on
this? Um, this is the Forest Hills old volunteer fire station that has been being used by a nonprofit in that area that does >> community service. >> So, yes, this is a very um old building that was many years ago a volunteer fire
department. It has been used as a community center for the folks in the Lake Mack neighborhood. Um it is utilized by a nonprofit to hold um community events, backpack stuffing events, things of that nature to help
the kids. Um we went to a public meeting out there a couple years ago now and met with the residents and and you learned a lot about the different functions they have at the community center. um they've talked to us and and requested that this
be transferred over to them. Since they are the only ones utilizing the center, we don't use it for anything else. It made sense to go ahead and donate the property to the community. >> Okay. All right. Um >> and we're totally convinced that's the
best. I mean, there's not much chance. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And the only thing I would say is that because having been out there um a few times and we were there when we had a community meeting um the concern would
be yeah are they going to be able to handle the ongoing maintenance of that building? It is old. Um they um they do a lot of great things there. It's very small tight-knit community. Um but it is a very old building. for us to upgrade
it would be a pretty substantial investment. Um, soon after we had our meeting, that was the year that um, I think was it Hurricane Milton? Okay. And we used that site for sandbags. Would we
reserve any type of interest so that we could use it for that purpose or they would be obligated to allow us to use it for that purpose or is I mean once it's gone, it's gone. So, um I know that a lot of people came there to get sand and
sandbags >> and we would still work with the community to make sure that was still available for sandbag distribution site for that area. Um we do have other locations that we use such as churches in the past. So, that would be nothing out of the ordinary that we would work with the community and get whatever
agreements in place or are necessary to u make sure that the sandach distribution site is still available. >> Yeah. Yeah. I know when I was there, I thought to myself that I mean, if this continued to be a county building that we were going to need to put some money into it um versus if we turn it over to
the community, they can make a decision. Do they want to upgrade it? Do they want to just be able to maintain it enough to continue to use it? But it would definitely require additional public funds if we're going to hold on to it. So, that's certainly, I think, a consideration when you decide whether to
surplus property or not. Um, but we have a speaker card. David, did you want to speak on this one? Again, David Williamson. Um, yeah, my my issue is so yes, it's a county county owned building property. Um, there's got to be a value to it. Um, it's nothing
from me personally against the organization that you're you're taking into consideration. Um, but more so was anybody else offered it? Was it offered to another organization that could help this county? Um, what was it publicized that if we were just going to give this
or deed this property over to them? Um, again, there's value in it. There's there's plenty of other things in this county we obviously need money for. Um, so I mean, I understand the building's old and it probably needs some renovations, but there's still value to
that property. Um, so again, I if it's offered to other organizations that may be able to do good or as you guys were stating, are you going to reserve where we could use it for storms or use it for, you know, community meetings or um
but to just deed it to one one organization because we're not using it at the moment just doesn't seem right. Uh I think everybody countywide should be offered the opportunity for it. >> All right. Thank Thank you.
I got just one question. Um, if you don't know, it's fine because it's an obscure one, but how did we come into existence of having did we build it once upon a time on this this piece of land and then we Okay, sorry if you don't know. >> Right. So there it it was owned and
operated by a volunteer fire department. When they dissolved via statute, it came to us. >> So I don't believe we had any um >> money invested in it. >> So it reverted it. I mean, it it came to us, but the county didn't purchase it.
The county didn't build it. It like reverted in a reverter clause. >> So, we're really kind of just going back to where it was. >> Yeah. It's like no net. >> Correct. It was essentially a a building used by a a community volunteer fire department, reverted to us when they
dissolved. We have never used it for any county purpose. Um I believe this entity has used it for a long time. um their letter when they requested the donation, they did specifically state that they um understand and agree that they will allow the county to continue to utilize it as a sandbag distribution site as
needed in support of community safety events. So, they've acknowledged that. Um maybe before we actually since there's no like super big urgency here, maybe before we actually make a decision on it, um we should consider having like
an actual agreement in in place so that we could have some of those things in there. Um it may be a reverter clause should it cease to be used for the purposes that this nonprofit is used. The nonprofit is a community based organization. It's not just like a
nonprofit that came in and said, "Let me use this building." It is basically that, you know, that immediate surrounding community's nonprofit that they just use to like was mentioned before, give out
backpacks during, you know, when school's starting up and hold programs for the community, >> youth events, >> youth events. When we went, we we actually went in conjunction with the sheriff and we were one of the main things we were addressing was issues
related to crime and substance abuse in the area. Um so, um anyway, but I I think I would feel more comfortable with maybe an agreement that addresses or the deed itself with a reverter clause that states under which which circumstances
the property would come back to the county. Is that doable? We can do that. Or if you wanted to approve it today, you could approve it with the addition that we add a reverter clause and that they will continue to allow it to be used as a sandbag location site and we can put that in the deed before the deed is executed. >> Okay.
>> Either way, >> I move to approve it including the reverter clause as just described. >> Um I guess I'll second for discussion because um do you are you is there anything else that you want to see in there? I mean I this is I know the area pretty well. not as well as perhaps you
do, but um is there anything else that you want to see in the agreement versus, you know, tableabling it versus letting staff run with it from here? >> I mean, I just would like to know that it's being used to serve the community, you know, that it's being used for actual service to the community, not by
an entity that I mean, they could have a whole variety of purposes that are nonprofit purposes and then it doesn't serve the immediate community. So that would be one of my concerns is that there be some type of an agreement or a designation of what's considered to be,
you know, immediate services to that or services to that immediate community. >> Yeah. Public benefit. >> Yeah. >> So So it sounds like uh maybe tableabling then. So um I'll I'll withdraw my second >> I'll withdraw the motion.
>> Is everybody okay with that? and we'll bring it back with some more specificity. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We should bring back a few pictures, too. >> Well, I'd like to see what what the county is and one of my concerns is I would like to see what the county is going to do if the um nonprofit
defaults. >> So, what's the back portion of it? >> Reverter. >> Yeah. What's reverter? So, >> okay. All right. So, we have consensus on that. Um, >> did you need a motion?
>> Do we need a motion to table this till next meeting or something? >> No. Okay. >> Okay. All right. So, we've already approved the other agenda items on consent. Um, we'd be moving then to the annexation report. And um
I was going to ask um if we could move up the um the discussion on tab 38 regarding um Wolf Branch Road because I have two property owners that
are here um that were immediate that were affected and continue to be affected by that situation. and I had hoped that we could have our discussion and then they would be able to leave the meeting. Um, so
on tab 38, um, we've got some slides and Mr. Timberlake is here and I know I've got Jordan is here and she's familiar with this um and can
point out um some of the key locations. Um you can see I mean I don't think we can back out from this particular map but um the DAR nursery that is the nursery that is up on Brit road where it
says up on that leftand corner nursery um that's the um retention pond that's on the southeast corner and where you see the contours go down and there's an
arrow. Yeah. Um that's where the the road blew out in that area. Um so I I just kind of wanted to preface the discussion first with um sort of my my reasoning for bringing this before us.
Um when we had um the last major storm, Milton, um the road was undermined and the county spent about $300,000
putting that road back together. Um at that time, um it was clear from doing investigations and looking on on the ground and so forth that that pond had um a substantial amounts of water had
had had come from that pond and from that nursery um on Brit Road and that nursery has been expanded over se the course of several years. Um, we also had an extensive and it was soon after I think Commissioner Morris and
Commissioner Sabatini had come on the commission. We had an extensive study done by DVO um where he was we had a lot of complaints. People thought that Timberwalk, the subdivision at the corner of Wolf Branch and Round Lake had
caused all of the flooding to occur. And so he did this big study and he was able to ascertain the basically the not just the volume but the velocity of the water that was coming off of that nursery um
had been the origin of of most of the drainage issues and the flooding and the flash flooding and had undermined Wolf Branch. So, here we are, you know, a year later and we're rebuilding Wolf Branch again and we're rebuilding it
um better. Um we're but we're spending twice as much money this time. Um, and the concern is that if that nursery continues to expand, um, and they don't draw down that pond or keep that pond low enough to be able
to stage water and to allow and and to have a structure that would allow the water to flow out evenly and not just burst out of there. Um, that even what we're doing now, you you may need even a
bigger improvement. And that's just me speaking from I mean what I think is common sense that yes, they're trying to deal with the water that's there there now. What happens if it gets worse? Um so in the
course of this um Milton and this last storm, we had property owners, residents who were in their homes and they had substantial damage from flooding. And not only was it an issue of property damage, but it was a real sincere
concern over safety. So, um, what I wanted to discuss today and and I'm going to ask Mr. Timberlake to come up and do a a presentation and tell you kind of his perspective having lived there a long time and lived through this and seen the changes himself. But then I
want to talk about the possibility of does the county have um an avenue for legal action against Dwir's nursery to require them to do more to prevent public infrastructure from being damaged
and to protect people and their homes from being um damaged or potentially their life threatened. So Mr. Timberlake, I'm going to give you the >> Okay. four. >> Yeah, I'm Jim Timberlake. I live at
32101 Timberlake Drive in Mount Dora and I have uh lived there uh since about 1987. And so um I have a a little perhaps a little more insight. Um, first thing I
would say is, uh, I'm getting ready to be 65 and my home is a big part of my retirement. And, uh, I don't need all this in the middle of my short-term two-year plans. But, um, I'm so thankful, uh, that I'm able to come and
tell you what, at least what I know and what I think. And I'll give my disclaimer. You can fact check me. This is all my opinions and the information that I've per per person personally seen and experienced. So, um
I can't read my notes. Um so, uh you know, this is an unprecedented event. That's what we keep hearing. Uh so, you know, Milton was a thousand year. Um October uh 26 was 2,000 years.
Uh I I don't think it's an unprecedented uh event that's that's a thousand or 2,000 years old because I don't think it's ever happened before. And I have a couple slides that I want to show you that uh I think I can prove my point. So in 1985 there was no nursery there. It's
kind of a blurry photo. That's the best that Google Earth had. Um but what I I I I tried to fly at 35,000 ft. I've been all over that property uh for years. There's no gullies, there's no washouts,
there's no ravines, there isn't anything that tells me that there's been any kind of heavy water flow across those properties for any length of time. In fact, when it started uh was actually uh
about 1995 or so. I've got a a another slide there where you begin to see uh Balcom's nursery uh starts going into business and that can be seen there on the 1995 image from Google Earth. Uh
along about that same time, we had some inordinate amount of watershed flow across our properties. Um same same lots were affected then. Uh but it wasn't anything like what what we've experienced at most
20 to 30 feet across um maybe a foot and a half deep, 18 in deep. And at that time my neighbor to the north where uh Joey Bonitez lives uh went to the county and talked with some
folks and uh following that event there were some ponds put in on Balcom's nursery. But if you can see in, you know, if you can try to strain your eyes a little bit, you can see Balcon's nursery is very small compared to what's
there now. So um then in 1999 um uh the three retention ponds were put in and um there were no further flood events occurred after that. We even went
through the 2004 2005 hurricane season. I had 21 trees down on my property from Hurricane Charlie. Uh did not have any water uh issues. We had a we had a lot of rain. Uh but we did not have any kind of flooding uh that took place from even
those hurricanes. Um, I understand that that largest pond that uh, chair chairwoman Campion spoke of uh, is 5 acres. I measured it on Google Maps. Uh, it's about five acres and I was told
it was about nine feet deep. That's a lot of water. Um and um uh this is like taking a uh vision test at the DMV. Um
uh so so um the ponds are always full. Um the pumps were put in last year uh that need, you know, it's a 10-in line. I'm I'm an old
old engineer, but uh 10-inch line on a pump that big, I mean on a pond that big, it it needs a lot of advanced notice to pump that thing down to where it's at a low level. Uh potentially for a hurricane scenario, it could be helpful, but in what went on on
the 26th, there's there isn't any hope for that to operate. So, um, Balcon's Nursery, uh, property and then the Jack Matche estate, uh, there next
to me, uh, sold around 20089. Uh, it became a plan unit development, uh, with some custom homes and some, uh, two-story quadruplexes on the balcon property.
