A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JANUARY
13, 2009
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a
special Workshop Session on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in
Training Room 233, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were:
Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Elaine Renick; Jimmy
Conner; and Linda Stewart. Others present were Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff,
County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office
Manager, County Manager’s Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County
Finance, and Ellie McDonald, Deputy Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Commr. Cadwell called the meeting to
order stating that this was a workshop between the Board and that no public
comment would be taken today.
WILD FIRE UPDATE
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager
requested that Mr. Gary Kaiser, Fire Chief/Public Safety Director, present an
update on the burn.
Mr. Jim Dickerson, Assistant Fire
Chief, addressed the Board regarding the 2009 wild fire season. He explained that the drought index measures
the first six inches of the soil noting that the more moisture in the soil, the
lower the drought index which goes from a scale of “0” being a swamp, to “800”
being as dry as the desert. He stated
that at the present time ninety-four percent (94%) of Lake County was at a
scale of 655 and that last year at this time Lake County was at a drought index
rate of 505 and only forty percent (40%) of the County was less than that. He reported that typically once the drought
index reaches a 500 rate, they staff extra units to try to keep the fires small
and increase their response and by doing so, last year’s fires were relatively
small. He stated that he was concerned
that they would not be able to staff extra units this year due to their low
budget and wanted to make the Board aware that without extra units the
potential for larger fires would be greater, fires would be left unchecked the
day before, and they would be unable to assist the Division of Forestry. He commented that they were going into the
dry period and that it was not normal to have a high drought index this
early. He stated that they typically
make it through the March winds as a normal wild fire season, but they seem to
be in bad shape already having had a number of fires this year burning over 15
- 25 acres.
Mr. Ray Lovett, Forest Area
Supervisor, substantiated the drought index as stated and that historically
this was the earliest Lake County had gotten this high. He mentioned that their staff meteorologist
in Tallahassee distributed an email earlier this week including the long-range
outlook for upcoming conditions this year and stated it was one of the worst
they have had since 1998. He commented
that in previous years, including last year, they had a number of fires and
that they could only staff four areas within the County with four tractor plow
units and two brush trucks. He stated
that without the help of Lake County’s Fire Department over the last few years
the fire season would have been much worse.
Commr. Cadwell requested that Mr.
Dickerson and Ms. Hall present and discuss with the Board a breakdown of what
it would cost to get to some level with the brush trucks so they could still
respond quickly.
Mr. Dickerson stated that last year
they spent $70,000 in overtime on proactivity with some reactivity. He explained that they typically staff two or
three brush trucks a day which costs approximately $2,100 for a twelve hour
operational period and results in approximately $700 per day per truck. He commented that they were unaware of the
time frame for the dry period explaining that at the same time in 1998 they had
the wettest January and February in history.
He mentioned that there was no rain after that period of time and that
Lake County did not enter into the big drought season until after the wind
months were gone. He explained that they
were concerned because this year it would be very dry during the windy months.
Mr. Lovett stated that their
meteorologist, in her long range outlook, did say that there was really no
relief this year except for the possibility of a hurricane coming through which
would be the most substantial rainfall anticipated this year. He commented that the wild fire season would
subside in June.
Mr. Dickerson stated that they typically
go through a bad wild fire season every ten years.
Commr. Cadwell asked Ms. Hall to
discuss this with him on Tuesday.
Commr. Renick asked if there was any
way that the Forestry Service could make the public aware of the severity of
the situation by alerting the newspapers.
Mr. Dickerson stated that their
public information department could work with the newspapers to get the word
out to the County.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works
Director, commented that last year they spent approximately $100,000 on
maintaining non-County maintained roads due to the drought.
STORMWATER PROGRAM UPDATE
Mr. Stivender stated that Ms. Mary
Hamilton, Stormwater Project Manager, would make a presentation of the status
of the County’s Stormwater Project. He
summarized that they are under requirements with the Federal Department of
Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Pollution Control Act of 1970 to clean up the
lakes that were affected by fertilizer and nutrients that were discarded from
large tracts of land. Ms. Hamilton gave
a slide presentation to update the Board of their present stormwater
projects. She stated that in District 1
they had installed an exfiltration system in Lakeside Village last year at an
approximate cost of $225,000 with the outfall being Lake Griffin. She commented that one of the four countywide
drainage projects approved by the Board was the drainage improvements at Porto
Bello Avenue, in the Lake Harris area, which is under construction for an
approximate cost of $360,000, and included the installation of a water quality
unit to help settle sediment before getting to the lake. She stated that construction has just begun
on the Beverly Court drainage rehab project which outfalls into the Lake Glona
area and includes the installation of a water quality unit at an approximate
cost of $470,000. She stated that an
exfiltration system in District 2 was installed along Elbert Street on Lake
Minnehaha which replaced two existing outfalls that had rotted; and worked with
the people to relocate and replace the easements to their property lines and
improve those outfalls. She stated that
this project was completed in July 2008.
She commented that they met with Clermont and the Water Authority
regarding Hook Street and this was the first concept they had come up with
where they were going to run a double series of exfiltration systems along that
County street and Bloxham, which is a city street. She stated that they are now running
exfiltration only down one side of each street and to the south because
topography put in a dry stormwater pond and that they were in the process of
having a discussion with residents to find out if they are willing to entertain
that option. They do not have
construction dates on this project, but estimate a cost of approximately $1.4
million. She mentioned that as a result
of the Johns Lake Basin Study, Shore Drive in District 2, has been completed at
an approximate cost of $35,000. She
reported that the Dead River Stormwater Pond and Restoration Project in
District 3 will be expanded and that they are doing some wetlands
planting. She commented that Public
Lands partnered with them on this project to be constructed in the summer of
2009 where they will be restoring the uplands, treating specific areas, and
redirecting current stormwater discharges to Dead River Road at a cost of
approximately $2.5 million. She stated
that the Hollendel Road project would be going out for bid in the next few
weeks noting that St. John’s purchased a 17-acre parcel for them and they would
be putting in a 10-acre pond and would replant the area to treat the Hawthorne
mobile home vicinity as well as some of CR 48 and Hollendel Road. She reported that the Orange Avenue drainage
improvements would be completed soon by replacing an aging drainage system and
installing a water quality unit to help reduce sediment loads to Lake Harris at
a cost of approximately $345,000. She
stated that the Eustis/Lakeshore Drainage Improvements project is in final
design. She explained that the Getford
Road project was a joint project with the City of Eustis where they will
construct a stormwater pond and associated conveyance system at a cost of
approximately $2.5 million. She stated
that the Lake Gertrude project had been completed and was a joint effort with the
City of Mount Dora to improve the outfall from Lake Gertrude going into Mount
Dora. She commented that the City of
Mount Dora recently opened bids on Phase III of the Dogwood Mountain/Johns Lake
project. She explained that they have a
Water Authority grant and the County was expected to pay approximately $500,000
for their share but that has now been reduced to $150,000 with construction to
begin within the next couple of months.
