A special MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
August 9, 2011
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special workshop session on Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Leslie Campione, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Jimmy Conner; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Darren Gray, County Manager; Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Courtney Vincent, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell asked to add a request for the Board to approve a time-sensitive resolution thanking Mr. Philip Laurien for his service as the Executive Director on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding the request to approve the resolution to the agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Conner and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Resolution No. 2011-104, thanking Mr. Philip Laurien for his service as the Executive Director on the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Public transportation presentation
Ms. Dottie Keedy, Community Services Director, gave a presentation on the County’s public transportation programs. She noted that Ms. Brenda Likely, Financial Coordinator for Community Services; Mr. Ken Harley, Public Transportation Division Director; Ms. Kim Frye, General Manager of MV Transportation; and TJ Fish, Lake-Sumter MPO Executive Director; were also present. She reviewed that public transportation services began in Lake County when the County entered into an agreement with Life Stream Behavioral Center (LSBC) in 1983, to provide paratransit trips. She noted LSBC had been designated the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) in 1990, with Lake County becoming the CTC in 2001. She added that in 2005 the Transit Development Plan was adopted by the Board, outlining opportunities to begin a fixed-route system, and the County entered into an agreement with MV Transportation to provide the fixed-route and paratransit services. She explained there were two types of riders: captive riders that could not afford or did not have access to any other type of transportation and choice riders who chose to take public transportation for a number of different reasons. She described the LakeXpress fixed-route system, stating that the buses ran on the same schedule every day, it was currently only available in North Lake County, it was the most productive and least expensive service per trip and the majority of the riders were captive riders. She noted that the number of LakeXpress trips has increased steadily since 2007, with another increase projected for 2011. She stated Lake County Connection paratransit services were also offered. She explained that the paratransit service brought the bus to the passenger and routes were based on the needs of the passenger. She mentioned the service was countywide, riders had to be eligible for the service, and it was the most expensive public transportation service.
Commr. Conner asked what services the County had contracted out with MV Transportation.
Ms. Keedy replied that MV Transportation handled both the paratransit and fixed route services. She added that in addition to County paid paratransit trips through MV Transportation there were also school trips funded through LSBC. She reported that the number of County paid paratransit passenger trips had steadily decreased since 2008 as staff worked to transition riders from paratransit to fixed route services. She stated the third type of transportation offered was through a contractual arrangement with Lynx which included Link 204 running from Clermont’s Park and Ride facility to downtown Orlando and Link 55 running from the US 27/US 192 area to the attractions area. She also mentioned the County operated the vanpool program, noting that approximately 115 County residents utilized the program. She explained the vanpool program provided a public van for groups of employees who wished to share a commute to their place of employment, noting that the riders paid for the service. She stated there were currently 14 vanpools with 13 of them transporting employees to Coleman Federal Prison in Sumter County. She reported that staff would bring back some options to the Board at a future meeting to discuss the future of the vanpool program because Lake County had been notified that Lynx could no longer provide the service.
Commr. Conner asked if the vanpool program revenue covered the cost of the program.
Ms. Keedy replied that staff was analyzing the Lynx vanpool system to see if it would pay for itself, opining that it should. She then discussed the system’s efficiencies and enhancements that staff had undertaken in recent years such as the renegotiation of the MV Transportation contract in 2009 which brought fleet maintenance under County control. She added that the County also took over purchasing fuel for the vehicles. She noted that eligibility screening for paratransit riders, which was conducted by MV Transportation, ensured those services were only used by those who were eligible. She mentioned some future planned enhancements including the installation of intelligent transportation system features such as GPS devices, passenger counters, and fare boxes as well as the installation of bus shelters. She sited the Ch. 427.011, F.S. definition for transportation disadvantaged and added that the Board had adopted two other documents that established eligibility criteria for transportation disadvantaged riders: the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, which was adopted by the Board in 2004, and the ADA Paratransit Operating Policies, which was adopted by the Board in 2008. She explained that the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan established the prioritization of trips based on available funding, listing them in order of priority as medical, nutritional, employment, training/education, and life sustaining trips including such activities as for shopping, banking, visits to hospitals/nursing homes, and recreation. She reported some of the system’s accomplishments in 2011 such as a 96 percent on-time performance rate, a 17 percent decrease in paratransit trips, a 45 percent decrease in cost per passenger trip, a 41 percent increase in the number of passengers per revenue hour, and providing access to over 13,000 jobs.