And at that time the jurisdiction over permitting and those kind of things went to city of Mount Dora. Um and um so everything everything was good and
then we had turned down in the housing market in 9 10 11 and that project kind of faded away and then the purchase of the property got purchased by by doers
some somewhere in there. So, um, the nursery site in 2022, um, let's see. Would it be possible for me to move over there? >> Yeah. And I can I can read that for you. Your retention ponds appear to remain extensively the same even though the
nursery ground cover has grown substantially. And that was 2022. >> Correct. So, >> can you pick them up from there? You want to sit? You could sit there. Is that okay? Will that pick him up? >> So, you can see that the uh the size of
the nursery has grown that sandy area to the north uh of the property up by that natural pond. Uh that's all in ground cover now and it butts up to the properties uh to the north uh that come in from uh Horse Ranch Road and then of
course all the tracks along Timber Lake Drive but up to that property. So during Milton uh 2024 flood event uh occurs uh the county builds Wolf Branch Road and uh spend significant dollars
purchasing uh damaged homes and land and engineering solutions and so on so forth. Then the 26th uh much much bigger flood occurs. Uh Joey Bonitez's home is lost. I've got significant damage on my
property and um Joey will speak to to his situation. His is much more grave than mine, but um I've got some pictures to show some of both. Um, mine has to do
with fence and I've got a a giant uh sand delta now across my property. And then my my 40 foot long bridge that's uh my driveway uh was lifted up and twisted and torn up. Um
s significant erosion has occurred and then there's potential contaminants uh that come from this site because all of that water just washes washes down. So, these are a few pictures. Uh, the top one u is my my house and then you can
see all of that sand that's there uh down below uh by beside the creek on the on the east west yeah the west side of the creek. Uh excuse me, the east side of the creek. Uh that that sand is over a foot and a half thick. Um the bottom
left picture is uh tract one Ron Anderson's home. Uh that's actually his shed that uh traveled about uh 300 uh excuse me about 200 feet. You can see the water stain all up how wide it was when it came through there. Uh the top
right is more of the the delta that's across my property now. And then the bottom right picture is Joey Bonitez's uh camper that was swallowed up in a giant hole that was eroded away. And there on the right of that picture is
his is his home. that uh is now uh condemned. Uh next, so this is a video that I took and I want to show it's it's midnight and
the water rushing is incredible. It's about 80 feet across and this video doesn't do it justice, but the the roar from this water flow was like Niagara Falls. We could hear it
inside our block home 300 ft away. I uh I hope that the engineering we're we've done on Wolf Branch Road is adequate because you till you've seen this, you cannot imagine how much water is flowing off of that nursery property.
uh at the the deepest point on my property, it was six feet deep and 80 feet across. So that's a short clip. You can skip to the next slide and then this is another video and you can see how wide it was there.
That's all wash. That's the next morning uh about 6:30 in the morning. Um there's my bridge that's had the tail end washed off of it and uplifted. And again, this at this point right
here, it was uh well over 80 ft across. And then um come on up. Um when I turn here in a minute, you'll be able to see the um the delta, all the sand that has
washed up. And then the video after this once this one's finished, you'll see where all that sand came from. So, it's out in the open here, but as it goes back in past those banana trees and palm trees and up into the natural woods, uh the sand gets even deeper
because the vegetation held it. And at my north uh property line, uh my four board fence is actually three feet deep of sand. I lost uh three large trees because their roots were literally undermined
and washed out. That's a live oak there. And since this was taken, there's a lot laurel oak that fell over. So, this is Joey Bonitez's backyard. That ravine is where all the sand has come from. You can't see down through this uh heavily
vegetative area, but that's the the fence. And at the creek, uh my fence, you can see how it's all uh mangled up. uh is uh got uh 3 ft of sand around it. This one's just about over.
you go to the next slide. Uh so that was that speaking to the all that sand that came in. So the next slide is actually a video that uh from an interview from that channel 6 did with Joey Bonitz out
>> by relentless flooding. A canyon remains in this Mount Dora yard. A 1,000-year storm hit Lake County, but some neighborhoods got hit harder than others. Wolf Branch Road is one of the spots damaged. It's a major artery here in Mount Dora. I'm News 6 investigator
Erica Bgulio. And neighbors, especially those who live along Timberlake, are wondering why this happened again. You can see it ripped out the plumbing. Um the AC, it's uh it's just all all gone.
>> Jose Bonitez's home is on the verge of collapse. >> To be honest with you, I don't know how it's still standing. >> Flash floods hit his Mount Dora home more than two weeks ago. The rushing water eviscerating the foundation. Bonitez took this video moments before
he and his family evacuated. We started hearing uh the house making noise and then that's when we realized the house started falling in. >> Now they're living in this camper because their home is condemned. Lake County officials deeming the property unsafe due to erosion. Bonitez filed a
claim with his homeowners insurance company but was denied coverage. So all that water came down, broke through the fence, and then went that way toward your house. went that way towards my house. >> He says the water then swept down to
Wolf Branch Road. Crews are repairing Wolf Branch for the second time. The road was damaged during Hurricane Milton in 2024. Recently, Lake County Commissioner Leslie Campion told my colleague Mike Valenci runoff comes from a nursery on Brit Road.
>> They were trying to pump their water and um create some additional storage, but they could not pump it fast enough. In this letter dated November 2024, Commissioner Campion wrote to the nursery saying in part, quote, "An inordinate amount of runoff is leaving
your property during rain events. It is likely you do not have sufficient storm water storage or infrastructure, which is causing water quality and quantity problems. Lake County tells me the nursery installed a pump to move water from a retention area on the southeast
corner of the property to the north side of the property. The county says the pump is supposed to retain more storm water and lower the pond before heavy rains since the pond drains toward Wolf Branch Road and Timberlake Drive where Bonitez lives. Leaders have been
bringing up a nursery runoff. I called the nursery and spoke with the operations manager. I know you guys uh installed a pump to help with runoff. He said the pump has nothing to do with the recent rain event. I also reached out to the St. John's River Water Management
District, which approved the nursery storm water upgrades. In a statement, a spokesperson says the nursery storm water infrastructure functioned as intended. So, where do we go from here? Lake County is doing a study to help with its storm water management. It also
plans to raise Wolf Branch Road and add covers to help with the runoff. The road is expected to reopen in a few weeks in Lake County. Erica Bgulio, News 6. out by relentless flooding, a canyon
remains in this Mount Dora yard. A 1,000year storm hit Lake County. >> There we go. Okay, so uh I just looked at the aerial photos. Oddly enough, Doer's Nursery is was approximately 11
Walmarts. That includes the Walmart building, the roof area, and all the parking area. Um, that's a substantial uh site for gathering water. Next, so what if the sites were reversed? What if we had a doer's nursery sitting at Odora
Road and 441? All of Silven Shores would be flooded. It would be impending on all those homes on Morningside Drive. Uh, it' be be a different scenario, I would think. Uh, the fact of the matter is 11 Walmarts, uh, super Walmarts, that's a huge amount of surface area. shade cloth
becomes clogged with silt and algae and acts like asphalt. Uh DVO, your engineer said that uh publicly in in the meeting. Um there isn't enough retention pond uh there isn't a retention pond big enough uh to handle the runoff from Der's
nursery. That was another thing that that uh uh Devo said. And more culverts under Wolf Ranch Road is not the answer. There is too much water. if you could experience what I experienced at my home, uh the 26 was way worse than than
Milton. And again, uh I don't believe this is unprecedented. U I mean, the fact of the matter is I don't I don't think it's ever happened. Uh you can't say it's a 1,000-year rain or a 2,000-y year re. I don't think it's ever happened or we would be having
deeper creeks. My my creek is about six inches deep. If it was getting this kind of rainfall and watershed for the last hundred years through through that through that valley, through that creek, that creek would be deep. It would be 68 feet deep. That's not what's been going
on there. This is a new problem and it's because of this nursery uh in in the last decade or so. Um so I did a little Google AI uh search. Uh it supports what uh Debo says. Uh
some types of landscape fabric can impede the flow of air and water into the soil and prevent earthworms from thriving which can harm soil health over time. Um next slide. Another one. Uh
poor permeability. Some types of shade cloth particularly those that are waterproof or woven may not allow water to pass through quickly enough. uh clogging over time. Um the thing that comes to my mind, again, this flying at 35,000 feet, you're putting down a piece
of woven material on the ground to prevent nut grass from coming up through it. Nutrass will drive itself up through asphalt. So, you're putting down a shade cloth that's going to prevent nutrass from coming up, and you're also going to prevent the roots coming out of the bottom of a flower pot from drilling
down into the soil, so you can move them around easy. So, if it can do that, I don't see how it can have water pass through it. Uh, in my in my one of my final conclusions, I I it doesn't matter to me what St. John's water says and what
their rule is. It's immaterial in what this situation has become. So, and there's more uh you know, I asked other questions are, you know, um are there other cases where this has taken place? And then it says there's
not not any specific cases, but that there's plenty of studies that show that uh this causes a problem. It's increased impervious surface uh runoff concentration. So the root cause shade cloth is
intended to prevent nut grass and from penetrating it and and potted plants from going down through it. Uh yet water can flow freely. I don't think so. Uh what uh what does St. John's uh what do St. John's permitting documents show
regarding which shade cloth product specifically was installed? Was there any specifics to it or was it just shade cloth or was it ground ground cloth? What what exactly uh was supposed to be put down there and and was that put down
there? Uh does St. John's do a site inspection or periodic uh percolation evaluations? Does St. John's require the egg exemption permit to prove compliance over time uh with empirical data. Um we don't need a study to know that the
problem is doer's nursery. There's a ton of water. The water it's not like it halfway down Indian Creek it started having a lot of water. It started at the head of this whole mess. And that's at doer's nursery. That's where the problem
is. It's not I I I I I received the same rain on my threeacre pasture. I didn't get the first erosion. I didn't get any any wear whatsoever. Not even any sand moved. It soaked in beautifully. Um multiple eyewitnesses, which Joey's got
some personal accounts of what he saw uh on the neighboring properties. Uh there's plenty of people that saw the water coming. The pond was designed to spill over onto the uh east side onto the fifth lot, which is uh
Jerry uh Kums uh spill over onto his property. There's so much spill over onto his five acres, there's probably two acres in the back that is high and dry, but he will never be able to build on it if he wanted to put a barn or a shed or anything. his property uh is subject to
this situation. Um Timberlake Drive, Wolf Branch estates, Lake Amos Valley citizens are not being fairly protected by city and county rules and laws because that's we we can't control the fact that St.
John's allowed this to take place at this nursery. Um so there's a lot of costs. Um Joey got his homes gone. I probably got $100,000 worth of cleanup and and work to redo my
bridge. Um and then the taxpayers have paid a significant amount of money. And if this doesn't get resolved, it seems like it's going to continue. And here's the deal. I don't care what St. John's rule is and I don't care what
permit they got. I could I could follow every rule there is and permit and build a house on my five acres. And then Joey lives next door to me and every Thursday instead of taking my garbage out to the end of the road in my
Lake County provided can, I throw it over the fence into Joey's property. I followed every rule there is. I built the home. I'm perfectly permitted, but I'm still impacting his property. No one has the right to damage another person's
property. And that's what's going on here. Doesn't matter what St. John's uh water management says. It doesn't matter what their rule is. Nobody has the right to damage another person's property. And that's what's going on. It's damaging
Joey's property, my property, Ron Anderson's home, all the people out through the valley, and the citizens of Lake County with the damage that's being done to the infrastructure. Uh this is substantial b substantial burden uh for targeted individuals and
taxpayers. Um the desired outcome really will be for personal property damage and taxpayer infrastructure uh repair expenses to be reimbursed and no more flooding. That's really what I want. No more water. Let's
fix this problem um and stop the water from flowing. So ground covers either got to be changed or removed and the appropriate uh retention ponds put in place.