In the St. John’s area she stated that Acorn Road would be the last of the
four drainage rehab projects constructed in the next month or so. There is a localized problem so they will be
approving the conveyance as well as adding a water quality structure. She stated that the Old Chisholm Trail
project was just completed and came out of their Lake Yale Basin Study where
there was an old pipe that came through and literally ran underneath the edge
of a residence, so it was a safety and maintenance issue at a cost of
approximately $95,000. She mentioned
that Washington Avenue was also in the Lake Yale Basin Study and they were
looking at design options there.
ROAD IMPACT FEES
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works
Director, addressed the Board by reviewing the Road Benefit Districts and
Impact Fees regarding how they are collected.
He stated that the funds were accumulated in Benefit Districts 1 through
6 as reflected in the map displayed and were spent only in those
Districts. He discussed the revenue over
the past nine years by way of a graph showing a rapid decline in revenue since
2005. He stated that in August when they
presented their original proposal to the Board it was based on the first six
months of the year and there was an incredible drop in revenue from June
through September. He commented that
they would bring this proposal forward in February to perform a series of
slashes because the yellow lines in the presented graph reflects their
projection for the entire year through October 1, 2009, and was not what they
collected so far. He explained that they
projected a little over $3 million for the year and have only collected around
$500,000 in the first quarter. Because
no one is building, there is no revenue in this fund and they need to cut a lot
of their forecast not only for this year, but also for future years. He explained that they are only increasing
incrementally $1 million per year. He
commented that they were being low end on purpose because there were a lot of
economic issues out of their control. He
mentioned that some of the projects shown in red on the report have been
reduced and those in slashed through in red have been cut out of the
program. He stated that they kept
various projects which were either already under construction; tied to
agreements and/or school projects; or those committed to by a City Agreement or
a Private Resource Agreement. He
explained that they wanted to cut projects now rather than August because they
needed to let everyone know that the revenue shortfalls were here now and were
not going to get any better.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager
distributed a copy of a letter from the City Manager of Groveland and asked Mr.
Stivender if that issue needed to be addressed at this time.
Mr. Stivender stated he would bring
that up at the presentation in February.
He commented that essentially Groveland worked out some priorities and
was one of the few districts that had revenue in it because they have not had
any substantial projects. He commented
that they were leaning toward how to address the SR 50 corridor. He explained that due to a series of changes,
the City wanted to readdress their program.
He commented that in the Fruitland Park area they were working on an
agreement with The Villages to complete CR 466 and that will entail what money,
originally committed by the County to do CR 466, could be freed up to do work
in the CR 466A area. He stated that
there was $5 million they need to get back from DOT and work through those
details, but they were not yet ready to make that commitment. He commented that they hope to have these
issues worked out in February.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the
Washington Street and Fosgate Road projects had been taken off Road District 5.
Mr. Stivender stated that they
removed the Washington Street project at the intersection of SR 27. He stated it was a small project, and had
emphasized their work toward Fosgate Road and the school site. He explained that the portion running north
from SR 50 extending Hancock to the school was there, but they removed the
portion running from the school west of SR 27.
He commented that was the one requested by the city and was squeezed in;
however, that would provide one major link to the school. Hopefully, between development and other
things that occur in that area they will be able to work from the high school
past the two elementary schools to SR 27 and give a second access to that
school. He commented that there was no
construction money for either one of these projects and that from an economic
standpoint they would be looking to some of those developers to partner with
them to help build some of the roads.
Commr. Renick questioned whether the
Board should give direction today regarding SR 50 through Groveland so that
when they bring the Plan back to the Board in February it would reflect that they
think the change Groveland suggested was a good one.
Mr. Stivender remarked that it would
be great to have consensus from the Board to move forward with that.
Commr. Hill asked that Mr. Stivender
bring back an update on Plaza Collina in February.
It was the consensus of the Board to
place road improvements in the Groveland area on the program for public hearing
in February and that Mr. Stivender would also present an update of Plaza
Collina / East SR 50 at that time.
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE FUNDING
TASK FORCE
Option One - Cost Cutting
Measures
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager,
stated that she would walk them through the report regarding recommendations
being made for Transportation Alternative Funding and asked the Board to
request any additional information on any of the Options. She mentioned that several members of the
Task Force were present at this meeting today.
She referred to Option 1 on page 2 of the report with respect to
reexamining the planning and design requirement of projects regarding
additional features, such as sidewalks, landscaping and other enhancements, to
ensure that the public benefit outweighs the public’s cost. She requested direction as to whether the
Board would like to readdress Option 1 by policy.
Mr. Stivender stated that almost
every curb and gutter project they have in Lake County in suburban areas have a
sidewalk component as part of their current standards. He stated that it was based on land use and
that CR 466 and Hancock Road have sidewalks on both sides. He mentioned that he thought there were some
questions from the committee about cost-cutting measures and when they see
sidewalks with no-one on them at that particular time, the question arises
whether they are needed. He commented
that they found out that walking and riding bikes have been a very strong
component of design for the last 10-15 years and have included either paved
shoulders or sidewalks in almost every project since the early 1990’s unless it
was in a very rural area.
Commr. Renick stated that she
thought they had decided to cut back sidewalks and just put sidewalks with the
schools.
Mr. Stivender stated that was a
sidewalk solo program tied to school safety.
When it comes to building collectors on the southern connectors they are
connecting subdivisions with sidewalks along that corridor.
Commr. Cadwell questioned whether
there was any savings by having a sidewalk on only one side of the road.
Mr. Stivender commented that with
$5-$10 per foot for sidewalks, there was a definite savings by having only one
sidewalk and they have done that in some cases.
He stated, however, they have found that when a sidewalk was not done in
these types of settings it ended up a footpath and had to be retrofitted with a
sidewalk later, which was more costly when trees, utilities and other
improvements were in the area. He
explained that when the zoning is R-3 and R-4 in a lot of those areas, a
sidewalk would be appropriate. He commented
that every single project they were talking about has a public discussion with
public opinion and in each discussion the first thing off the bat was where the
sidewalks, connections, and trails would be.
He stated that land use was not necessarily the deciding factor. He explained that in some cases there were
commercial areas that connect to a residential area and they want a component
that makes it all work together.
Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director,
MPO, stated that there was a Comprehensive Plan policy and right now that
dictates in or out by policy, not just by budget, whether there was right of
way available and if there was no right of way it had to be eliminated. He suggested trying to get municipalities
involved in funding their sidewalks.
Mr. Stivender remarked that Mr. Fish
had hit on one of the key components noting that the County was not the only
show in town and when they were in and around cities there were amenities
requested by city residents and the cities need to assist the County in
funding.
Option 2 - General Fund
With regard to Option 2 Ms. Hall stated
that there was a significant feeling on the Committee that an incremental shift
of General Fund dollars should be dedicated to transportation and the
suggestion was to begin to phase it in as highlighted on page 3 which
recommends that Year 1 result in a two percent (2%) budget commitment from
General Fund revenues be dedicated to road maintenance. She commented that years ago General Fund
money had been dedicated to road maintenance, improvements and expansions, but
apparently the County got away from that.