Ms. Likely continued the presentation, discussing funding for the transit program. She reported there were many funding sources that worked together to provide services for the residents of Lake County, including an $8.6 million subsidy from the general fund for 2012. She remarked that since paratransit services cost more to provide, it made up approximately 49 percent of the transportation budget, adding that 22 percent went towards the fixed route program. She commented that the average cost per paratransit trip, including fuel and maintenance, was approximately $25, and the average cost for a fixed route trip was about $5.50. She noted that those amounts did not include costs that were needed for personnel or administration. She displayed a list of capital projects that were planned for purchase using grant funds during the next fiscal year and, with the exception of the paratransit vans which required a 10 percent match, all of the items were completely grant funded. She reported that the fixed route program was currently funded through a Federal grant with the exception of the Lynx service in South Lake County, and the total operating revenues for the fixed route service was only $1.9 million for 2012. She mentioned that regular passengers of the fixed route service were required to pay a fare of one dollar and seniors, veterans, disabled riders, and students paid fifty cents. She reported that half of the fixed route expenses went towards providing trips on the fixed route service and 12 percent went towards the Lynx service. She mentioned that the Board currently received the Federal Transit Administration 5307 Grant in the amount of $2,866,922 to cover both the capital and operating costs for the 2012 fiscal year, adding that the grant did not require a cash match from the County. She explained that the majority of transportation funding was complicated was because most of the funding came from Medicaid and other grant programs, noting that the other programs accounted for 66 percent of the funding. She stated that for the paratransit service, the clients paid an eligibility based co-pay or sometimes received hardship assistance if they could not afford the co-pay. She reviewed the general fund subsidy awarded over the past eight to nine years, specifying that in 2008 the Board transferred $2.6 million to transportation and as a result the division had been utilizing the roll-over funds to provide services. She commented that the general fund transfer had decreased because of the roll-over funds, but as fund balances decreased there would be a need for an additional revenue source or a reduction in services,. She projected that the fund balance would be exhausted by 2014. She mentioned the general fund transfer was used to provide matches and subsidies for grants and funding sources and in addition was used to provide fuel, maintenance, and other administrative costs that were needed to provide service. She reviewed the paratransit grants and other funding sources, explaining that the some of the grants for paratransit were received only because the County had a fixed route service in place as well. She further explained that since federal dollars were currently used for the fixed route service, those grants were not needed for fixed route and were instead put towards paratransit. She added that the County also received a fixed amount Medicaid allocation as well as the FDOT 5310 Grant used to purchase vehicles for the paratransit program. She commented that she had been asked how much the Board would have to pay if there was no fixed route service in place, answering that if everything pertaining to fixed route was removed from the budget, the Board would have to transfer an additional $1.6 million into the transportation budget in order to fund that service.
Commr. Hill asked where the vanpool originated and how it was run.
Mr. Fish replied that the vanpool program, which was currently managed by Lynx, had 16 vans that the State had been able to provide. He specified that the people utilizing the vehicle then maintained the vehicle, operated it, and controlled how their vanpool was organized as well as paid for the insurance and the fuel. He noted they did not have to work for the same employer to ride together in a vanpool.
Commr. Conner asked who provided the van.
Mr. Fish answered that the State provided the van through the use of State and Federal funds, clarifying that the vehicles were the only capital provided and the people using it paid for operation and maintenance.
Commr. Conner asked if the capital costs were recaptured in the fee structure, or was the fee structure designed just to pay the operational costs.