And so my original statement was that it may never have happened before and here's why. Uh I don't think that this level of flooding has ever happened at this location. Again, there's no deep gullies, there's no ravines, there's no water flood washouts where you can see
where this happens frequently. uh or ever um in for thousands of years. Um an inordinate level of water flow uh started when the nurseries began. It wasn't around before then. Uh the only
thing that's unprecedented in all of this is the way that Der's nurseries allowed to uh trample over adjacent uh land owners property rights. And Lake County and city of Mount Dora, let's partner up. Let's get this solved for the people of Lake County. Uh at this
point, it doesn't matter what the permitting issues were or if they've been abided by. It's really a civil issue at this point and it needs to be litigated. >> Thank you, Mr. Timberlake. I appreciate you putting all of that together. Um I
think it lays out a very compelling case. Um so, Mr. Um, Bonitez is here and I thought it would be helpful if you could give us a little time to explain your situation. Um,
I know this has been a very difficult several weeks for you. >> Yes. Yes, it has. Um, I really, um, don't know what to say, but it's just, um, you know, I've worked so hard to, uh, to
buy that piece of property. My grandfather lives three parcels up from me and um I remember seeing that parcel when I was a boy and I said I'd love to buy that parcel one day and I did and now it's just um it's all taken away from me. Um you know I'm living in a
camper and it's just real tough. I don't think you know anything like this should happen. um just asking for help to get the problem fixed and so this doesn't happen again so I could rebuild and just get my life back on track.
Um >> you know, I I don't wish this on my worst enemy, what I'm going through right now. And um I just uh hope we could all get together and so this doesn't happen again. >> Appreciate you being here today.
>> Thank you. And I had wanted to ask Jordan if she could just answer a couple questions um or if you all have questions, but I think that um just trying to get that big picture and understand
um how this affects the public infrastructure side of things in addition to what it's doing to our residents. Did you want me to go through the the quick slideshow just to this was the
account of what we observed the the following morning. So the previous slide here shows the aerial. You can see that the first aerial on the left hand side has the special flood hazard area identified.
The aerial on the right has the contours. Those are the one foot interval contours. So you can see that there is um a lot of topography changes here. There's 33 34 35 feet of elevation difference between that doer's pond and
wolf branch. So where those flow paths if we simplified those contours it looks like these green lines. So we have a flow path coming off the south side of the nursery and a flow path coming off the east side of the nursery. And where they
converge there is is close to where we saw some of the worst damage. Um then when they converge then they head due south straight to Wolf Branch. So you guys already gave a really comprehensive um account of the event
and the the damage. U Mr. Timberlakes um presentation was was very good and and pretty much showed the damage from every angle. Here we just have the damage shown on the left hand side of Wolf Branch. On the right hand side, the
bottom right um picture, it actually shows where the water line was. So you have the flattened vegetation. Um you had some vegetative debris. So it really shows the water over top the road both under Wolf Branch and over the top by at
least a couple feet. So that's a significant amount of water there. So here on the left hand side um we got permission from uh DERS staff to visit the pond site and take a look at at what
we what we think might have happened. um what the um what the site actually looked like at the south side of the pond where you see that green arrow on the lefthand side. Uh we took a couple pictures. You could see that there was a
line of vegetative debris at the top of the burm and then you have vegetative debris about 2 feet up the fence. So there was, you know, about 2 feet of water at one point leaving that pond. It would appear on the right side here. It
was a location at the east side, the southeast side of that pond. And you could see the scour. You can see the flattened vegetation. And also not quite shown in this photo, there was um uh container debris from the plants that
were was stacked up about 3 feet. So um we're thinking that there was about three feet of water that left the east side of the pond. and we talked about um Mr. Bonita's property and that's pretty much where
those two flow paths converge and that is where we saw some of the uh the greatest residential damage. Um you know we saw the videos of uh of this property. Here's another view. You could see that the trailer is completely
engulfed in this eroded area. And then here's another view looking east. It was about six feet deep at its deepest point. That that gully there that was created with this erosion. That's what we saw firsthand. We met
with the doers representatives on site. They became aware of the severity of the event around 10 p.m. where they mobilized um they said about 50 staff members. They got the pumps running and the pumps ran throughout the night. When
we arrived on their site about 10:45 11:00 a.m. the pumps were still running, but on that east side the water level was only about six inches from the top of the burm. So despite efforts um yeah just like Mr.
Timberlake had said that pump system is best utilized with an an advancing storm, you know, well in advance of a storm event because it does take even as large of a pump as it is, it it takes time to pump those ponds down.
>> Is that pond that it's lined their pond? >> Um, I think it is. I'll I'll verify >> or clay maybe at the bottom. Yeah. >> I'll I'll I'll ver I'll verify. I know
that the pond they told us it was about six feet deep in the center. >> The sides are a bit tapered, but I can't verify without going into the pond exactly how deep it is, but they said it was about six feet deep at its deepest. >> Yeah, they're designing it for wet
detention versus the dry, but it's probably wet. So, I would >> Did they want to use it for irrigation? >> They're using it for irrigation. >> Okay. Okay. So it is lined then or more. >> Yeah. >> Their their intent is to retain water to use for irrigation. But in you know
ahead of a storm event they are pumping from the southeastern pond to a ditch that leads to their uh northwestern pond. And then that pond outfalls into um a large swale um that surrounds that
natural water body to the north of them. Okay. >> Is there any concern on your part that if it was if there was even more water um a bigger storm or more um
I guess if that structure itself got compromised that it could just open just completely sort of breach and open up. >> I I would never say it's impossible. I'd probably leave that up to our engineering professionals, but it's
I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of of possibility. Um, sometimes, you know, pond structures can get compromised when they are, you know, experience significant over topping. >> Yeah. And the water even goes underneath, too. >> Sometimes it acts like a saw and it can
open up the side. So, um, I appreciate that. Any other questions for Jordan? So, about a year ago after Milton, we had I talked to the county attorney's office about, um, consulting with a water expert lawyer
about, you know, what what do you do in a situation like this? Um, at that point, we reached out to Doers and we had already, I mean, the day after Milton, we were at Doers, Fred Snyder and myself. um and I think it was Rachel from the county attorney's office and
water management district was there and so they were looking at these other options this option of pumping out of the that pond um and things like that. Um so I mean I appreciate the fact that they installed that pump and expended that money and so forth. Um, but the
reality is is is that, you know, we're we're left on behalf of the taxpayers having to pay to continually clean up this situation, not to mention what our residents are going through with their own property damage and potential for
something that could be much worse in loss of life. So, I I wanted to ask the board if you would support um the county attorney's office working with a water lawyer to look at what causes of action that we might have and whether it would be something that we would do in
conjunction with the land owners and and the affected property owners. >> I support that. My question is I almost feel like we're past that. I mean, have we come to the determination this is like a nuisance? I mean, do we have a feeling that probably
This is probably a civil wrong. >> I I think we are leaning that way. >> Um but again, I I am not a professional in water law. So, we would Yeah, we would want to bring in somebody to really look at all of this information
and then lay it out for us what what causes of action do we have? >> Yeah. So I guess my comments are um absolutely moving forward um interested in moving forward before before we pull the trigger. I would like to have the
the consultation on you know is I don't want to oversimplify this but it's clearly wrong what they did uh and I don't think they intentionally did it but there was there was an error with the way this was designed. I mean you can see that obviously this is doesn't
take very much to know that and um so you you know is it their insurance um is it them personally uh you know h can we can we get there without having to file a lawsuit first is what I would is what I'd like to look
at and it sounds like we're not necessarily deciding on to go right into lawsuit right now but absolutely moving forward and getting some information on that would be I think uh we'd be trying to protect them. So, I totally agree with that. Um the the bigger the bigger
case is uh the bigger u situation again as I you know being repetitive and not to be harp on it too much but it's super important. Um we've got to look at the county as a whole and I think we need more stringent storm water regulations
than St. John's has. even with the new rule, we should look at that. And it's going to require flood plane protection. Um, which, you know, you're going to have those on the other side come in and say, "Well, these new rules are affecting my property rights because it it, you know, in cases will will reduce
development footprints." Um, a lot of those a lot of people would argue that's a good thing. Um, so I think we I think we also have to there's some lawsuits we you know we're going to be we're in we maybe potentially get in, but it's going to require uh you know significant
resources moneywise I think to do to change our to change our codes and I we're doing that right am I am I understand we're still on on track to do that is that >> we are we're going to be talking more about that but but you do you know have
to take into account in this situation that you're dealing with an agricult ultural land use and the water management district rules are very different for a um a nursery versus for subdivision development and commercial development. So, you know, that that's a
consideration I think that has to be looked at. I don't think we have the authority to impose higher regulations on um agricultural uses under the Right to Farm Act. I might be wrong, but again, another one of those questions that I think we have to get to the bottom of. um could we have enhanced
requirements? And then on top of that, this is in the city of Mount Dora. This nursery was annexed. It was given a PUD um for future, you know, for residential development, I guess, when it was originally permitted. But again, that's in the city of Mount Dora. But even if, let's say, the city and the county could
have enhanced regulations, could we do so in the case of a nursery? Um, and is that something that we need to be asking the storm the water management district to change their rules um to address shade cloth differently to in cases of
these extreme slopes and contours that you might not have a wet retention pond that's serving as irrigation in a scenario like this where when that pond breaches it floods residential properties. And those are the kind of things that make this unique and
complicated. But >> yeah, and it's it's my understanding with a with storm water. So the use definitely we really don't have any authority over that. But with water like this, which is obviously devastating an adjacent property, kind of rule of thumb is no matter what the use is, you're not
you're not supposed to let something like this happen. And again, whether it was in it wasn't maybe it wasn't intentional and the rules just were different or need to be different in this case and or maybe somebody messed up on the math. I don't need to be that simple simplified with it. But um I I
mean I think we just need to we need to go there and look to make it much more uh strict stricter especially with flood flood ways and flood paths like this that are historic. Maybe not so much of an issue in places that are high and dry like in South Lake County, but I mean we still have floodways like this too. So
countywide, I think we have to make it much more strict and stringent. Um, and that's going to be a an interesting subject, but for moving moving forward, I mean, definitely I don't know if it's a civil case with them first, uh, and we're supporting them or how that works, but you're going to come back and give
us options on that, it sounds like. Right. >> Correct. We'll have our outside counsel look at it and give us an idea of what causes of action we might be able to pursue. Um, keep in mind that I our attorney cannot provide legal advice to the residents. Um, but we can certainly
share information with them. >> Yeah, >> they could if they could give us a rough estimate if this goes to trial, what it would run, that would be great. >> Absolutely. We will ask for that information as well. >> Yeah, we could at least just I mean I don't want a whole process, but like
maybe just consider a few different names from firms and lawyers. That way we're not >> and we typically do that. So if you have recommendations, by all means, let me know who you'd like us to talk with. >> So question though on on what you stated about representing property owners or
residents. Um if if if we consulted with an attorney and they said you got a public nuisance situation here, um the the county would then have the opportunity to decide whether to pursue that. But we would be doing that on behalf of the
the residents of Lake County. Not we we couldn't join forces in a civil suit or could >> we would have to have those conversations with whatever attorney we select. >> Okay. >> So I'm I'm just wondering about a couple
of a couple of things here is first of all this is in the city of Maldora, right? >> No, not this. >> Dare is >> Dwars is but not what you're looking right. Okay. So, are we going to open up Pandora's box here on this one? We've got Donley
Street that was caused by something. Then we've got used is caused by something. Commissioner Parks mentioned that South Lake County is high and dry. But I do remember that a whole subdivision was flooded down there. So, are we open up Pandora's box? Number
one. Number two, should we not have our storm water department and our water authority department take this over instead of the county attorney? I mean, they're they're the storm water people and then you can lead charge helping
them out. So, I mean, we got a great group that does nothing but storm water. This is obviously storm water. Um, I think it's a civil case. I am sorry um this has happened but I I'm worried about Pandora's box and what happens in
the future if something like this happens I don't know anywhere. >> So I've I've thought a lot about you know what similarities between certain locations versus this and I think that I mean one of the things that you you have