She stated that if the Board was interested in working through that as
they prepare the budget for next year, they would be looking to build that
in. She asked for direction whether to
look at that. She commented that two
percent (2%) would result in $2 million to $3 million and that the funds would
be shifted.
Commr. Cadwell stated that this was
something they needed to discuss and asked that Ms. Hall prepare an analysis on
General Fund revenue expectations over the next few years to find out what kind
of monies would be generated and weigh it against the other programs it would
have to come from. He stated that they
needed to look seriously at this recommendation.
Option 3 - Municipal Role
Ms. Hall discussed Option 3 which
concerned working with the cities to get their participation with funding
maintenance and repair of city roads.
She stated that one of the areas that came out was that the cities on
occasion will annex some land but not take the roads and then the County works
with the roads. She commented that they
currently see this as something they need to look at very carefully. At the present time Mr. Stivender and his
department have been working with the Eustis, Mount Dora, and Tavares areas to
address this problem. Because the County
barns are located in unincorporated areas it inefficient to maintain and repair
the city roads that they are currently covering.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Minkoff
what could be done from a legal standpoint in this regard.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they have a
good Attorney General Opinion which indicates that the cities are responsible
to maintain certain parts of County roads inside the cities. He explained that he would be discussing that
Opinion with the City Attorneys today at lunch and would probably get some
feedback from the cities at that point.
He also stated that the only other way he knew to bring it up legally
was through Part Two of the Annexation Law, the Interlocal Service Boundary
Agreement, because that would be one key area where they could negotiate
forcing them to take it over as part of such an Agreement.
Mr. Stivender stated that over the
last four or five months they have been working with Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) to put these maps together. He stated that they used the Golden
Triangle area because they knew it relatively well and it was a GPA area to
distinguish what has been annexed inside, how they connect, and how many roads
were in that area. He commented that
they have a better handle on that and wanted to talk with those City Managers
to see if they could come up with something since the barn that maintains all
the County roads was in Umatilla. He
commented that there were three facilities (one in each city) that are far
closer and, therefore, efficiency of government would only compel looking at it
to see if there was a better way of doing business.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that outside
of policy, where they are no longer letting them annex property without taking
the roads, they need to go back and find a way to work with them on the
maintenance of the ones that will always going to be county roads and will not
be annexed in.
Mr. Fish stated that since this
issue would likely come up at the MPO he agreed with Mr. Minkoff that the
service delivery area was the best vehicle to package this issue with the
cities. He commented that it really
addresses the service provision part of it and thought that was something where
the MPO needed to engage the cities because they were all in this together.
Commr. Renick stated that she wanted
the Committee to know that the Board has discussed this situation, but there
was only so much that could be done when the cities have the annexation. She commented that when they had the meeting
with all the cities about the Interlocal Service Boundary Area Agreements
everyone was very positive yet only one city contacted her expressing interest.
Mr. Fish stated that he would like
to have this discussion with the cities through the MPO, but every time they
have talked about these agreements other issues get lumped in having nothing to
do with transportation. He commented
that he understood it was because that is what those agreements are for, but
things like public safety, water, utilities and other issues come into play.
Mr. Stivender commented that the
largest infrastructure out there now is roads and, therefore, a lot of this
discussion today is focusing on the best way to manage those infrastructures.
Options 4-A and 4-B - Ad Valorem
Ms. Hall discussed Option 4-A which was
to add a small millage countywide for transportation. The committee thought a slight tax increase
was appropriate at the point and time that the other General Fund revenues had
been dedicated. She stated that Option
4-B was an idea to dedicate the tax revenue in the General Fund that was
generated by new commercial development to transportation on a five-year
timeframe and after those five years that revenue would revert to General Fund
purposes.
Commr. Cadwell commented he was
intrigued by this Option and was trying to determine how to can come up with
some realistic numbers because the commercial roads were so slow. He commented that a basket example could be
used such as stating how much money was represented in the last two years when
this was done, because the biggest impact on new commercial in the city was
transportation. He explained that they
should use different percentages when compiling this information.
Ms. Hall stated that they could
bring back some numbers and let them know its magnitude.
Commr. Hill questioned whether the
discussion of this idea was with the impact fees in place or without them
Ms. Hall stated she thought it would
be with the impact fees as it was not necessarily to cancel the impact fees and
do this instead.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the
discussion was that they were paying impact fees and that would take care of
what they were doing in the next few years on that road and thought it needed
to be reviewed.
Mr. Fish commented to Commr. Hill’s
point and wanted everyone to be aware that out of the seven task force members
there were a couple who would like to see the impact fee go away. However, when reviewing the issue the reality
became more evident because of the level of needs and that although there would
be a fee, they could keep from raising it.
He noted that it then became clear that if another source could be put
in then it would balance and stabilize the program.
Commr. Cadwell stated that you lower
the impact fee by using a little bit of General Fund, a little bit of this, a
little of that and it will draw that fee back down. He requested that Ms. Hall go back the last
four or five years to find out what that would have been generated if it had
been done in that manner.
Options 5-A and 5-B - Countywide
Municipal Services Taxation Unit (MSTU)
Ms. Hall commented that Option 5-A
was a countywide MSTU and that those cities have to pass an Ordinance stating
that they wish to participate. She
stated that in the best case scenario all 14 cities would participate in a
countywide MSTU which would give them the opportunity to work with the cities
to obtain some of the funding solutions, whether they are city roads or
unincorporated roads. She mentioned that
the nice thing about the countywide MSTU was that if a city chose not to
participate, that would not be a problem, they simply would not be included and
would not benefit from the funding that came in, the road construction, or
whatever took place. She stated that Option
5-B dealt with only the unincorporated area, noting that the Board could choose
to setup any MSTUs they want in the unincorporated area. She explained that 5-A and 5-B are similar,
but 5-B does not address the cities and 5-A does.
Commr. Renick questioned how on the
one hand they were not supporting an increase in taxes and on the other hand be
in favor of an MSTU.
Ms. Hall stated that an MSTU is an
ad valorem tax.
Mr. Fish commented that the Task
Force was never a proponent for raising anything, but those gentlemen saw the
magnitude of the problem and that something needs to be done. He explained that this might be a solution.
Commr. Cadwell explained that if
there was a combination of two or three things they could perhaps cut the
impact fee in half, but it would depend on the other revenues that were being
put in there. He commented that they
were looking at the overall cost of doing business.
Mr. Fish stated that on behalf of
the MPO regarding Option 5-A, he was curious to see if there was any consensus
also from the cities.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would
almost like to move forward to have that dialogue to find out if they were
anywhere close. He questioned whether
the Interlocal Service Development Delivery Areas could be fashioned to include
those cities that wanted to participate and have the others excluded.
Mr. Minkoff remarked that it was
intended that those would not be countywide because the issues were so diverse
in different parts of the county. He
stated that most likely there could be one agreement with the southern, western
or eastern cities.