Mr. Fish replied that the public/private partnership consisted of the vehicle being the public part of the partnership and the private part was that the users operated and maintained it. He then continued the presentation, remarking that in regards to transit, the MPO had a very specific roll in that they were to plan for, monitor, and evaluate the performance of public transportation for Lake County. He reported the recommendations from the Transportation 2035 plan were to develop a multimodal transportation system that would help reduce the reliance on single occupant vehicles and protect the rural character of the County. He remarked that current transit routes existed along the US Hwy 441 corridor with some additional service along SR 19 and there was a future goal of serving the South Lake region. He emphasized the need for enhanced coordination between local governments and other agencies, explaining that according to the Transit Development Plan, the BCC would be the operator of the system and funding could eventually be shared with municipal partners in order to maintain service through the municipalities. He commented that riders commonly requested extended hours of service as well as weekend service, noting that the riders most frequently used LakeXpress to commute to work.
Commr. Conner asked what percentage of riders used LakeXpress to commute to work.
Mr. Fish replied that just under 60 percent of the riders used the service for that purpose, noting that the statistic was from his updated survey or ridership.
Commr. Conner asked if riders listed their employer on the survey.
Mr. Fish answered that it was not listed on the last survey conducted, but it would be included in the next survey. He discussed the demographic trends for the County, noting that there would be a significantly larger senior population over the next generation. He remarked that economic development was tied to transit because it helped connect residents to where jobs were and consumers to places of business, commenting that economic activity was higher in transit rich areas. He stated that corridors such as US 441 and SR 50 would not be widened to eight lanes in the future and, with environmental constraints such as the lakes, investing in transit solutions was the best option. He reported on the funding strategies for LakeXpress such as streamlining services, serving more transportation disadvantaged riders, addressing commuter demands, and providing transportation alternatives. He emphasized that LakeXpress revenue would not cover the operating costs, but when compared to other cities in Florida, LakeXpress was performing very well. He remarked that LakeXpress was conducting hourly bus service runs and there would not be a leap in fare box revenues or ridership until bus service frequency increased. He opined that LakeXpress needed to be cultivated into an option of choice as opposed to an option for people with no other means of transportation. He stated that transportation would always be funded by governments beyond the user fees, so a dedicated funding source for all transportation was desperately needed. He mentioned that since Ms. Keedy had come on board and MV Transportation had hired a new general manager, there had been tremendous improvements in the public transit program.
Commr. Conner asked what the problems were that the County had had with MV Transportation.
Mr. Gray replied that when Ms. Keedy took over Public Transportation there were some concerns with MV Transportation and one of the big things MV Transportation did to address those concerns was to bring in a new general manager.
Commr. Cadwell added that another change that came about was having MV Transportation be more aggressive towards getting riders to switch to the fixed route as opposed to using paratransit services.
Ms. Keedy remarked that Ms. Frye held her drivers and staff much more accountable than the previous managers, providing better reporting information, better fuel receipt information, opining that Ms. Frye had improved the management of MV Transportation overall.
Commr. Hill commented that the Board would have a discussion before 2014 regarding transportation to look at funding sources, mentioning the One Cent Sales Tax and the possibility of extending it to provide additional funding for all transportation services. She then asked how much ridership there was to downtown Tavares.
Mr. Fish replied that Tavares was unique, mentioning that Tavares had the second highest transfer rate and that staff was looking into untapped ridership in the form of County, Clerk of Court, and other Tavares governmental employees, to see what would need to happen for those people to switch forms of transportation.
Ms. Keedy concluded the presentation by summarizing some of the programmatic challenges public transportation faced. She expressed concern regarding the impact of Medicaid reform on the provision of paratransit services, remarking it could result in higher costs because the County could lose some of the funding as a match for other Federal funds. She mentioned there would be a continued challenge in finding funding for the Lynx 204 and 55 routes, and challenges to increase marketing efforts to expand ridership. She noted there would also be challenges through the impact on maintenance staff as the vehicles aged. She reported that fixed route ridership had increased while paratransit ridership declined, adding that marketing and service enhancements would increase ridership and produce more revenue. She emphasized that the existing fund balance would be depleted by 2014 and a funding source would be needed to maintain and/or expand the public transportation programs.