to do in a scenario like this is you really have to distinguish the facts. You have to look at the actual facts of this situation versus others. And there may be other situations where people in Mount Dora, you know, have a cause of action against a entity whose storm
water control structure failed, who then has a cause of action against an engineer or a contractor who built it. You know, there but you you I don't think you should take into account those possibilities when when you're looking at this. You just focus right on these
facts. And in these facts, um, you have you have a a nursery that's producing a tremendous amount of water that has then impacted public infrastructure causing a lot of damage that the taxpayers have to pick up the bill for. And then you have property owners that have had huge
losses. You have to look at I mean what happened there with nursery regulations. That's one side of it. the other side of it is is a civil side where you actually what what you're doing on your property is is having an impact downstream. But I
I get where you're coming from, Commissioner Smith. I just don't think this is an issue where you go, oh, let go let the engineers, you know, work on this and come up with something. You've got to look at whether do we have in this situation a way to recoup damages for Wolf Branch and make sure that we
don't have to build a bridge at Wolf Branch. I I'm thinking that we need to the property owner of do this nursery seems to me like he was willing he installed a pump uh just unfortunately didn't turn the pump on quick enough. So I'm like Commissioner
Parks I think um let's see what our avenues are and see if there's an applicable way of getting this taken care of without going through the suit. So, I I think um it won't be the next steps won't be driven entirely just by
Melanie and her team. I think you're going to work with Jordan and the engineering staff then to get some of those points and see maybe even see I mean it's obvious that there's something here. So, I mean water over topped a system that was designed and
it's supposed to be designed conservatively and it overtopped it by not just a little but quite a large amount. So something there's a mess up somewhere, but it's work the attorney crafting what kind of a I mean the the engineer is working to see what kind of
a case we have so to speak. if it's a case, I want to use that term, but um what our options are, I think, is better is is >> yeah, >> the next step. >> And sometimes when you do initiate a lawsuit, if that's where it goes and that's what the advice of the lawyer is, and the board decides to go in that
direction, sometimes it's that process that gets the parties to the table to come up with a solution. And oftentimes you can't get to that discussion of coming up with a settlement or a solution until you actually proceed with what your cause of action is. >> Have we gone to doers and asked them to
fix the problem and they have said no? >> Yeah, I mean it's it's really complicated. They have a vast amount of space and yet they know they have a problem and their their solution was to try to pump water out of a pond that always holds water and with you know it
just it's not that's solution isn't >> they're not going to do anything there's no >> okay >> I'd like to know >> as long as we've given them the opportunity >> that >> a problem they have St. John's behind it >> but that's on the permit side you know you can do everything that's right just
like Mr. Timberlake said, "You can follow all the rules, but if you still are doing something that impacts your neighbor, that those are two different >> We're going to look at it civily and we're going to be concentrating on Wolf Branch Road as as our issue, not the
resident's issue. They would have to bring in their own attorneys to represent them." >> Yeah. If they if they So, this issue there and it's something bad happened and wrong uh is affecting us. Yeah. for the taxpayers. We should get the money back for the damage it caused to the
road and if there's any purchase of land that we need to do it it >> or to make sure we don't have to build the road all over again or build a $3 million bridge. >> But that's a that's the question and to Commissioner Smith's point is like what how what's the probability of getting the money back on that? And I mean it's
>> I mean attorneys are expensive. I personally think it's it's a win if we make sure that the road doesn't wash out again and we don't have to build a bridge in order to accommodate what they're doing on their property. >> If if what they want to do, if they want to continue to have a nursery and in
order to get this solved, they've got to take part of the nursery and build another pond and build some concrete control structures that actually separate the water out and create a safer situation, then that could be potentially a solution, you know. So, there could be other solutions. I'm not so much about, you know, we've got to
collect x amount of dollars for what we've already repaired. I I'm more looking at it like we don't want to have to do this again and we don't want have to build an even more expensive structure when they are they they hold really the solution in their hands which is more capacity
>> and have we approached them with any of these things recently? >> I think >> I think that's what the attorney will do. Attorney will look at it all and then say go to them and again try to work with them like hey now that we've studied it here's where we think you might be liable if you do this we're
good we're still trying to work with them bringing legal expertise I think facilitates it it's almost like a mediation going on at a higher level >> but what I don't want to I hate to say this but what I don't want to do is to start just throwing lawsuits at
everybody when there's a problem and I in Sean's district the the the mobile home park down there they had a flooding issue >> they always the Right. So now it's like, okay, do we do we get somebody to sue them? >> But who would you sue? I mean, I'm just
saying you've got to separate the facts. You can't just say you're going to go around suing everyone. When the facts show you that you have a cause of action, that's when you actually have this type of discussion. And my hope would be that by moving down this road
if there is a cause of action that we do sit at the table with with Dwars and we do come up with a solution. Um but yeah I don't think this is a scenario of going around and just suing everybody and anybody because there's problems. I
mean >> in this nursery in the city of Mount Door >> it is. So why don't we just sue the city of Mount Dorf because they're the ones that allowed them to do this. >> They don't oversee what the water management district permits and they don't oversee how they operate.
>> I can guarantee how this happened was this the staff says, "Okay, did they get the St. John's water uh permit?" >> Click check mark and then that's it. It moves. That's how it works. >> Uh unless you have a new standard. >> That's right. >> Which we need to do.
>> I was being emphas. That's the that answer is the answer right there that when you you run a business, you start you do a site plan, you check the box, I did what the district told me to do, but then if you end up harming other people in the process, >> I got a case. Yeah. I mean,
>> then it's got to be up to the permitting agency or the people who allowed it to go in, which is the city of Maldora. So, let's just sue them. >> It doesn't work that way, though. >> Okay. >> I mean, it doesn't it >> I know. And I I think the the and we're I think we all actually all agreed what
to do next. But I think the the the um the the other concern would be, you know, there's a lot of cases I think if I'm paraphrasing this correct is is um you know, we could there's a lot of these cases and unfortunately that we could get ourselves into. So, um but
yeah. >> Yeah, you have to be discerning. >> This is a hot case. This is right here. We're seeing it. Yeah, I know. I know. >> We got to get those rules changed, though. Okay. All right. So, we have some consensus. Okay. >> And we'll look to the attorney's office
to bring us back some options. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Okay. And then we're going to jump back over to our annexation report, which is um Mike Fitzgerald. And again, Mr. Bonitez, Mr. Timberlake, thank you for
being here today and we'll stay in touch with you to let you know what we're doing on our end. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, chairman, commissioners. Good morning. For the record, Mike Fitzgerald, the office of planning and zoning director. I have an annexation
report for the city of Leburg. Uh Lake County has received a notice that the city of Leburg is proposing to annex approximately 7.3 acres of land located at west uh located west of US Highway 27 north of University Avenue. The intent
is to develop the property with multi-use office warehouse buildings and other commercial uses in accordance with the city of Leburg. The current Lake County zoning is agriculture. The proposed city zoning is planned unit development. Current Lake County flu is
urban low and the proposed flu is general commercial. Lake County's urban low uh allows up to four dwelling units per acre for residential, but it also offers a variety of uses for commercial and industrial and that would be in
compliance with what the city is proposing to do for a multi-use commercial development. I'm happy to answer questions or All right, Commissioner Smith, it's in your district. You okay with No, no, but
no, no comments on Okay. >> Um, general commercial basically in what the county has designated as urban low. >> Yes, ma'am. The urban low land use provides the opportunity for a variety
of uses in Lake County. So if it were staying in the county, they could come in with commercial and make that zoning request, but instead they're annexing into the city. >> Yes, ma'am. They could they could resone. No questions. >> All right.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Moving ahead then to public hearings. Um Miranda is here. There's Miranda. Okay. Good morning, chairman and commissioners. I'm Miranda Lenu, budget
manager with the Office of Management Budget. The purpose of today's presentation is to reconcile the fiscal year 2025 final budgeted revenues and expenditures. First, I'll provide a brief brief background, then a summary of the
proposed adjustments. I will then turn it over to the chairman to open the public hearing and finally the requested action. At the end of each fiscal year, all of the budgeted revenues and expenditures are reconciled based on actual transactions throughout the year. Budget
adjustments are necessary to account for any unanticipated revenues and expenditures. For example, here's a breakdown of the 2025 excess fees that were returned back to the county. Essentially, this is the amount the constitutional saved over
their budget expenses. The return of excess fees are recognized as revenue offsetting the original budgeted expenditures. Other adjustments to general fund come to a total increase of 11,461,484. This includes the adjustment for costs
related to the county's response to Hurricane Milton during the fiscal year for approximately 3.9 million. Adjustments to interfund transfers which include a transfer to the risk fund to assist with costs for unanticipated claims. A transfer to the fleet fund to
assist with costs for operations. The reallocation of Gazsby 87 rentals and leases to lease principal and interest for a net zero impact. one-time recognition of capital outlay expense and proceeds of debt for lease leases commencing during the year per
the Gazsby 87 requirement also a net zero impact after all the adjustments recognizing unanticipated revenues and expenditures we were able to add 1.64 million to operating reserves which is mostly attributable to interest revenues
that came in higher than projections. One of the most significant adjustments is the annual true-up of school impact fees received and distributed that is performed each year and due to Gazby 84. This requires the county to recognize
the pass through of school impact fees. Adjustments were also made to the debt service funds to account for the bond refunding completed during the year and this was approximately $49,280,01. Adjustments were made to the risk fund recognizing unanticipated revenues and
an increase in the transfer from the general fund to assist with unanticipated claims. And finally, various other budget adjustments were made as needed in other funds. This includes reallocations to accounts for the Gazsby 87 financial statement requirements, an adjustment to
gas tax fund of approximately 152,000 for the 9th cent gas tax revenues received and distributed to the cities, and an adjustment to the fleet fund of 166,000 to assist with operational costs. I'll now turn it over to the chairman to
open the public hearing. >> All right. Um I'll open the meeting. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak? Any raised hands? And I don't see any cards. Um anybody else here in the audience who wishes to speak on tab 33?
All right, we'll bring it back to the board. Do you have questions or do we have a motion to proceed with the >> I have a question. What What's the total amount going to reserves? It was 1.64 million. >> Make a motion that we approve
uh with the addition of taking 10% and putting it towards our road fund. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose? That passes 40.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Um, moving on the tab 34, Commissioner Morris. This is with regard to the affordable housing advisory committee. And there are two um positions um that you're are being requested for
reappoint. >> Everything's fine. >> Do you want to make that motion? >> Sure. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? >> All right. Then moving on to tab 35. Um, I'm on the Elders Affairs Coordinating
Council. Um, I would ask for a motion to approve um, Hugh Gravit for District 1 and Dell Richards to complete uh, the remaining term on District 5. Move >> to approve. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> Passes 50. Um, moving on then, Children's Services Council. Um, this is Commissioner Sabatini's um, committee. He's leazison to do we have a motion on these appointments to approve
>> second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Okay. Um on addendum we have 37 and we have 39. Um want to take them in order. I guess we'll take
them in order. That makes sense. >> 37 first. >> But you can't leave. >> Huh? >> Are you going to be gone very long? >> No. Um, >> that's personal. >> Okay. I guess we'll find out if you're gone very long. Um,
yeah, I hate to get started without the full board here, but um, but we could we could take a break. Let's just take a about a five to eight minute break. We'll convene no later than 10 minutes from now. >> Or we do 39,
>> but we shouldn't be doing that. That's his district. break. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Quick break. Okay. We're going back into session here and we're picking up on tab 37. This is a
proposed development agreement um for Aster Riverfront LLC between the county and the owner of this LLC. This has to do with that restaurant that's up on the St. John's River right before you go over the bridge into Valuchia County. It's called Drifters. It's a restaurant that's been there for many many many
years. Um and um it was renamed recently um Drifters. He built um a cheeky hut which has a um an exemption under the Florida statutes when you have one of these cheeky huts um um built that
complies with the Florida statutes. And there has been an ongoing dispute. It has not been occupied. It's been there for about two years. Um there has been an ongoing dispute over um whether in fact it meets the requirements of the
Florida statutes for being exempt and namely that he used metal nails, tie downs, some concrete, um footers, and he put a railing around it. So those things potentially make it non
notexempt, but it's a dispute. Um and um and then along the way as a result of putting the structure up, there became questions of whether it was a far enough distance away from the existing building. Um what was the capacity?