Commr. Cadwell stated that if they
wanted to look at any additional funding they would need to give staff
direction today. He commented that if
the majority of the Board was not interested in even looking at an MSTU during
these times they need to give staff direction now so their time would not be
wasted.
After some discussion, Commr.
Cadwell stated that they would keep this report and work through it over the
next few years. He commented that they
would work on some of the options now and go back to others later. He opined that at the present time he would
not spend any more time or energy on this one.
Option 6 - Impact Fees
Ms. Hall stated that Option 6 deals
with how impact fees were used and the study from a year and a half ago to come
up with new fees. She called their
attention to the second yellow highlighted portion of this Option that says
that the Task Force recommends that impact fees should only be utilized for net
capacity projects noting that would be a change from how it is presently being
done.
Mr. Stivender stated that the
reference to debt capacity would be if they four lane CR 466. He explained that they would be tearing out
the old road and, therefore, they would not be giving any credit to another
funding source for the old road system.
He stated that if there was a value to that old road there should be an
alternate funding source such as sales tax, or gas tax to pay for that share of
the highway, such as resurfacing old roadway.
He explained that SR 44 between the bridge and the fairgrounds is an
impact fee project where no additional lanes were being added, but they were
widening the existing lanes, adding paved shoulders and turn lanes which was a
$4 million project. He stated that they
were adding a certain factor capacity and their concern was that that was not
really the intent. He commented that the
intent was to add lanes and substantial capacity and that was not what they had
been able to do because the road had deteriorated to a point where something
had to be done with it. Therefore, they
have worked through by adding capacity to roadways even though they are not
four laning the highway. He explained
that there was a concern that there should be another revenue source for that
in lieu of impact fees.
Commr. Cadwell stated that
understanding the suggestion they made that labor and material costs were down,
they know roads could be built cheaper now.
He commented that the problem was that money should not be spent on a
study until they enact some of the other things because they may draw that down
too. He stated that if they could decide
in a real policy, they could look at it and perhaps create an Ordinance that
states they would take revenues from transportation off commercial property or
whatever it is, and that would need to be done at the tail end of the other
policy changes that were made.
Mr. Stivender stated that what
initiated this whole thing was based on cost associated with time period, and
if you take that out and apply the fees they are getting now, it would result
in a substantially lower number.
Ms. Hall asked if they wanted any
additional information on the net capacity portion.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they
needed to have a discussion on that.
Mr. Fish commented that a statement
was included about over reliance on the impact fee and again it goes back to
the issue that if another stable source was being used to replace those two
lanes that already existed and were using the impact fee for the two new lanes,
then that would result in a balanced program.
Option 7 - Fuel Taxes
Ms. Hall stated that Option 7
suggested implementing the additional available five pennies of local option
gas tax and, if so, they would need to have it arranged before July 1, 2009, and
would not become active until January 2010.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he and
Mr. Stivender have had this discussion many times and with each discussion they
were also looking at other revenue sources for transportation. He commented that he had become a big
supporter of impact fees at the expense of any additional gas tax and was also
a big supporter of sales tax at the expense of any additional gas tax. He stated, however, he would like Mr.
Stivender to survey other Florida counties that have the full nickel and
present their price of gas and diesel fuel.
He opined that he would find that their price was the same as ours and
that the market is run by the market, not by each county that has an additional
gas tax. He explained that this Board
needs to look at that because if the county has a full nickel and they are
selling gas at the same price we are, then that nickel is going to somebody
else.
Mr. Stivender stated that Volusia
County has had the nickel for a long time and the price in Deland was almost
the same price as here. He mentioned
that they had discussed this as early as 1993 and found that it would take a
4/5 vote to go forward. He explained
that anything those funds were used for have to be in the Comprehensive Plan
and a program would need to be adopted to inform the public exactly how it was
being spent. He also stated that they
were able to get Florida Association of Counties (FAC) to change the wording to
allow for resurfacing which would be the principle here. He stated that an extra nickel would produce
approximately $6 million depending on how the share goes to the cities; and how
that works out would depend on the amount of their final revenue. He explained that the cities would benefit but
would not have to vote.
Commrs. Conner and Renick agreed
that the tax would be more palatable as user tax rather than a tax for
everyone.
Commr. Cadwell commented that they
needed to be perfectly honest with each other as they go done this road as
there was no sense spending energy and time on this when it takes a 4/5 vote
and if at anytime during this process there are those that no longer support it
they need to advise the Board.
Option 8 - Public-Private
Partnerships
Ms. Hall stated that she thought
they were frequently partnering with developments to construct road capacity
improvements. She asked if they should
do anything different than they are doing currently.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Fish if
everyone within the cities were on board with this concurrency.
Mr. Fish responded that yes,
everything was working great. He
mentioned that the Board should be aware that it is a practice sometimes when a
development proposal has more than one failure as in Clermont, for example,
where there may be three different areas that failed on the road system, they
often talk about type-lining their total obligations and putting it into one
thing. For instance, Clermont’s priority
is Hook Street and instead of fixing three small things they may get one portion
of Hook Street built. Another example is
The Villages where instead of the impact on CR 466A, which they are not able to
build yet, they are getting all of CR 466 done.
Option 9 - Other Funding Sources
Ms. Hall stated that Municipal
Service Benefit Units (MSBUs) are an effective method for funding in small
areas.
Mr. Stivender stated that Greater
Hills and Greater Pines subdivisions have MSBUs for lighting and maintenance.
Commr. Cadwell commented that most
MSBUs were community generated.
Mr. Fish commented that there were a
couple of spaces in Lake County that really were municipal based. He stated that he did not see this being
driven by the County Commission but would be on a case-by-case basis and more
likely occur in the municipalities.
Option 10 - Sales Tax
Ms. Hall stated that the Task Force
supported going back to the voters when the current sales tax expires in 2016
to request an extension on the sales tax and to dedicate all of it to
transportation.
Commr. Cadwell asked if that would
mean our one-third of the penny or all of it because the main way they sold
that last time was by including the school system which was one of the big
selling points.
Ms. Hall stated that she thought the
comment at the discussion was the entire penny.
Mr. Fish remarked that the sales tax
was one of the things in the adopted MPO Plan as being renewed in 2017 under
current conditions. He expressed his
concern that by the end of the year the MPO will be required to consider all
the needs and come up with a cost feasible final plan. He commented that there was no easy fix, but
to get the plan adopted they must indicate where the money would come
from. He explained that if sales tax
would not be part of the plan approximately one-third of the dollars would be cut
out.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they were
talking about some big picture down the road and if they put some of this in
place things may be great, but today people would have to realize the fact that
a pothole would be there longer and that grass would not get mowed as often
under current conditions. He commented
that these are suggestions from the Task Force and expressed appreciation for
their service on that board. He stated
that they came up with some good suggestions and hoped that they understand
that the Board is serious about reviewing them.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
The Chairman announced that there
would be a fifteen-minute recess and they would reconvene at 10:25 a.m.
COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM UPDATE
Mr. Stivender discussed the state of
the County Road System, how the funds are distributed and used, and the
challenges they face. He remarked that
he had shared the 2007 program with the Board two years ago and the big
challenges they had associated mostly with resurfacing County roads. He commented that a 2008 program has been
compiled and asked that they read it at their leisure. He reported that last year instead of
resurfacing roads with sales tax they were compelled to replace equipment that
had 300,000 miles on it and was 12-15 years old. He stated that they have some $7 million worth
of equipment, and that if they were to purchase it new today it would cost
close to $10-$11 million. He stated that
these were some of their capital challenges for this coming year, but he wanted
to go back and share some of the challenges that brought them to this state of
affairs. He reviewed the Road Revenue
Per Capita Per Year (Road Revenue chart) chart and noted that every revenue
source they have used for maintenance over the years increased, people have driven
more, population has gone up, and the age of the system has gone up. He stated that the County has 1350 miles of
roads and 90 miles of those roads now need resurfacing. He explained that the County’s traffic is down
about five percent (5%) over the last five years, however, the roads that are
now 20-25 years old have not had any maintenance in the way of
resurfacing. He referred to the Road
Revenue Chart explaining that twenty-five years ago the cost of maintaining in
Lake County was relatively small and that they have been able to keep that
price down. He reported that the Board
implemented the addition of two cents to the gas tax for the next three years
and, therefore, they met the challenges and provided a substantial amount of
money to work on roads. He explained
that they went from 1985 to 2003 without any ad valorem taxes going to road
maintenance, and the gas tax was increased.
Until the challenges of the last few years they were able to get
by. He mentioned that in 2001 the voters
supported a sales tax; one-third was the County’s share and half of that went
to roads, and they set aside money for resurfacing. The challenge for them was
that the prices had been high, and even though they were currently lower, they
have continued to be unable to close that gap.
The gap has been tied to $40 to $50 per person in Lake County per year
to maintain roads, to keep the lights on, keep potholes repaired, keep the
mowers going and keep everything working.
He stated that what was $30 per person in 1982 is now $60 per person, so
the cost of doing business has essentially doubled for every consumer in Lake
County. He stated that they projected
out the current revenue going to transportation and discovered that by using
the adopted low BEBR numbers and keeping them the same, there was still a per
capita reduction because revenue stays the same and population still goes up.
Mr. Stivender stated that there was
a gap of approximately $6-$8 million even with the sales tax and gas taxes and
that they have looked at some type of ad valorem tax to close the gap. He explained although that was not a
favorable solution, they needed to look at it in order to maintain roads and
take care of the 90 miles of roads that need resurfacing. He commented that in 1991 there was a change
in the way the formulas were written so the State kept more of the money and
distributed it a little differently; and 1998 was a year when they closed the
gap and were always the “go-to” department because they had funds
available. He commented that they
basically could work through those issues, but they have not been able to do
that in recent years and, in fact, they have worked out agreements with funding
being paid by other departments back into the set gas tax to pay for prior
services.
OPEN AIR VENDORS ORDINANCE
Mr. Minkoff stated that he and Ms.
Terri Diesbourg, Zoning Director, compiled a survey of what surrounding
counties were doing with regard to open air vendors. He commented that in 2003 a proposal had been
presented to eliminate temporary sales events and the Board turned it
down. He explained that at that time
there was a discussion that they did not want to negatively affect very small
vendors but since that time, at least in the northern portion of the County, most
of the four or six lane rights of way are now within municipal limits. He commented that there were very few areas
of US 441 that were not inside the city.
He stated that Lake County is one of the biggest landlords of these
temporary sales events. He explained
that Ms. Diesbourg obtained information from the Fairgrounds indicating how
many events and types of sales are done there.
Ms. Diesbourg addressed the Board
stating that the types of sales events held at the Fairgrounds were: four auto
tent sales each year from Sumter County with an income from each event of
$2,000 or $8,000 annually; three or four gun shows each year from a Merritt
Island Company with an income of $2,200 each for a total of $6,600 annually;
and tool sales twice each year from a company in Nebraska having an income of
$550 each or $1,100 annually. She stated
that each of these events are from outside vendors so one way to look at it was
that they were taking those dollars away from Lake County vendors, but looking
at it another way, it was income for the County.
Mr. Minkoff remarked that Commr.
Stewart had requested them to research whether the Ordinance could have a
different set of rules for vendors who had businesses in Lake County versus
vendors who did not and he stated they do not believe that legally their Ordinance
could discriminate based on that in terms of a Land Use Ordinance. So, the question is either it is all or
none. He stated that this Ordinance was
originally written to only allow farm produce stands and they could probably
broaden that exemption to allow very small vendors, but the negative of that
was that if they allow those types of vendors they can proliferate anywhere in
the County.
Commr. Stewart stated that the issue
was more complicated than it sounded.
She stated that they need to support their local businesses and
commented that the automotive dealers are very concerned about this. She questioned whether there was a way to
restrict all automotive sales at the Fairgrounds as a goodwill gesture until
these economic times are over.
Mr. Minkoff stated that he thought
there would be no problem with them deciding not to allow those types of events
at the Fairgrounds; however, they could not limit renting to only Lake County
vendors.
After a full discussion regarding
discriminating by trade and the ramifications of losing revenue from sales tax
of purchases made at the location; temporary structure limits; vendors selling
on the roadside being in violation of the Code; changing exemptions to allow
certain types of temporary and permanent sales; control of the vendors at the
County-owned Fairgrounds; requiring vendor permits; and booking car dealer
shows, it was determined that it was a City issue more than it was a County
issue.
Commr. Cadwell stated that if they
wanted to look at a policy restricting what was done at the Fairgrounds,
understanding that it would cost revenue, then that needs to be discussed.
Mr. Minkoff commented that it would
not take an Ordinance to do that as the Board could do that by policy.
CLOSED SESSION
Mr. Minkoff stated that he had
requested a Closed Session pursuant to Florida Statute 286.011 to discuss
pending litigation. He stated that he
had indicated that the subject matter would be confined only to settlement
negotiations or strategy sessions; the court reporter would be present to
record everything that was said including the times of commencement and
termination; that she would record the names of everyone present and the names
of everyone who was speaking. He further
stated that no portion of the session could be off the record and that the
court reporter’s notes would be transcribed and would be made public after the
conclusion of the litigation. He stated
that notice had been given and he had a copy of the ad of this session and once
they complete the session they will come back into the public meeting and
reopen the meeting. He stated that at
this point they could begin.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
The Chairman called for a ten minute
recess, reconvening at 12:50 p.m.
Waste
to Energy Facility Deliveries
Mr.
Daryl Smith, Solid Waste Director, addressed the Board relative to waste
deliveries to the Waste-To-Energy Facility.