Commr. Campione asked how much money was contributed from the general fund for the entire public transportation program.
Ms. Likely replied that the amount for 2012 was $693,000, but reminded the Board that there was a remaining fund balance that carried over from the previous year.
Mr. Gray clarified that the $693,000 was taken from the general fund and added to the fund balance every year and the fund balance would be depleted by 2014, requiring more funding to be pulled from the general fund in order to maintain the current level of service.
Commr. Campione asked if those numbers were based on Medicaid as it currently was as opposed to any changes that might take place, mentioning that providers might be able to get transportation for their customers through other sources and might not necessarily have to use the County’s public transportation, which would cause funding to go down.
Ms. Likely replied that that was correct.
Mr. Gray commented that he planned to return to the Board in a couple months with a five-year plan on revenues and expenditures, especially in the general fund.
Commr. Campione asked if the County was required by law to provide paratransit services or if the County was electing to be the provider.
Mr. Minkoff replied that he did not think there was a legal requirement that the County act as the CTC and provide those funds, but he mentioned that whoever provided the service would receive the grant money that went along with the program.
Commr. Campione asked if a private entity could be the CTC and provide those services should the County elect not to do it.
Mr. Minkoff answered that there were some private CTC’s, but they did not provide funding, so there was still a government providing the match in order to get the grants. He added that LSBC had been the CTC until the County took over.
Commr. Campione asked if the County could elect not to have any services.
Mr. Fish replied that all 67 counties had a CTC and many of them began with the county commission, though sometimes another entity became the CTC. He stressed the Board would still have a roll because grants would still have to go through the Board for approval.
Commr. Parks asked if there were any communities that declined the funding and had non-profit organizations step in to handle public transportation services.
Mr. Fish said not to his knowledge, but some counties had another entity acting as CTC.
Commr. Cadwell asked if the County decided who would be CTC.
Mr. Fish answered that the MPO decided who would be CTC. He specified that for Lake County, the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board performed a yearly evaluation and then recommended who should act as the CTC, and they recommended the BCC.
Commr. Cadwell mentioned that it had been problematic having other entities act as CTC because there was no group large enough to handle the responsibility and not strap themselves.
Commr. Hill noted there was a liability that went along with being CTC and some groups could not take on that liability.
Mr. Minkoff mentioned that LSBC had been criticized when they were CTC because they had poor service, opining that the public transportation service eventually interfered with their delivery of mental health services.
Ms. Keedy commented that the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan prioritized the trips according to funding for paratransit services, so the Board could elect to limit trips.
Commr. Campione remarked that some of the paratransit trips were in the country and if they were closer it would be more efficient. She suggested finding a way to limit the range for providing paratransit trips, opining that people might then decide to live closer to those opportunities as opposed to rural areas.
Commr. Parks asked what else could be done to increase fare box recovery other than increasing ridership, questioning if the rates could be raised.
Mr. Fish replied that as part of the Transit Development Plan, a rate study had been analyzed and it had been decided that the rate would be one dollar for all riders except for students and seniors who would pay fifty cents.
Commr. Parks asked if there was a way to differentiate fees between captive riders and optional riders.
Mr. Fish explained that the plan was to transition to an express service on US 441 to quickly move people through the County and have circulators in each city for local service. He noted there could be a price difference between express and local buses, adding that rates could be increased but it would risk ridership levels.
Commr. Cadwell stated that a point had been reached where the cities needed to contribute to public transportation because the County could not bear the brunt of it anymore.
Mr. Fish expressed that the cities would need to contribute towards the circulator routes in their cities or risk losing those services.