Could it meet fire code? Um and then there were site plan issues, flood based flood elevation, um structures that have been put on the property, storm water management and so forth. So, this has been going on for quite a while and trying to get this to
a resolution. Representative Gentry is proposing legislation that would further define better define um the cheeky hut exemption and allow for metal nails, tie downs, and um nonwood
um enhancements um to be used without it losing its Florida statutes exemption. So that's going on concurrently while we're having this discussion. Um the purpose of this agreement would be
to say that we're going to um essentially Melanie, help me here with the terminology. It would be conditional exemption until we get that from the Florida legislature. >> Correct. So, so the document I handed out this morning, we have continued to
word smmith it since um the agenda update was published on Friday. So, essentially what this revised document does is it explains that there is this exemption for a cheeky hut, which means an open-sided wooden hut that does not incorporate non-wood features. The
owner's position is that the things that were used make it safer, that they're not really um incorporated features of the HUD itself. Uh the building official of course has a different opinion on that based on the actual wording of the statute. Nonwood is nonwood which of
course would not include your metal hurricane straps and concrete and nails and things like that. So pending a bill being filed to clarify that exemption. What this agreement would do is essentially recognize the hut conditionally as being under the
exemption as a cheeky hut. Um, the agreement would still require the owner. They still have to get a fire plan, life safety plan approved. They would have to get permits for any electrical plumbing. Um, they would still have to meet storm water flood. Anything else that you would have to do other than get a
building permit for the hut itself under that conditional recognition of it possibly being exempt. Um, so that's the basis of the changes. We do clarify in here that um the owner understands that this is conditional. It's good for 12
months. Um knowing that sometimes things don't always work their way through the legislative process the first time. We could go into the next session potentially the owner could come back and ask for one final 12-month extension. If that extension is not granted or if the legislature does not
make these changes um that Representative Gentry may be proposing, then the owner is acknowledging that he will come in and fully have the the building the structure permitted not as a cheeky but as um >> a non-cheeky. >> A non-cheeky. Yes. So So those are the
changes that we made to this document. Um and if the board is willing to approve it today, then we'll have the owner sign it. Obviously, he didn't sign it cuz we are still working on it hot off the press at 8:30. >> So, he would still have to do his life safety plan and have that approved. Um, he would still have to do his plumbing.
He would still have to do his electrical um permits. And then in addition, there's a couple pending um variances that have to do with the storm water management um and um landscaping and so forth. Those would go to the variance board. So if those things are all
addressed, then this would allow them to at least begin to use their cheeky hut or non- cheeky hut. >> Right. So, but essentially he still should not be using it for commercial or assembly uses. If he if he does that, he's doing that at his own risk. We are not authorizing him to
>> and that's what this says, >> correct? That if it were to happen, then we're not on the hook. >> Okay. So, >> county has no liability, right? if he use it. >> This agreement says >> that is what this agreement says.
>> And just to be clear, this is just a um because the county is interpreting one way, the state's interpreting another way, and we're just letting the state uh come to a conclusion, right? >> So, so the property owner and the siminal tribe are interpreting it differently than the county is
interpreting it. So, we are willing to go with the conditional idea that it meets the owner and the trib's interpretation pending legislation that would clarify that exemption. Um, and whatever way that goes is what would happen at the end.
>> Okay. >> But before anybody makes a motion though, I do have a card. Mr. Williamson, did you wish to speak on this matter? >> Okay. All right. So, back to the board. >> Voting with the seminals on that. Are you okay with that? I'm 100% okay with that. >> All right.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I will vote with I think it's actually the um there's two tribes that build these. Masuki Mkasuki. Yeah. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor say I. I. Any
opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Um moving now then to tab third 39. This is discussion and direction regarding settlement agreement with Lake County versus HG Trun Creek LLC um DOA a DOA
case rel related to Treasure Trove in district three. >> Okay. And I'm going to actually have um one of my attorneys come up here. Whichever one. Rock paper scissors. >> Rock paper scissors.
>> So I will let them explain to you what the proposal is. Hi, good morning. Rachel Martellowitz. Um, the proposal for settlement is to resolve our permit challenge that we filed through our rideway use permit process. So, the developer would file
for a rideway utilization permit. They have added some um swailes along our roadways in this area. This is the um it's over in Leburg, so it's along County Road 44 and Treasure Island Road. and there's some improvements that
they're making to their um the drainage that would affect our roads. There's a pipe system that they're upgrading and the on-site pond is being upgraded to account for a 100red-year storm um which is higher than what our code requires. So, we were agreeing to settle it and
then we would dismiss the permit challenge that we filed. >> So, the so can you repeat that? So the three part the three parts to the settle proposed settlement is are the increased pond size the swailes and then what was the other one >> there's a pipe system that's >> pipe system okay
>> right was there plantings or something like that that was also or did I think of something else maybe >> I don't believe there was any >> vegetative plantings okay >> there would be all landscaping as required per our current code so everything else is compliant with code
to be reviewed through the rightway permit process Um, but those were some of the things as far as like concessions for some of the concerns that we identified when we filed this permit challenge um that that they upgraded based on what was already approved through their St. John's permit. >> Okay.
>> So, those are kind of the major um upgrades that we were getting concessions from the developer to address some of the drainage concerns. >> Okay. So, what is the what is the attorney's office opinion on it on this on the settlement you're recommending? we were recommending um accepting the
settlement. Um you know, as you're all aware with litigation, there's a lot of uncertainty. Um this is something that if we continued with the challenge, um and I know there's been communications with some of the the residents. So, the the residents had filed their own
separate challenge to this permit. Um they voluntarily dismissed that challenge. Um we filed our challenge to the permit that was issued. Some of the things that are being pointed out by the residents are um you know there's one issue which is was the permit correctly
issued based on the current requirements. There's a whole separate issue of are the current requirements sufficient. So the the residents are taking the position that um you know both of those things are at play that maybe the St.
John's permit requirements need to be adjusted. I know there's been discussion of that in in other locations by this board today, but is that something that we would achieve through this instant action? Not necessarily. So, as far as what we've filed to address this
particular permit, the concerns to our roadways in that immediate area and some of the concessions we've gotten, um the agreement to abide by higher standards than what's currently in our code, um I'm recommending um and our office is recommending that we accept this
Okay, thank you. >> All right, we have the the residents that filed their um emails and so forth. Did um I have cards. Um so I have um Ray, Hayden, and then Lisa. Just give you the order now. And then
Allan, then Louise, and then Gary. Uh, good morning. Uh, Ray Hayden, uh, 35121 Dennis Road in Leburg, but we're county residents. Uh, first, I want to thank you for the time and attention you've given to Treasure Trove. It means
a great deal to all of us, uh, who will be negatively impacted by this development. We believe that the county's 120 petition can do something more than address the development. It can help encourage meaningful updates to St. John stormwater uh regulations which are out of step with the real world
conditions our communities are are actually facing as was well demonstrated earlier. Uh we've seen what's been happening across Lake County especially the flooding of Mount Dora and Eustace. We've seen problems at Silver Lake Point. Just today on the way over here we see water uh ripping through the the
uh continued development that they're doing there. So you see there's additional leaks that are happening now right now even after all the discussion understanding that it has to be completed first but uh that's beyond my point here. Uh we've seen problems at the Silver Lake point where the ST storm water is already flowing directly on a
private property. It's actually driven there. Uh Treasure Trove is designed to do the same thing. As you are aware, DVO Engineering identified concerns about the reusebased storm water systems and there's also inconsistencies in the hydraology that need addressing. uh
given that Florida law allows a county uh tools under chapter 120 to uh request stronger standards. While the 120 petition continues to move forward, the county can petition uh for rulemaking and challenge outdated uh storm water policies which are crystal clear at this
point. Uh please consider uh using the county's 120 position as an opportunity to compel St. John's to modernize its storm water criteria. In fact, that's why we started it in the first place. Uh we need rules to reflect the current rainfall, actual cumulative impacts
and passive systems that work even when pumps fail. Uh these changes would help not only with Treasure Trove but with every future development in Lake County and uh possibly with additional ones that are already currently being problematic today. All right. So we stand in support of the county in any
which way we possibly can and uh we always stand ready for to be called up. Thank you very much for your time. Good morning. Lisa Hayden, 35121, Dennis Road, Leburg. Um, I just want to introduce to you the people who will be um impacted when Treasure Trove um when
their storm water management fails, when their p when they're insufficient ponds over top. And um I'll just put this here. And are you able to put this on camera? Oh, thank you so much. Thank you, Jennifer.
Okay, so we have um of course this is Ray and I and then this is Gary who's sitting over here. But this is a manufactured home that is a very new home. I would say like a year and a half, maybe two years old. Um firefighter and nurse. A couple live there with their child. Um here is
another manufactured home, a local teacher. And here is a group home for disabled adults. So, I just want to as I I scribbled this as I was sitting here today. Um, so this is the um firefighter and nurse. They're 70 feet. Treasure
trove is at 80 ft. And as we know, as we've seen along County Road 44, they will bring in a ton of fill. Here is the teachers manufacturer home at 65 ft. Here is the group home at 65 ft. And here's approximately 80 manufactured
homes between 65 and 60 feet here. That's um for confusion's sake, it is called Treasure Cove. So, we know what's going to happen. This um there is there is the swale and we do appreciate we cannot say thank the county attorney and
the county commission enough for what they've the attention that they've given to treasure trove for the past I don't know three years. I don't even know. Um, but we know that this swale that terminates somewhere over here in a bubble up um is going to just emanate
down onto all these vulnerable properties, these manufactured homes in this group home. We also know here that we can't even tell where the termination is for the swale water. So these these people here, this firefighter and nurse and this teacher, they are going to be
impacted. So what we're impacting is our essential workers and vulnerable neighbors that could all be rendered homeless just like Mr. Bonitz, which is a tragedy. Um, I'd like to share with you just the um first firsthand witness
account by um Lake County's fire battalion chief Jeff Hurst where he was in waist deep water in thigh deep water and he was um noticing every time he was in these situations that terrible night where it
rained for 15 inches um that he could see in the horizon all the developments that were funneling the water that were creating these disasters around the Lake County um Mount Dura and Eustace areas.
Um I believe it is not too much to ask that we say no more ERPs until St. John's has looked at their regulations that are totally failing Lake County. Thank you so much for your time. Uh, good morning. Um, Alan Chen, 810
Treasure Island Road. Um, addressing two issues with the Treasure Tro 120 petition. Um first I want to discuss the curve numbers and as you know curve numbers are used to calculate the runoff volumes which is in turn used to determine retention pond sizes. Um what
I want to show down here in this table is that there was a soil uh sample report done in 2024 early 2024 and two hydraology reports generated from that in 2024 and 2025. What you see on the right here is that
the curve number used actually increased significantly from 32 to 43 and the description of the woods changed from good condition to fair condition. And then post development after it's paved over they actually decrease the curve number from 81 to 78. And both of these
changes um help to reduce the retention pond size requirements and of course it maximizes number of houses. Question is why did they change? And just for reference, Silver Lake Point also has the same type of Chandler sand. Uh use
the curve number 32. And this is just from the soil study. About 90% of the buildable acreage is Chandler sand. Uh and as you can see is very well draining soil to 80 in thick. Now for the proposed uh developer
solution. Um as you know change in postmon run of flow is significant contributor to many of the local flooding events in this county and just in our CR44 area we've shown multiple times silver lake point runoff crossing
uh onto or across CR44 and in this recent October event of we had about 4.75 inches here. Morningside runoff flowed across CR44 in Silverl Springs. And if we take a look at the contour map here,
um DVO indic um highlighted this northerly flow coming in, but right now it's actually well distributed throughout Treasure Trove, and we actually have some of it going further south down along CR44, but this percolates down into this well draining
soil. The current uh post-development proposal after paving over is that you have swailes that redirects the entire flow into the wetlands. So in more detail here at the top you have the swailes running
along East Treasure Island A then exiting into the wetland area and then at the bottom you have this set of swailes running along CR44 going into a a um culvert and then bubble up drain that Lisa mentioned which is right next
to the wetlands. So in conclusion, you have incoming flow as mentioned by DVO coming outside of Treasure Trove is entirely redirected into the wetlands from a change in the flow pattern that we currently have. Uh we also have curve number changes that
are not explained very well and both of these changes favor the developer at the extents of the surrounding residents and properties and wetlands. Um, we ask that you please deny this proposal as it fails to address the reason why we fought against this development in the
first place, which is concern for the adjacent neighbors and wetlands. Thank you. >> Good morning. It's always a pleasure to be here. My name is Louise Chen. I live at 810. >> Put the microphone down on Louise. I live at 810 Treasure Island Road in the beautiful city of Leburgger in
unincorporated next to the beautiful uh Lake Griffin. My concern is for the um like Lisa said, the um neighbors, the wetlands and Lake Griffin. Lake Griffin is impaired right now. It's really really important that we stop and think
about what we're doing to the wetlands and to the lake before it becomes like it was one of the mug farms. Because when we had the mug farms, we were able to remove them, create Emerald Marsh, which really helped to improve it. But now we're adding all this stress onto
this. Anyway, that wasn't part of my speech, but um okay, Vice Chairman um Parops, here's my um drawing. Can we switch
Are you seeing the >> Oh, you can see. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Um, Mr. Parks re or Commissioner Parks recommended this that we put a 100 foot natural native vegetation around the border. This would help to pre this
would help to percolate the water that comes from above and also it would prevent a um also going around the um wetlands. It would help to filter contaminants and other stuff that goes
into the wetlands that would help them. And then in lude this helps protect Lake Griffin. Now on this one, it just shows how these oh this wetland how this correlates better
with the neighbors and with the adjoining wetlands. Um because this would protect it from the pollutants and stuff that comes from it. This is only 60 um 60 homes. It would have much less impact. This is supposed to be Lake
County property. Um, it's was zoned for one house for every 5 acres, which would have been it would have been fine keeping with the neighborhood and it would protect it. I'm just so afraid that the plan that they have now, it's going to come down here. It's going to
grow across the road. It's going to imperil Treasure Island Road and undercut it much like what we saw earlier with Wolf Branch Road. Or it could come down here. It could bother Sierra 44 at this juncture down here where you get water
flowing up from Silver Lake Point. And I'm almost out of time. So, thank you for your time today. >> Thank you. >> Thank I just want to clear up one point about this. Yes, this is one of those Leburg annexation kind of things and they
understand that there's a severe problem with it. We've been to local meetings uh recently and Leburg is aware of the problems with this particular property. So the other thing is though our initial thing is our standing because that thing's going to directly affect us. We're also at the 70 foot level and
that's going to come down and hit us too. The other thing is that all the other property around there is all county property. So that's that's why we introduce ourselves with the county and the whole process. 100% of everything else, including us, our county
residents. And this Leburg annexation, which they know is problematic, um, for their own public records, um, is going to be the, uh, impetus for many problems in the flooding from us as we've seen recently. Thank you very much. Sorry for
the extended time. Gary Kuster, 8909 East Treasure Island Avenue. This is the original layout of the uh Treasure Trove property. As you can see, there's a water retention on the south end, water
retention over here, but in between the water retention and the development, there's a natural pond, a sinkhole pond, but the water isn't going to How's the water going to get to their retention pond? They got to pipe it over there.