He discussed contract issues where they have a commitment to deliver
163,000 tons of waste to Covanta on an annual basis. Another contract issue was the agreement
Covanta has with Progress Energy where Progress Energy pays for the electricity
generated on a regular basis and a capacity payment associated with Progress
Energy not building capacity for energy generation in the future. He commented that the focus today would be on
the capacity payment. He explained that
he would be sharing numbers today showing the contract amount to be paid to
Covanta up to 163,000 tons, and if they do not deliver that amount they pay Covanta
approximately $1.40 per ton on an annual basis for every ton below 163,000
tons. He reported that if they deliver
over 163,000 tons they pay $26.07 per ton in excess which was a reduction from
the initial fee of $47.45 per ton for the first 163,000 tons. He commented that they receive $40 per ton
for the solid waste delivered to them which is their tipping fee for the
commercial and municipal folks who provide it and that remains the same whether
above or below the 163,000 tons.
However, if they do less than the 163,000 tons they will lose $40 per
ton against the budgeted revenue since the shortfall comes from the
municipalities who pay $40 per ton. He
reported that they receive $13.97 per ton electrical generation revenue from
Progress Energy whether above or below the 163,000 tons. He stated that the capacity payment is
$544,000 per month if they exceed a seventy percent (70%) average of the
commitment on a twelve month rolling basis, but that is lost if they drop below
the seventy percent (70%) average. He
remarked that being below the 163,000 tons delivered is when they face the
possibility of falling below the seventy percent (70%) rolling average. He explained that Covanta has an opportunity
to deliver up 8,000 tons to the Waste Energy Facility that they go out and
bring into the facility and they pay the County $47.40 for that. He commented that to be in an ideal
situation, they would have 163,000 tons they would deliver coming from the
County and would not involve Covanta; and that Covanta would deliver
approximately 8,000 tons for a total of 171,000 tons which is where they would
like to be. He explained that one of the
present challenges is that they do not have any excess tonnage. He presented a slide showing projections
which indicated that they will not be able to make that 163,000 tons and may
not be able to reach the seventy percent (70%) rolling average due to reduced
deliveries. He explained that during
2008 they lost Eustis, Mount Dora, Fruitland Park and The Villages which accounted
for approximately 15,000 tons. He stated
that the reduction challenge they face is not limited to Lake County but rather
the entire industry both in the private and public sector is experiencing
reduced waste amounts. He explained the
“put or pay” arrangements within the County and how they were trying to find a
way to meet their “put or pay” through arrangements that they have with the
vendors providing the service. He discussed various “what if” scenarios and
commented on the significance related to annual volume they would be facing
related to weekly tonnage. He reported
that another challenge was with Covanta’s performance because they have outages
scheduled twice a year and the County gets a reduction from Progress Energy for
those periods of outage by reducing their commitment due to the fact that they
are planned and are part of the Agreement.
The other consideration for this year which is something that only
happens every five years, Covanta has to have a major overhaul on the turbine
generator and that is significant because there is always some risk when the
turbine generator is taken out of service because it reduces the ability to
burn what they need to meet their commitment to Progress Energy. He explained that the maximum burn at Covanta
is 3,640 tons per week so even if they delivered the maximum allowed, that is
all that they can burn and at some point they would not be able to reach the
163,000 tons. He referred to and
commented on the Capacity Projection 12-month rolling averages for various
percentages with a base of 2965 tons per week, noting that the trend is down at
this time and without increases they will not achieve the annual tonnage of
163,000. He then discussed alternatives
to increase deliveries and requested the Board consider them and offer
feedback. The alternatives discussed
were: continued delivery of mulch;
separation of construction and demolition debris and Class III material which originally
was sent to a separate landfill but now they are compressing it with heavy
equipment, breaking it up and then delivering to the Waste Management Facility
which saves in disposal costs; pursuing additional municipal waste by pursuing
agreements with other municipalities; receive private and public waste
generated from within and outside Lake County which may result in reducing
their rates for new waste being brought in or reduce it for everyone which
requires feedback from the Board; potential for Waste Pro to provide some
waste; Waste Management deliveries were underpaid in the amount of
approximately $250,000 from November 2002 until November 2008 and they will
guarantee deliveries of solid waste up to $40 per ton up to that amount which
means an additional 6,000 tons which provides breathing room to develop other
solutions to the long range problem; landfill mining; increase Covanta’s
deliveries by bringing in a lower cost tonnage; delivery of tires; and
recyclables as an option of last resort which they do not recommend.
Commr.
Cadwell asked if garbage was stockpiled when Covanta was out of service and Mr.
Smith explained that there had been no diversions and that during planned
downtime, if the weight was low enough, they continue to take waste by getting
the pit as low as possible to use as a buffer.
Commr.
Conner questioned whether Waste Management was bringing them all the garbage
they were collecting today from the different entities that they were six
months ago or were they taking some of that elsewhere.
Mr.
Smith responded by stating that they were bringing them what they were
committed to bring contractually, and that what they were not obligated to
bring was being taken elsewhere.
Mr.
Doug McCoy District Manager, Waste Management, addressed the Board by stating
that he had been working with Lake County for approximately twelve years. He explained that they started moving waste
many years ago from cities like Eustis and Mount Dora when the tipping fee was
about $91 per ton. He commented that at
that time the cities looked for a less expensive disposal site. He stated that they started direct hauling
waste to their transfer station in Orlando at that time. He stated that if at that time all the waste
of Lake County came into Covanta the plant would be well over capacity because
it was time for growth. He commented
that he met with Mr. Jeff Cooper, Contracts Administrator, and was willing to
partner with the County to ensure they met capacity if the waste volume
dropped, and that verbal arrangement continued until August 2008 when the state
of the economy began to diminish. He
stated that the volume in their newly found transfer station in Wildwood
started to diminish where they have a “put or pay” so he brought material until
he could no longer bring it without being in jeopardy of violating my “put or
pay” with that facility. He explained
that was why Waste Management stopped bringing waste to Lake County. He commented that they actually ran at a two
month deficit at their “put or pay” because Mr. Cooper had a goal to get to the
end of the Fiscal Year with a certain amount of waste and they helped him do
that explaining that after that point they would not be able to fill the desire
of Covanta for that waste.
Commr.
Conner stated that there was a need for contractual protections and they need
to figure out what course of action to take to get that protection.
Commr.
Renick agreed that they need contractual protection. She prefaced her remarks with the fact that
they were creating less garbage which is a good thing and did not want this
Commission to consider burning recyclables which would go against everything
they are trying to do in terms of being green.
However, if the tipping fee is considerably less somewhere else then the
cities will choose to go there which comes down to whether or not we are
competitive.
Mr.
Cooper stated that he and Mr. McCoy work very well together, but to be fair and
honest, Waste Management had a “put or pay” at The Villages for their transfer
station and they actively solicited Eustis and Mt. Dora and other places to
help fill their “put or pay”. He
reminded them that when they renegotiated with Covanta and got rid of all their
Interlocal Agreements the whole idea was to make sure that every city had the
right to tell their hauler to bring their garbage to us so they would not encounter
any problem. He commented that the
problem arose when there was a turnover in the cities because everybody who was
there then, are gone now so when these new agreements came along with all the
different cities, they were ripe for Waste Management to try and get their “put
or pay” and to fill their obligations.