Commr. Conner advised the Board to be careful about renewing the One Cent Sales Tax and putting programs in the referendum that might not be popular with the public. He remarked that they could not continue to provide the level of services that have been provided because there was not enough money.
Commr. Cadwell suggested asking the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board to reprioritize the paratransit trips in an effort to move more riders to the fixed route service. He specified that the Board could provide a list of what trips they would be willing to pay for.
Mr. Fish noted the Board had always classified medical trips as a number one priority.
Commr. Conner asked if it was more conducive for a private company to take over public transportation services with the Medicaid adjustments being made.
Commr. Campione replied that it was more conducive towards fragmenting services and having a variety of people stepping up and wanting to provide the services.
Mr. Gray mentioned that those private groups would still come to the Board asking for a subsidy.
Commr. Campione stated that she did not think that was a positive direction to go in.
Commr. Cadwell commented that the Board would need to find a way to make at least part of the system work before the roads failed them and they had no other options. He then asked for an update on the bus shelter situation.
Ms. Keedy replied that there were 18 shelters on order, mentioning that there had been some issues getting permitted for solar, so some modifications were being made to the shelter prototype. She noted they were working with the cities, the School Board, and some of the private entities like the malls to get the shelters, adding that they were just waiting on the shipment.
Commr. Campione asked at when discussions would start with the cities regarding their contributing towards the transportation funding.
Mr. Fish replied that the MPO was the proper entity to handle those discussions and noted that cities in South Lake such as Groveland and Mascotte had already indicated that they could contribute funds to have public transportation services. He noted the willingness was there for the cities to contribute but the issue was the lack of money in general funds.
Commr. Campione asked if, once the maximum monthly amount had been reached, the Board then turn down certain trips.
Ms. Likely replied that MV Transportation was given a daily budget, adding that because of the decrease in trips and because of the current budget level, there had not yet been an issue with running out of funds. She remarked that in regards to the federal funding for the fixed route system, the funds would not go away but they would need to be used for other things. She explained that it would then become an issue of moving the funds around to pay what was needed which was why the budget was presented as a whole for the entire transportation program and not in two parts.
Mr. Fish remarked that with the increase in population it caused the MPO to become a Transportation Management Area (TMA), and the rules changed when they became a TMA regarding available grants. He added that there would be some new options with the larger MPO because they had a new funding source for urban funds and they would explore how they could use those urban funds to help solve any funding changes.
Commr. Parks asked what was going to be done regarding public transportation from this point forward.
Mr. Gray stated he would bring back the budget model projections in a couple months so the Board could sit down and make some decisions.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced that there would be a twenty-minute recess at 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Minkoff explained that in the odd year after the United States Census, counties were required to look at the County Commission Districts and, according to Statute, make them nearly equal in proportion in population as possible. He specified that if the discrepancy in population was less than five percent that was good, if it was between five and ten percent then it could be alright if there was a valid reason, and if there was more than ten percent difference in a district there needed to be a really good reason for the discrepancy. He clarified the reasons allowed such as keeping communities and cities together. He reported that each of the maps that had been submitted appeared to have less than ten percent difference, and some of them had less than five percent difference. He stated the current district map far exceeded the ten percent difference in districts, specifying that Districts 2 and 3 needed to be reduced. He noted the staff generated map had been generated at the Board’s direction and was intended to take the existing districts and change them as little as possible in order to make them become as even as possible and to respect municipal lines as well as municipal growth lines.
Commr. Hill stated she would present her map first. She remarked she had wanted to ensure that two commissioners could reside in South Lake as well as two that would reside in North Lake. She mentioned she liked the idea of having commission districts that were compact, opining that it was easier for a district commissioner to stay active within their district and be able to reach any additional meetings that would come up. She mentioned looking at the placement of the enterprise zones, explaining that she had thought it best to separate the enterprise zones between at least four of the districts and District 2 would have a special overlay zone. She opined it would allow all of the commissioners to be involved in the enterprise zones.