this one down on the bottom. If you look at the numbers, and another thing, I like all this information around the outside. Gives me something to do. I sit and look at my phone and pan right down on it. There's so much information around the outside that Leburg was going
to be responsible for the in the original, Leberg was going to be responsible for the water retention ponds. Leberg said, "Oh, no. We're not doing that. So they changed it. This is the part of the settlement right here.
If you look, excuse me, every lot on here has an elevation. If you you keep going down through here, starts out at 797, comes on down to 73 on the bottom end
down here. And here's the pond and the bubbleups they were talking about. That's right on the property line. But all the water channels into the streets and the streets all channel
right on down here to the bottom pond. Very little of it actually goes to the upper pond, which isn't even on their their settlement proposal. They added a ditch
along 44 and along East Treasure Island Avenue. That ditch is in the in the easement of 25 ft, which we argued with them to get a 25 ft easement on it. Supposed to have foliage, trees, everything. A nice easement.
Well, if they put that ditch in there, then they got to figure in the water that's going to fall on the road because ditches are made to take water off the road. not there's no water going to come from this development to the ditches that they're offering as water
retention. So anyway, that's the problem that this whole development, this whole thing, the settlement is zero. You gain zero. It's all stuff that's already there. The ditches are simple, but it's
not a solution. It's just going to flood the neighborhood and that's the bottom line on it. You already see what happened in Wolf Branch on a smaller scale. It'll happen here. Thank you.
>> All right. Bringing it back to the board. >> I have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Uh so, so it uh I know you've been working on the the settlement here and I appreciate the presentation on that. Um it may be an engineering question but >> Jeff
>> Jeff is here. Okay. So the engineering question would be back to the 100 foot buffer. The settlement was that previous site plan that was just up included was so basically this is the same number of units right development propos
>> the fair engineering director the uh settlement is the same number of units. Yes. >> Okay. So, from what from what your um and I'm I'm sorry if I'm putting you on the spot um but there's following the rules which
I as I understand you have walked looked over with a fine tooth comb and they have followed the rules the the current rules for designing but what in in your professional practice I mean is the 100 foot buffer for instance is that going
to this is designed for a 100year storm term. Um but what is that going to mitigate help mitigate any potential in the future? Uh something that ex you know goes beyond that um that level. I mean what do you think professionally about that? >> A 100 foot buffer. I'm not sure there is
a 100 foot buffer. >> No I know they they have talked about a there is there isn't now. I know that >> they they could have could have talked about it. to do do buffers buffers would give us additional um room to to do more water water quality.
What's what what's happening is that the they've the the developer has acknowledged that there's additional storm water coming from the the north. So they've they've agreed and they they're they're contending that their existing ditches and pipes will handle the 25-year storm from this additional
water that DVO said is coming down down here. So, what this agreement says is that we will make sure that the the swale or pipe system that will it will divert the um off-site runoff around the around the site. And would a would a 100
foot buffer help? It would it would it would it would help, but from a from a computational standpoint, we'd be looking at the allowing the 25-year flow to go around that whether that's in a pipe system or in in a swale system. A larger buffer might allow a shallower
swale which then might allow them to put more vegetation and plantings around it. So DVO ran those ran looked at the the plans looked at the ran the numbers and it it according to the design criteria can go around it'll it at least the 25
year it'll go around this >> correct that's what that's what the swailes and the pipes around the are to take the offsite flow around it and they will have to provide us calculations when they do their rightway use permit to prove that that that's happening. One other thing that that they that they're
doing is for their on-site. So they they said the roads none of their on-site roads go into that ditch. All the on-site is supposed to go into their ponds. They they've agreed to do a pre-post. They're going to do a pre-post of the volume from the 100red-year storm event which is not required under the
current water management district permit. So they'll have to make sure their existing ponds if if if one gallon if a 100 gallons go out in pre then only 100 gallons can go out in post from a volumetric standpoint. They're currently under a rate standpoint of of cubic feet
per second analysis. So that's another thing that they've added. >> And I'm not sure if I asked this before, but comparison to the the new storm water rule that's effective December 28th. >> What's the comparison on this? >> This is this is the old rule. Mhm.
>> So this is based on just the empirical. If you put in a one inch of storage to meet your your water quality requirements, then that's that's meets it. The old then the the new rule is more of a analysis where you got to kind of do a treatment train approach. So they probably would have to do more under the under the the new new
analysis. And of course there there is contention that they're they're using storm water harvesting or reuse in the ponds to achieve some of their water quality goals which they're some people are concerned about the the pumps associated with that. >> So the settlement is somewhere in between what was originally being
permitted by rule versus the new rule. >> Right. Well the the >> qualitatively speaking >> right qualitatively the pre-posting the 100redyear storm probably is just as much as what the new rule would require. I was kind of looking what they're currently doing. But okay,
>> reposting the 100 storm from a volumetric standpoint is is a pretty big deal. >> It kind of depends on how much are they using storm water harvesting or their irrigation system in order to meet that >> Yeah. >> that requirement. >> All right. Yeah. I mean because you know obviously that's the the conundrum and I said that the first day you brought this
up. The conundrum here is I mean especially if they've already got it on the record engineers back and forth that it's been designed according to current rule but we know that it's not necessarily the best thing. I totally agree with you. Um so it's like
what what do we do up here? You know it's it's a tough decision >> because we have reached out to the waterband management district. So it goes back that it's I mean is this perfect is there some small curve number issues? Yes. But um in generally it's it's it's designed it meets the intent
of the current St. John's rules is what what it appears like. Now are those rules appropriate? That's a that's a higher policy decision from a state level. >> So based on like the elevation and the contours and so forth that you've seen when you've reviewed this, if we had the
if we had a thousand-year storm, would everything just kind of flow in the to the lowest point basically like we've seen in other places? It wouldn't really matter because your you'd be full. All your ponds would be full and then everything would just sheep flow >> would all flow to the low lowest point. It would go it would go south and it
would probably over top. I believe it's Treasure Island Drive. East Treasure Island is to the north and Treasure Island is to the south. I think there's one or two small pipes that that that go under there, which we we may we would want to look at those because it will over top those and will flow by between people's yards and get to the the canal
and the wetland that gets out to Lake Griffin. When that huge when that huge storm come, it will probably sheet flow. You probably would not see a catastrophic failure like we did on Wolf Branch because the elevations right at that road are are they're they're much um it's much more level at that
particular crossing. So the velocities might not be as high, but they're it's a >> and explain how this reuse works. This is how they're complying with reuse water for irrigation. They're pumping out of a >> their pond. They're doing several
things. They have they have storm water ponds which are storing some water. I think they have some some storm water swells, but they they are taking the water out of their ponds and they're taking it to use for irrigation on I think some common area. They probably could could expand expand that area that they're irrigating, but they that's one
of the allowed um treatments under the water management district. I think we have some since it's in Florida statutes that they're allowed to to do that. And is I mean there there is some it's great from a water quality standpoint because you get to use it for irrigation. You don't take it out of the the well.
>> Of course, when you want the water gone is when it's raining and then you don't really have a need to to irrigate at that particular time. But then the goal is that you want to irrigate so that just like at the previous one that the water is lower when this when the storm comes and that you're you're using that water to irrigate to try to maintain
that storage capacity. >> But if you weren't taking water out of there and then you had a storm, you'd have a full pond and nowhere for the water to go. >> Right. If the water was not being taken out, there would be less storage available in the pond. Correct.
>> Yeah. It's interesting concept. Um because if it's dry, you're still going to have enough water in there to irrigate off of. I guess >> I think I think it's a wet pond. I'm not I'm not 100%. >> Yeah. Usually usually the they'll use the linum for >> Okay. All right. So, as long as it
doesn't evaporate and it's available, then >> yeah. Yeah. Like I said with with in in the agreement it does that pre-post in the 100redy year and they they they acknowledge that they have off-site flow coming that they need need to treat which are two things that they didn't have have previously.
>> Uhu >> and then and they are guaranteeing to give us the additional rightaway for the road and we also looked at a roundabout up on top that if we ever get funding that would fit in there and the property that they're donating. So, as far as like how this plays out
with the Department of Administrative hearings though, it's no different than a regular court case where you go in, you present your case, and then a judge ultimately makes a decision. So, if you don't have a settlement, then the one side is going to be asking for the plan the way that it is now without any of
the changes that have been negotiated. So, back to basically where we started from. Um, and if the county were to lose, then that's what that's how it's built. If we reach a settlement, then we at least get the enhancements that have
been agreed upon. So, the that's the risk. Um, I I sense I mean, I understand the residents want us to go for the gusto. Just you have to understand that if you did that, you run the risk of just you don't get anything. You get
what was approved initially. So that >> and and then of course you know the money involved in taking the case forward which how how will that work? Will that be inhouse? Will will your office Melanie be handling that case in front of DOA?
>> Correct. We are currently handling it in house. Um Rachel is handling that for us. >> And would there be any kind of expert testimony? And I understand that they were already to to depose our um Jeff. I guess they were ready to depose Jeff. um than our engineers.
>> Yes. >> Already >> we were scheduled to be in depositions um pretty much all day, a couple days this week and next week. Um they were going to depose Jeff and DVO. So there would be expense associated with um paying DVO for that. And then that's for
the deposition. So there might be um there was a final hearing scheduled for I believe three days in December. So the discovery process is ongoing. >> Okay. >> And you don't You don't have a will you'll have an additional attorney for that or are you two going to handle both of you gonna
>> right okay we're handling it in house >> and that's fees are recovered um to the victor right >> so in this settlement agreement um we say that each party is bearing their own fees so if we were to proceed if we were
not to accept the settlement if we were to proceed there would be a a possibility that um either side could try to claim fees against the other side. So um that was one of the other considerations. >> Is that just something that's asked of the DOA hearing officer? That's not a given. It's not like prevailing party.