Mr.
McCoy remarked that he did not think anyone envisioned that they would be
meeting here today with a lack of garbage.
Commr.
Conner questioned the amount of tipping fees being paid by Mt. Dora and the
other municipalities to go up to The Villages.
Mr.
McCoy responded that right now, as part of their contracts which are public
records, it was $40 which was the same rate that the County had.
Commr.
Conner remarked that it makes no sense for County municipalities to be paying
the same amount of money to go to The Villages Transfer Station when the County
needs the garbage and taking it to The Villages would adversely impact the
community. He stated that there needs to
be communication with the municipalities on these issues.
Mr.
Cooper stated that they are still working with Waste Management and explained
that one of the reasons they stopped at the end of August was due to
holidays. He commented that there are
six holidays in the hauler contracts and when those six holidays occur he has
to make sure they have enough waste because there are no deliveries on the
following Monday. He remarked that
during that period of time Mr. McCoy took their waste to make their own “put or
pay” at the transfer station in Wildwood and gave the County enough waste to
get through Labor Day. After that, the
County would have to deal with obtaining enough waste to make it through the
rest the end of the Fiscal Year. He
stated that they then started a program where they bought 1500 tons of mulch in
the month of October and another 800 tons in November in order to make up for
the difference. He reiterated that every month they do not meet the seventy
percent (70%) they lose $544,000.
Commr.
Hill stated that she had sat on the Solid Waste Committee and they have been
very proactive about obtaining garbage.
She mentioned that in the last two years, Mr. Smith had gone to
Hernando, Polk and Marion counties because we knew others were building transfer
stations and there was a possibility that we would lose them. She explained
that this was not something that just happened over Christmas and with the
economy the way it is, restaurants, businesses and construction are down and the amount of their garbage has dropped.
There
was a concern about negotiating the contracts to obligate cities to have their
garbage delivered to a specific transfer station.
Mr.
Cooper explained that the cities do not state where to take the waste because
the hauler is responsible to take it wherever they deem financially
feasible. He commented that one of the
things they had hoped that they would do when they renegotiated contracts was
to have them reserve the right upon 60 days notice to tell the hauler where to
take the garbage.
In
order to help solve the situation, Mr. McCoy stated that the cities contract
with them, but they still have authority over where that waste goes. He mentioned that when they negotiated
contracts with the municipalities they gave them the option to designate where
they send their waste because they would like the option in case either Waste
Management became more expensive or the County became more expensive. He commented that at least in the short term,
Waste Management has an alternative - if in fact his “put or pay” is met in The
Villages, he will bring waste to the County again as he has always done. However, Waste Management has waste
throughout the State where they would potentially truck in 100 yard trailers at
a much lower rate than $40, but they can supply the County the waste it
requires to meet capacity needs.
Commr.
Stewart stated that since the County has the same tipping fees as The Villages,
she did not understand why the municipalities would go to The Villages rather
than the County.
Mr.
Cooper stated that he has been trying desperately to speak to each of the
cities and their Solid Waste Departments.
He commented that with regard to directing the hauler to the transfer
station of choice it should be included in the contract. He explained that he has had that discussion
with Minneola, the Town of Montverde, Eustis, Tavares and one other city. He stated they had also decided to address
that issue by implementing a semi-annual meeting of all County Solid Waste
people for all the different cities participating to make them aware of what is
going on and they have taken some proactive steps to do that. He explained that one thing they could do to
help solve the problem was to negotiate with Waste Management for $15 - $20 per
ton, and also go other places to try and get their waste. He stated that they need to find about 8,000
tons of waste and determine how to obtain it.
As mentioned earlier by Mr. Smith, Montverde has already decided to
renew their contract with Waste Pro giving direction to have all the garbage
brought to Lake County instead of the previous transfer station. He also mentioned that Waste Services
informed him that they would bring the County all the waste from the Coleman
prison, but they only agreed to pay $36.50 rather than the $40 per ton. He stated that in an emergency situation when
looking for the 8,000 tons, the question becomes how to get permission to get
waste in at whatever price is needed in order to fulfill the 163,000 tons - the
Board sets the fee.
Commr.
Cadwell asked that Mr. Cooper take the first step by bringing back his opinion
of the easiest and most flexible place to get that 8,000 tons. Once that information is presented, they can
decide on a policy for obtaining it. He
also stated that while Mr. Cooper has been meeting at staff level perhaps they
should meet Mayor to Chairman, Mayor to local Commissioner and Manager to
Manager.
Commr.
Hill stated that she would be happy to speak to the leaders in her District in
Fruitland Park.
Mr.
McCoy stated that if the cities all leave their facility, the impact will hit
Waste Management. However, if the
flexibility they have had with the County for the past five years remains the
same and they are impacted as little as possible, the County still gets the
waste it needs. Mr. Smith stated that
they still have the commitment for the 6,000 tons that Mr. McCoy has already
made verbally for $250,000.
Mr.
Cooper remarked that the 6,000 tons would keep them above the seventy percent
(70%) through the end of the Fiscal Year, but should there be a drop they would
have problems, thus the need for flexibility.
A
discussion ensued regarding tipping fees at Covanta noting that those could be
changed to whatever the Board chooses.
Also mentioned was the concept of making agreements with those cities
that they do no have at the present time such as Groveland and Mascotte. It was determined that the relationship with
municipalities is critical because Waste Management may not be working with the
County at some time in the future.
Commr.
Cadwell asked that Ms. Hall schedule meetings with the cities on a
Manager/Mayor level with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Smith in attendance. He stated that he would also attend as a
District Commissioner. Because of Mr.
Cooper’s relationship with Solid Waste, he asked him to make sure that the
Manager appoints someone from there to attend as well.
Mr.
Smith wanted to make sure of the direction the Board had given and stated that
he understood that they want them to pursue the opportunity to get some other
waste and that they are willing to consider some reduction in pricing. He stated that they would bring that
information back to the Board with their recommendations understanding the
concerns regarding different rates for different folks.
STIMULUS PACKAGE PROJECTS
Ms. Hall stated that they have heard
that the Federal Government will be providing a stimulus package in an amount
between $350 billion or $700 billion to help with infrastructure projects at
the local level, but it is yet to be determined what will take place or what
avenue will be used to make the selection of where the money will go and who
will distribute it. Even though some of
the projects do not all fall under transportation, she had heard that the funds
would be funneled through the Department of Transportation (DOT). She explained that they want to be ready to
submit their projects as fast as possible once they know the exact
process. She stated that Mr. Stivender
has made contact with the people at DOT and will communicate with them on an
ongoing basis. She commented that the
types of criteria they are looking for are roads, bridges, sewer systems,
government buildings, and other types of infrastructure projects where the architectural
design and any engineering was finished so that they can be ready to turn dirt
in 120 days. Once these projects
actually start construction the goal would be for those contracts to generate
some economic activity. She stated that
an exhaustive list of projects submitted by County Departments were enclosed in
their packets with a ranking method from 1 to 3, with “1” being those having
the fastest turn around. She explained
that she had asked Mr. Jim Bannon, Facilities Development & Management
Director to rank the projects with the fastest turn around. She then requested that the Board submit and
rank their priority projects so that once the criteria and process was known
they would be ready to move forward. She
noted that Mr. Stivender would discuss transportation projects and asked that
they provide her with several items, such as county buildings, for
prioritization. She commented that she
thought Mr. Stivender would place the Picciola Bridge as his highest priority
for transportation as well as perhaps Lois Drive and CR 474. She stated that Mr. Bill Gearing, Community
Services Enhancement Coordinator, was in attendance at this meeting and had
submitted a number of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects which
would also be considered under the stimulus package. She then remarked that they were here to
listen to their discussions about their priorities.