Commr. Parks opined that redistricting was not merely a process where lines were established for political ease, to pivot someone who might run against them, or create a favorable district. He stated he had heard from citizens that this process was important and should make sense and be logical. He discussed the map he had submitted prior to the meeting, adding that he had several other maps to follow his initial map and one of them was similar to the map Commr. Hill had submitted. He remarked that while they were all elected at large, there was some inclination to represent the area they lived in. He explained his map was based off the 2010 Population Density map. He then had displayed a map he had produced on July 8, 2011, created with the purpose of having two districts in South Lake as well as indicating the line showing 40 percent of the population below it. He stated he was submitting his second map for consideration. He then displayed a third map, stating it was similar to the map Commr. Hill had submitted. He remarked that the Board was not deciding on district maps at the meeting, they were only deciding on what maps they would display for public comment.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the maps were supposed to have been submitted to the County Manager ahead of time.
Commr. Conner did not agree with Commr. Parks submitting additional maps during the meeting because the Board had not been given the chance to review them. He then discussed the map he had submitted, noting that there was hardly any difference between his map and the map Commr. Parks had initially submitted. He asked Ms. Sue Carroll, GIS Project Manager, to explain the differences between the two maps.
Ms. Carroll explained that she had started with Commr. Parks’ map and expounded on it to create Commr. Conner’s map, mentioning that Commr. Conner had wanted to keep some of the communities along US 27 in his district so she moved the boundary to the west and then exchanged the Silver Lake area and a little south of Groveland to balance out what was added.
Commr. Cadwell suggested that the staff map, Commr. Parks’ map and Commr. Conner’s map be approved for display to the public.
Commr. Parks suggested included Commr. Hill’s map as well and then stated while he did not mind the staff map being included for public display, he did not support it because of the placement of Montverde, Minneola, and Clermont. He reported that he had a resolution from Montverde stating they wanted to be in District 2.
Commr. Campione discussed the map she had submitted, explaining that she went through the academic exercise of starting on the south end and then went up 60,000 people and drew a line, measured out another 60,000 people and drew a line, but then it grew more difficult to draw a straight line while keeping 60,000 in each district. She stated her map was in response to comments that the districts should be defined by going up 60,000 people and drawing a line, and she had wanted to demonstrate that it was not that easy because then judgment calls needed to be made on where to place the lines. She reported hearing that many people in South Lake felt underrepresented because they did not have two districts representing the area. She mentioned she had decided to come up with a map to accommodate that request. She then displayed a copy of Option 7 of the School Board maps, which created two South Lake districts.
Commr. Conner commented that he had not seen the School Board map and asked if they had a copy of it.
Commr. Campione replied that the map was available on the School Board’s website and she had looked at it because she had heard discussion suggesting the BCC should be coordinating with the School Board. She described the School District map, explaining that the School Board had used their high schools and the feeder patterns for their schools to have an equal distribution of schools. She opined that the only way for there to be two solid South Lake districts would be for the Board to select either her map, Commr. Hill’s map, something similar to the School Board’s map, or something like the map Commr. Parks’ July map.
Commr. Conner opined that the decision of the Board should be limited to the maps that had been previously submitted for that meeting. He then noted that in the current district plan, parts of South Lake were in three of the districts. He remarked that 40 percent of the population did not live in South Lake County, that the 40 percent line went all the way up to Leesburg, which was part of South Lake.
Commr. Hill said she did not have a problem putting out the additional maps, and then she asked if the additional map Commr. Parks wanted to submit were within the necessary deviation percentage range. She commented that it did not appear to be compliant.
Mr. Minkoff specified that the second map submitted by Commr. Parks came in at just under ten percent deviation between the districts, explaining that if the deviation was below five percent it was alright, if it was between five and ten percent there could be some problems, and if it was over ten percent that was bad.