>> It's discretionary though, >> right? It's discretionary that the other >> fairly used. It had to be totally frivolous litigation which I mean to be blunt the fact that we had some staffers say hey no this is all good and then we challenge it anyways they're going to lean into that. That's why I'm probably
the settlement. >> Correct. Then I imagine those same statements will be made during deposition. >> Yeah, that's that's where the concern is is that um that because it meets what the current rules are.
That's where you run into a problem. >> And there are of course um assumptions that you make in in making these engineering reports and things like that. So, you know, of course, what we point out in our petition is that reasonable minds could differ on the assumptions that went into their design.
Um, so, you know, I certainly don't think we felt anything frivolously or that we would be in danger of of being frivolous, but it is just like you're saying, the judge would be in the position of deciding and um, you know, both sides are are basing their assumptions on
>> the facts as they see them. And >> so, I'm less concerned about the attorney's fees provision. I'm more concerned about sort of the burden hand is better than you know >> you know you get nothing versus um but
of course we were our our group of advocates here want us to move forward and it's like okay well if that were to be the case then they have to live with the result as well which is and it's not just them it's the
other people on the road it's the public infrastructure and all of that. >> And and Madam Chair, just to to put out there from from the policy perspective, the financial perspective, which is completely within your purview, you you kind of have to balance, where do you want to go? If you want a bigger fix,
like you've talked about earlier, if you want rural change, do you want to bifurcate your focus on this case and a rural change? I don't believe that we can amend our petition at this point and seek a rule change because we're already set for hearing. We're already in discovery. I'm not sure that the
administrative law judge would allow that. So to me, that would be a separate petition. So I think those are the things that you have to balance along with what you've already brought up is the potential of if they're successful on their case, then you don't get these things that they've offered at this
point in time. Um so you have it's a balancing act for you. Um, I I for one would like to go for a rule change as a separate um cause of action. I think that this is the time to do that. I think in light of everything that's happened, that's what
we need to be asking the district to do is modify their minimum requirements. Even if the county does more and we have enhanced requirements, I think at a minimum the water management district needs to >> and and I think too that you you probably have a better shot at that rule
change when you tie it into um the catastrophe of Wolf Ranch Road versus a development that you may or may not have issues depending on which engineer you believe. But if you're tying it into Wolf Branch Road where you've got substantial damages, you've got
homeowners that are truly flooded, you know, you can move it along with that same process and have that same conversation with whichever outside council we retain for that. >> So, if they depose our staff, which they're going to do, and they ask staff if they've met our requirements and
staff says yes, how do you how do you argue against that as an attorney? I mean your own staff saying that they've met the requirements. >> One of the things we did um when we were sort of evaluating getting this petition
filed was we and used the we got the third party DVO engineering report. >> So a lot of our um material issues of fact that we had to allege in our petition are based on um findings that DVO made in his report. So um and and so
it kind of goes back to those assumptions that are used in you know the developers design reports and then DVO is looking at those assumptions differently >> and then going back if we lose we pay their attorney's fees and >> we don't know that that >> I mean that that that's what summary
judgement is. We'd have to negotiate that but we we could lose the hundredyear >> uh swelles. you could lose what you've added in this in the settlement.
>> So, from what I'm understanding of all this is they're they're currently building what they agreed upon. Um, however, they agreed to do more than
what is required. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Campion, you're proposing a rule change, uh, ch a challenge to the rule change just broadly speaking as well, right? Um, which I would
>> that may have to be a legislative priority. Why why can't we? >> No, that's we can actually do a rule. We can move for a rule change. >> There's a there >> Yeah, you have a better chance of getting a rule change than you do putting it on as a legislative priority. Uh well, we need to
>> the rule change will be statewide or in their region. >> Correct. >> The agency's rule, but it's state. Yeah, it's statewide. It's a good question. >> I mean, >> yeah. Or I guess it could be for the district only. >> For the district. >> Yeah, it could just be for St. John counties. >> Right. >> Yeah.
>> But as far as trying to get a result sooner and actually hone in on a particular like problem you're facing in the county, >> we need to do a rule change. I was asking for a rule change for our county. I agree with that 100%.
>> Um, okay. Now, back to weighing out to settle or to not to settle. Um, and this is a tough one because I mean there's a couple different ways you can look at it, too. If you if you don't, you move forward and it gets built the way that the code is and it fails, then you've
made the case that it doesn't work. But that's what a year, two, three years from now, depending on what storm event makes it fail. um if if you settle then you have a chance of maybe getting it better and you still have a chance of it failing because everybody doesn't think
that the settlement really gets you where you need to go. Um, so, uh, you know, I think it's all I don't know. It's It's almost like playing poker or playing >> Yeah. >> chess or you know, you everybody has
different >> We've had our attorneys in these settlement talks for how long? How long have you been? >> Couple months. >> Couple months. >> Couple months. >> A couple of months. So, um, and their
and their recommendation is to go with the settlement, correct? Through your interactions with the developer and what they're wanting to do and how things have played out in your conversations because we have not talked
to the developers or been involved in that. >> Yes, sir. I think um if I were to look at the most likely outcome if we proceeded all the way to trial um I think there's slightly more of a chance that we get nothing additional then that
we win on everything and get everything we're asking for because some of the things we were asking for um there's it's harder to point to basis in the code. Um so I think you know there's three parties there's us St. John's and the developer. The developer and St.
John's are kind of aligned on on this one. St. John's approved the permit. The developer wants to move forward with the development that's been permitted. Um, so >> and they're willing to go over and above what St. John's is requiring. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. You brought up something though.
You said if we want everything we wanted, >> what is it that we're actually what would we consider getting everything that we wanted? So, some of the additional concerns were um the the reuse pond idea, although that's
compliant with the current rules. Um DVO is pretty concerned that they're not going to work the way that they're intended. Um that's pretty speculative. It's hard to find the basis for uh challenging a permit um on that. There's
also raising the elevation of where they're developing. They would lose lots if if they did that. and and where they have everything elevated is compliant with the rules right now. Um so >> and then >> the buffer as well, there's not a basis for that in the the current rules.
>> Um and then what about the the type of storm, the magnitude of the storm, >> right? The magnitude of the storm. Um we talked about that a lot. Our code um for some parts of it, and we may need the technical people to step in on this, but some parts of our code talk about
10-year storm. Um other parts of it it has to be 25 year. Um there's nowhere that we require 100redyear. Correct. Um and we were able to get um an agreement that 100year was what we were asking for. What D.VO's report was was
>> and that's what DVO wanted though, >> right? Um okay. Um, but we will have an expert DVO who would testify and his testimony would be that he believes that a hundred-year storm is should be the
standard. Again, I know this separates this this is this is different than rule making or requesting rule making, which that's kind of like him saying this is what we really should have, but in reality, what we have is this. He's saying he's testifying, I think what we have in reality is not going to work,
>> right? And that's that's what I'm not is the DOA judge even going to be willing to go there? Um, >> and do they do they ever reach strike a settlement? Do we know whether DOA would do that? Would come up with an in between? You actually >> I DOA's I mean they're like a typical judge. They're going to rule on the
merits of the cause of action that you brought forth. They're not going to try to mediate any type of settlement. >> Yeah. because that was a question I had is the familiarity with some of these DOA judges with storm water rules and you know do you know do you have any experience on that or I mean I guess we
haven't done this too much but >> guys that's sunshine law >> I don't know it off the top of my head >> I mean I'm just factoring that in I mean >> typically do is going to assign it to somebody that has some experience in that area and I I think this one we've had before I think we've had this judge
for for other types of cases, but I'd have to look at it. >> I personally, you know, me, I like to fight. I like to litigate. I like all that. Let's keep going all the way. But I hate to say it, but I feel like the settlement we got is a good step forward
and we just risk losing it entirely. So, I mean, I would just go with the settlement on this one just because of the unique features of this case and and uh what I think a DOA judge is going to do once they see some of the opinions uh
and that we're kind of being double team by the developer in St. John's. I mean, it it really does play a role. So, so I have to be in favor of settlement. I mean, I'm fine. The board wants to go away, but I lean towards settlement.
Yeah, >> I I I'm think and I maybe it's just because all this stuff happened in my district recently, but I just am feel completely burned by state rules and regulations right now. And I'm more inclined just to say um try to fight it
out and if you lose, you lose. And everybody understands that they may end up with nothing. But at least it makes the point that the district, you know, we we we we need better rules. >> Yeah. Can um
>> so I think if we were to take the settlement, it should be concurrently with it would be the ch the rule challenging the challenge of the rule overall. >> That would be a separate action. >> I know. I know. I I mean I I you know I hate it too, but I I think you have to do that. I mean, I just because you're
going to take it, you're gonna you're getting, as you said, it's a it's a bird in hand versus two in a tree, I guess. So, I mean, I I understand both sides. It's it's a terrible spot to be in, but >> if it's the board's totally down the middle, I might flip. I don't know.
Where's everybody else? >> I know where these two are. We know where they are. >> Where are we? >> You want to settle. You're good with the settlement. You got something in hand. You'd rather go with that. We'll we'll make the point on the rule change action and I I mean I can respect that. I just
can't get past the emotional part of this right now and I'll I'll be the first to admit it. >> But so can we just talk specifically about the concessions that are being put forth in the settlement? We just don't think they're sufficient at all. We don't think that they're really going to prevent any kind of harm. I mean what's
in the settlement agreement? They're not significant enough to >> it's like the 100 foot buffer which I mean I I mean I have you know factual data to support that but it's not in the rule. So I hate it because I mean I it should be in the rule in certain circumstances but what are you going to
do? I mean they're going to say oh it's you know especially with them especially with the staff already on the record and being in deposed. I mean I can just imagine these attorneys well you said it meet it's right here. It meets the all the criteria. What's wrong with you
getting a little bit of this, you know, extra 100? Is it 100year as part of the settle settlement? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I >> and we got to remember this. >> Maybe I'm ri maybe I'm I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just a little because I, you know, I've been in a few of these now, especially the last few years. Uh, you
know, I know how these things tend to go, but >> I uh just the the 25-year storm event is is taking the water of the offsite around. Um, we we did offer to the developer that would they be willing to
do the hundred-year storm to divert the storm around and they said they they they were not inclined to do that. Um, our our code does say that it's supposed to be the 25 a minimum of a 25-y year storm. So, it doesn't say it has to be
the 25 five-year storm. So, if we're much as I don't want to propose, um, maybe we ask them if they're willing to go with a hundred-year for the off-site flow around as a as an additional compromise, even though they've already said no to that. I don't know. just to
>> we also have to remember this is this is in the city of Leburg and we're just I mean this is in the city of Leburgiece this right this piece of property is in the city of Leburg and we're we're doing everything we can to help the residents out there
>> from preventing a um catastrophe that could or could not happen. uh the developer has agreed to do some enhancements that our attorneys had in their professional opinion uh think it's the best course of action. So um
and we're going to go with rule changes at after this that's not specifically tied to this case. I think would make our rule change argument better because then we can conclude the entire county with what's happened over the last two years.
Yeah. One other quick question though is do do you have do you have to have an answer on the settlement today? >> So, so the issue is we have a DOA hearing set for midepptember and we have the I'm sorry December did the um
developer and St. John's have agreed to a minor abatement. We were supposed to do depositions this week. So, you know, delaying it. I don't know if the judge has ruled on the request to abate yet.
>> Um, we did get an order granting our request to abate. Um, it at that time we believed at the time we filed the stipulation, we believed this would be addressed at the meeting in December. So, I think we have there's a date in December that we have to tell them one
way or the other um, and give new availability for a hearing, but DOA does like to move pretty fast. Um, back to what Jeff said about, you know, the minimum requirement in the county code. First of all, this was processed through the city of Leburg, not through the county. We only weighed in when asked to review it. Right.