A full discussion ensued regarding
the projects to be placed on the list including the Judicial Center; Paisley
Fire Station; Animal Control; the Picciola Bridge; and Southside Umatilla Water
System, all of which were shovel ready except for the Water System. It was noted that the Water System was not
ready and might be a waste of time to submit it at this point. They referred to Mr. Bannon’s list indicating
that the items ranked “1” were ready to go; “2” were almost ready to go; and
those marked “3” were those that could be ready with some effort. The discussion concerned problems associated
with the Judicial Center, which was out for bids, and noted that it was a requirement
of the State to provide room for the judiciary and court support services and
that it could be built in phases according to funds available. It was mentioned that their liaison and
lobbyists would not only give them an indication of items to place on the list,
but would also trim the list down according to the criteria presented.
Commr. Cadwell asked that Ms. Hall
contact Mr. Jim Davenport, the Board’s lobbyist in Washington, between now and
next Tuesday to obtain some input and bring back the discussion Tuesday if they
needed to decide on certain projects to get their name on the State’s list. COMMISSION LIAISON APPOINTMENTS
Commr. Cadwell stated that there
were some changes on the Commission Liaison Appointment list that was
distributed. He noted that Commr.
Stewart is actually the liaison for the Florida Black Bear Scenic Byway. He stated that there was a request for a
Commissioner to serve on the Shared Services Council and asked that Commr. Hill
serve in that capacity. Both changes
would be reflected on the revised list.
Commr. Renick commented that even
though her list looked shorter than the others she wanted to make sure that
they understood she was also on the Executive Committee of the Regional
Planning Council, which was an additional meeting; as well as being on the
Regional Policy Planning Committee which meets in Orlando and made a total of
eight meetings.
Commr. Conner asked if they had
given thought to having a liaison to the Legislature.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he is the
liaison to some extent through FAC and the National Association of Counties
(NACO) and through their lobbyists. He
mentioned that they have only hired issue-specific lobbyists in Tallahassee.
Commr. Conner stated he was
referring to working through our lobbyists and asked if he could be an
alternate.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he could
certainly be an alternate and remarked to Mr. Minkoff that other counties send
more than one commissioner and that there was nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Minkoff stated that they would
have to be careful in terms of the meetings there.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded
by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved the
Liaison Appointments for 2009 with the noted changes.
SOUTHSIDE UMATILLA WATER SYSTEM
Commr. Renick stated that she wished
to discus the possibility of creating a special assessment for residents who
are part of the Southside Umatilla Water System. She explained that because some residents
were paying their $25 and some were not she was trying to determine how to
collect that money.
Commr. Cadwell explained that since
that meeting there was a push back and that it would be hard to get a consensus
on what needed to be done. He commented
that while her plans made sense business wise, all that would do would have
them wind up owning dilapidated properties because it would be on their tax
bill and they could not afford to pay it.
He explained that they would work hard with the community to educate
them on how that kind of utility works.
He stated that he would like one more opportunity to go back to the City
of Umatilla and discuss it with the new Council President and the City Manager
to see if there were some opportunities to try to work something out.
Mr. Daryl Smith, Environmental
Utilities Director stated that it would cost approximately $35,000 on an annual
basis (which was what they were collecting from them at $25 per month) to run
that facility, which would be breaking even in terms of ongoing operations. He explained, however, that figure did not
allow for any capital expenditures and the uncertainty of the unknown could be
devastating.
Commr. Conner remarked that meeting
with the City of Umatilla would be a great step. He expressed his support to Commr. Renick and
thought her memo stated an equitable and less expensive way to implement
handling the water bills.
OTHER
Commr. Cadwell stated that a 10:00
a.m. Closed Session should be added to the agenda for the meeting of January
20, 2009.
On
a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by
a 5-0 vote, the Board approved adding a Closed Session at 10:00 a.m. to the
Agenda of the Board Meeting of January 20, 2009.
On
a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a
5-0 vote, the Board approved having a Closed Session at the Board Meeting on
January 20, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
COUNTY MANAGER
Presentation by Mr. Billy
Hattaway
Ms. Hall stated that they would like
to have Mr. Billy Hattaway with Florida Association of Counties make a
presentation to the Board at their February 10 work session related to
Transportation. She stated that his
thoughts were a cut above others they had seen and combined infrastructure,
economic development, and quality of life.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he
thought it would be well worth their time and agreed to have the presentation.
COMMISSIONER RENICK - DISTRICT 2
Bureau of Economic Business
Research Numbers
Commr. Renick stated that when they
adopted the “low” BEBR (Bureau of Economic Business Research) number the
decision was somewhat split. She
commented that since that time she met with Ms. Amye King, Growth Management
Director, and Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, regarding adopting the “low”
number. She explained that they had all
received a letter from the Local Planning Agency (LPA) which indicated they had
done everything they could to get it to the low number but it still comes up
being “low/medium.” After thinking it
through, she reported that the “low/medium,” not medium, was a more realistic
number and would be easier for Ms. King to defend with the DCA.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved an addition to the Agenda of the BEBR number presented to the DCA.
On a motion by Commr. Renick,
seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board
approved having Ms. King present the “low/medium” BEBR number to the DCA versus
straight “low” number.
COMMISSIONER CONNER - DISTRICT 3
Montverde City Council Meeting
Commr. Conner reported that he had
would attend the Montverde City Council meeting tonight and would thank them
for their decision to bring their solid waste to the County.
Proposed Presentation by Budget
Director
Commr. Conner referred to a January
9, 2009, Memorandum to the Board from Mr. Doug Krueger, Budget Director,
regarding the analysis of the Fund Balance for Fiscal Year 2007-08. He stated that he had discussed the matter
with Mr. Krueger and understood that this for this Fiscal Year they were on
target to spend $5 million more than what they would be receiving. Because he felt this was very problematic he
suggested having Mr. Krueger make a presentation to provide information about
their financial situation before the February workshop.
Ms. Hall clarified that financial
workshops had been planned for February 10 and again in March, however, due to
the fact that Commr. Conner would prefer to advance the presentation; it could
be made at a Board Meeting.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would
meet with Ms. Hall to obtain a date that would work well for everyone.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
______________________________
WELTON
CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
NEIL
KELLY, CLERK