Commr. Hill and Commr. Conner agreed that the numbers for Commr. Parks’ map did not work.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a vote of 3-2, the Board approved the staff generated map, Commr. Hill’s map, Commr. Conner’s map and Commr. Parks’ initial map to be public displayed in the rotunda of the County Administration Building as well as the County libraries.
Commr. Campione and Commr. Hill voted, “No.”
Commr. Parks moved to add the map he had created on July 8, 2011, and Commr. Campione’s map to the list of those to be publicly displayed.
Motion died for lack of a second.
On a motion by Commr. Campione, seconded by Commr. Parks and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved adding the map Commr. Campione submitted to the list of those to be publicly displayed and to allow Commr. Parks to submit a second map for the Board meeting on August 16, 2011 provided he review the district population breakdowns to ensure necessary compliance with the deviation guidelines.
Commr. Hill commented that there were a lot of boards and committees being advertised for citizen input. She asked what would happen once the district lines were reconfigured.
Mr. Minkoff replied that it would be up to the Board, noting that the last time the district map was updated, the Board had allowed people who had been appointed to serve the rest of their terms and then, if they no longer lived within the district they were appointed for, they were replaced by someone who was in the district. He added that the Board could also decide to remove those people who were not in the necessary districts and reappoint the positions once the new district map took effect.
Commr. Hill asked when the new district map would officially take effect.
Mr. Minkoff replied that it would take effect as soon as the Board adopted the resolution approving the change in district lines.
Mr. Gray reported that the plan for the selected proposed district maps was to print them on large boards to place in the rotunda of the County Administration Building as well as sending smaller copies to all of the County’s libraries. He also noted the maps would be available online and citizens could make comments online and those comments would go directly to the Board for review. He specified each map would be identified by a number and not by who created it.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HILL – CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT 1
Life stream letter of support
Commr. Hill reported that Life Stream Behavioral Center had requested a letter of support. She noted that LSBC was in partnership with Community Behavioral Organizations and they would like a letter of support for their going in with First Coast Management Services. She asked for the Board’s approval to send the letter of support for their inclusion in the First Coast proposal. She specified the letter had to be in by Friday.
The Board came to a consensus to allow Commr. Hill to send the letter of support.
Joint meeting with school board
Commr. Hill reminded the Board that there was a Joint Meeting with the School Board on Tuesday, August 30, 2011. She remarked that there was a new agenda for the meeting which combined and condensed the agenda of the Board with that of the School Board to ensure the meeting remained no longer than two hours. She added that the School Board wanted to eliminate the Joint Resolution because there were problems with the wording.
EMS Board of Directors Meeting
Commr. Hill reminded the Board that there was an EMS Board of Directors meeting at 2:00 PM at the Agricultural Center today, August 9, 2011.
reports – commissioner conner – district 3
Sign ordinance regarding temporary signs
Commr. Conner reported receiving a call from a citizen who worked in agriculture and who had reviewed the County’s sign ordinance and discovered there was no provision for a temporary sign for someone who was marketing agriculture products. He stated he was going to refer the issue to Staff to see if a provision could be added to the sign ordinance.
Zoning board appointment
Commr. Conner informed the Board that his appointment to the Zoning Board would be added to the agenda for the August 16, 2011 Board meeting as an addendum because he had not made his decision as to who to appoint until yesterday.
REPORTS – COMMISsIONER CADWELL – DISTRICT 5
Update on parks and trails advisory board meeting
Commr. Cadwell gave the Board an update on the Parks, Recreations and Trails Advisory Board meeting he had attended on Monday, August 8, 2011. He stated they were prepared for the ribbon cutting ceremonies for Ellis Acres Reserve, Lake May Reserve, and The Pasture Reserve. He added that the meeting had also included an update on PEAR Park and noted it had always been in the master plan to have a blind for bird watching. He stated the Advisory Board had approved the plan for it and it had been budgeted.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 a.m.
Jeniffer hill, chairman
NEIL KELLY, CLERK