>> That that's correct. This was a annexation report, I believe, that was brought to you. >> Um, which is when the staff apped if this would have been developed in the county, it would have met our code, but it has to meet Leburg's code. >> Okay. But back to the question of minimum requirements because that says
in our code minimum requirements. Does that not give engineers that are reviewing plans in Lake County um for Lake County projects the ability to say uh I think you have to do more in this situation. >> So we can bring Jeff up here. I don't know that our code uses the term minimum. I think it uses
that you have to meet this requirement, but Jeff can appine on that. So, I guess I'm I'm speaking off of memory and I I I I believe it said MIN 25 year and this would all be addressed
through our right-of-way use permit when that comes through, which is where all these requirements in here would be would be potentially addressed. Um, >> can can we get I'm I'm sorry, >> I can try to pull up our appendix A and look. >> Yeah, I think that would be for for this discussion. It might be pretty important
to get that right now. And I'm not sure it's critical, but the residents did just tell me that they were going to sell it, but the sale fell through because it was too expensive or if that if that enters in. But let me look up. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, only because if that's the case, then maybe and if there was a
little bit more, if there was another week's worth of time, you could go back and say, could you do the 100year? And if not, then you have the >> We've asked them that and they have said no. >> Oh, okay. All right. 100 year is on on site. >> Correct. With the exception of the one
reference in here for the storm water pond, they have said no, they will not do more than our code requires. >> But our but our staff's testimony could still be that they think it would be better if you had the hundredyear on the
off site flow, right? I mean, >> yeah, that's what I want to say with the code. I mean, it's one thing. I mean, that's what's kind of being suggested that that would be a better scenario, but they're not willing to do that. And if we were the actual reviewer
and had come in for county approval, then it's possible that we would have been saying we wanted the hundredyear. >> I'm fine litigating it. I wasn't delegating my position. I just thought it was just kind of giving my impressions. If you want to litigate, let's go.
Sean, you decide to vote. >> Well, I I I don't mind litigating, but I also don't want to divert more resources away from the bigger issue, which is the the rule change. I mean, that's super important, and I don't want to get them get you'll get bogged down. I hate it. I
hate it. And I I said this when you first brought it up, uh what has it been six months now? Six months ago, that I you know, a lot of these don't go I'm just I've been involved in a few. Maybe these two attorneys have been involved more than I have, but they usually don't go your way. But,
uh, you usually come, you get a settlement at least, at least when they're following the rules, so to speak. So, that's where I'm at now. But, I just I don't know if if Jeff is able to get that cleared up on the whether it's a minimum or if it's a or if it says
exactly the the 25 year. Wasn't there a uh Was there a motion by >> Oh, I didn't make a motion. Oh, >> you maybe somebody else? >> No, I haven't made >> No, there's there wasn't. We were just waiting to Is is this is he looking it up right now? Is that what we were waiting for? >> Yes.
>> Yeah, he's just looking up that answer to that question. No pressure. Um, it um it it does say it says under section B, it says design store parenthesy minimum.
So that's and it for um and then it says for canals, ditches, swailes, and culverts for drainage external to the development. It's a 25 year 24hour frequency, but in the in the title of it,
you want to see it says it does say minimum. >> We need we need them to switch over. >> Don't know. >> All right. So the question would be um again they've said no um
they've said no they're not going to go higher than that but do you >> we've asked them for for for several other things that they've also said said no on >> all right so do you feel like if you were in front of the DOA judge that you could say and we would what's your
confidence level that it would be oh you should have you should do more than that. I I think we need to be very careful about getting into litigation strategy in a public meeting because I'm sure that they are listening to this. So I would prefer not to put our staff >> I understand completely. I'm just trying
>> in there to answer that question. I I think really I mean at this point the decision is you know either you're you would like to settle take what they've offered or you would like to go to a hearing and see what do judge um the developer I think is the conversation
and Rachel can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of the conversation is they need they need an answer because they're ready to move forward so whatever they need to design they need to design this is what they've offered >> and the only reason I brought it up was just because it had come up you Could it
be? Is there is there I want them to see >> discretion or >> I want them to see that. Yeah. Is there discret? I want them to see that we're trying to every end of the of >> correct. But again, our code doesn't apply. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, they're they're in the city. We can do some things as part of a
rideway utilization permit that they've agreed to do um at this point. But as far as their storm water pond, Jeeoff, correct me if I'm wrong, but their storm water pond is in the city and their storm water pond itself would have to meet city requirements only, >> right? Everything everything internal to
the site is within the city and is controlled by by the city and through their water management district permit. This would only be related to the rightway use permit, which would be ex external flow that we would have any control over at all. In which case you based on that you would have a certain amount of discretion to say we'd prefer
based on our the external flow >> the external flow but then you may lose the hundred-year pre-post volume which I think is very is a very big um concession from >> and that's their on-site storm water pond that >> on-site storm water pond that they'll pre-post the hundred-year volume which is >> which is
huge really it's really a big concession. Okay, that's a good point. You guys realize that that you'd be losing that 100redyear on-site storage >> potentially. >> Potentially >> if you don't approve this and we're not successful with
>> DOA. >> I was just rhetorically >> rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical um make a motion to accept the settlement agreement. >> Second. >> Um in discussion, would you add to that
that the that it be uh concurrently um that we're going to accept the settlement but then filed this uh petition for rulemaking change? >> I I would like to bring that back to you separately. >> I think we've all you've got a consensus. You know, that's where
everyone that's fine. I just I yeah I was trying to put up the whole discussion together. >> So to clarify the motion is to approve the settlement as is. Yes. >> And was there a second? >> Okay. >> There's a second. All right. Any further discussion? And the only thing I would
throw out would be I mean I know they've rejected it before but um the idea that you would try one more time for the hundredyear on the offsite. where we're going to lose 100 years. I mean, what we have, we're going to lose
if we lose the case. And right now, it's it's a big a big them against us. Right. All right. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed? I. >> So, was that 32 or 41? 41. Thank you. >> All right, moving ahead to back to reports. County attorney, >> county manager. >> Um, just a reminder that we will be
closed on Thursday and Friday for the Thanksgiving holidays next week and wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. Um, also one other item for housekeeping purposes. The CRA meeting will immediately follow this meeting. However, we will need a fivem minute
break to reset the recording for the CRA meeting. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Sabatini, any report? >> No report. >> I hope to see everybody at Florida Association counties this week. Starts tomorrow and runs the rest of the week. I don't mean Sean always go. You guys got to >> get involved.
>> We're changing. We're looking. >> We talk so much about policy, rule making, legislative stuff, and that's the only forum for it really. It's all we have >> other than our own individual capacity. So, hope to see you there. >> Commissioner Parks. >> Yeah. Um, just two quick things. Um,
three things maybe. Uh, wanted to congratulate or thank all the cities around Lake County um that did special Veterans Day presentations and parades and things. I was happen to be in one in Claremont. I think they did a great job. I saw commissioners doing various
veterans event Veterans Day events around the county and obviously you can't say thank you enough to all our veterans. So, I thought it it was just a it's always a good day because we especially love our veterans in Lake County and Lake County definitely comes out on that day. So, um yeah, we'll be
at FAC. Uh Commissioner Sabatini and I will be at FAC. Um some interesting proposals, uh legislative proposals on the table and then of course waiting to see what happens with all the tax questions that are coming, but should have a little bit of insight on that um since some of the legislators will
actually be there at the meeting. And other than that, I wanted to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. There's a lot to be thankful for. Um, and to all our team and staff, enjoy your couple days off. Appreciate you. Thank you. >> Commissioner Smith, >> I've got a couple of things. The first
thing is um on Thursday the 20th at 1 p.m. we're having a Liberty Tree dedication for at the um Terrarius High School. Like love to see everybody come out and see that dedication. It is um where we uh as a county um plant trees,
liberty trees uh school district has taken on um allowing us to put it in their schools because it's a very historical important patriotic fact that our um students need to learn about the
Liberty Tree, where it started from and it all started from the Stamp Act, but that's a different story. So, um, come on out to the Liberty Tree dedication to Various High School right next to the gymnasium. Uh, the second thing, the second thing
is is, um, I don't know if I need to bring this up as a maybe I bring this up under my um, commissioner's deal, so I won't even mention it right now. And then I got my
other thing. So, today. >> All right. >> No report. >> No report. Um I just want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy couple days just with family focusing on
what's important to everyone in their personal lives. And um I recently was doing a seminar and I was listening to a speaker who talked about how important it is in order to do a good job at your professional life and your work life. Um
it's critical that you um also do an equally good job in your personal life and your family life and that you can only be your best at your job when you're also taking care of yourself and you're putting your family first. And when you're with them, give them your full attention. which means everybody
stay off their phones and don't answer emails or um any of that kind of work stuff for a few days and just focus on your family. So, happy Thanksgiving to everyone. And we're going to just close for five minutes while we get set up.
Adjourn, I'm sorry. Ajourn for F and then five minutes we'll be back on for the CRA >> meeting. >> National Day of >> National Day of >> What? Oh, National Day. All right. What is today? Today is very special and I forgot my
thing I was going to do because I actually had something in mind but um today is National Princess Day. >> So >> prince or princess >> like princess >> princess. Okay. >> Like Cinderella and
>> our granddaughters and our daughters. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that's all I have. >> You have several princesses in your >> I do have a couple princesses. I I'll be sure to let them know. >> All right, we stand a >> Don't go anywhere. Don't go far.
>> Yes. >> Something new. Jennifer and I are doing >> Oh, good. Yeah. Yeah. Good. you guys create more work for yourself. >> Well, we're in the weekly update. We're going to give you like a monthly here's the projects we're working on.
>> Cool. >> Looks good. >> So, I'm getting credit for all the JPA. So, >> it's the parts like 50 things. Get my microphone on here. >> There we go.
>> Good afternoon, um, commissioners. For the record, Meg Brew, director for the Office of Economic Development. This meeting was advertised in accordance with Florida statutes and Lake County code. We have two items on the consent agenda for you today. The first is the recommended approval of your August 26
CRA board meeting minutes. And uh for the the second one is the 2026 CRA board meeting dates which are February 24th, May 19th, August 25th, and November 17th. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I.
>> I. Hi. >> All right, moving into the regular agenda. The first item I have for you is in regards to WLW Construction's application for a commercial facade grant uh improvement grant. WLW Construction proposes to install a
monument sign on their property on Sarrento Avenue to replace their existing sign. The application was a packet was found to be complete and sufficient. A copy of their application, supporting documents, and an overview of the commercial facade improvement grant have been included in your agenda
packet. Should you choose to approve this application, the estimated fiscal impact is $10,164, which is within and will not exceed the fiscal year 26 CRA budget. >> They're only required to get two quotes or three.
>> There should be three in there, sir. So, this will be the first time we had someone actually use the um program. >> So, this will be the second time we did. You approved um the East Lake Chamber of Commerce's sign in February, but it's not been completed yet. So, um we're
still waiting on that package from them, but this will be the second >> and we actually have two for you to look at today. So, >> all right. Um Okay. Now, this is a we've got to approve it.
>> Do we have the motion? >> Is anybody going to make the motion? >> Move. Move to approve. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. I. >> I. >> And the second item, final item is in regard to Bamboo Grove LLC's application
for commercial facade improvement grant. Bamboo Grove LLC proposes to repair and replace damaged sighting and repaint their property located on Sarrento Avenue. The commercial facade improvement program disqualifies painting from allowable projects unless
the painting is done in conjunction with other major facade improvements such as sighting repair or replacement, which is the case here. The application packet was found to be complete and sufficient. A copy of their application, supporting documents, and an overview of the program have been included in your agenda packet. Should you choose to
approve this application, the estimated fiscal impact is $9,793.83, which is within and will not exceed the fiscal year 26 CRA budget. So, this is right next to Isn't this right next to the old fire station? >> Is there a restaurant in there?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I was curious, so um, what are we doing to let businesses know about these grants? Are we doing letters, knocking on doors?
>> We have had um, it's been posted on the website. We've developed a flyer. Some of our concerned citizens have been wonderful about going out and sharing those. Um, and we have had some distributed amongst the community as well. >> Okay, that's great. >> All right. Do we have a motion for
approval? >> Move. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. >> And that was all we had for >> All right. I do need to ask for public comment. Is there any public comment? Because I didn't ask for that at the very beginning. Anyone have public comment?
>> Thank you. You're always here. Thank you. >> Come on. >> Show up. >> Okay. All right. >> I love that. Thank you. Well, we appreciate you and um thank you Meg for bringing forward these items and um
congratulations to all who have been working so hard with the CRA and it's good to see things happening, positive things happening. All right. Well, with that then we will um any any other items for the CRA meeting?
All right. Then we stand adjourned. >> Whoops. Sorry. Things flying everywhere.