FEBRUARY 18, 2000

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, February 18, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., at the Trout Lake Nature Center, Eustis, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Catherine C. Hanson Vice Chairman; Robert A. Pool; Rhonda H. Gerber; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Sue Whittle, County Manager; Alvin B. Jackson, Jr., Deputy County Manager; Sanford (Sandy) A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement; Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Community Services; Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities & Capital Improvements; Theodore Stone, Senior Director, Emergency Services; Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Growth Management; Jim Stivender, Jr., Senior Director, Public Works; Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Fiscal and Administrative Services; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; Lourdes Ramos, Personnel Manager; Matt Kalus, GIS; Bob Stevens, Parks and Recreation Manager; Wendy Taylor, Administrative Supervisor, Board of County Commissioners' Office; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk. It was noted that a notebook consisting of an agenda and backup material had been distributed prior to the start of the meeting.


Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Senior Director, Fiscal and Administrative Services, discussed the Budget Calendar for Fiscal Year 2001 and noted the following dates:

June 1, 2000 - Preliminary estimate of assessed taxable value of all property.

July 1, 2000 - Certification of Taxable Value by Property Appraiser.

July 6, 2000 - Budget Workshop

July 7, 2000 - Budget Workshop

July 10, 2000 - Budget Workshop

July 12, 2000 - Budget Workshop

July 14, 2000 - NaCo Conference

August 1, 2000 - Budget due from Tax Collector.

August 5, 2000 - Last day statutorily to set proposed millage rate.

September 5, 2000 - First Public Hearing

September 19, 2000 - Final Public Hearing


Ms. LaMarche presented an overview of the General Fund Budget and discussed the following topics: Assessed Taxable Value Comparisons for Fiscal Year 1996 - 2000, Comparison of Expenditures-Fiscal Year 2000 Chart, Historical Summary and Current Issues, Current Revenues and Current Expenses Chart, and Special Reserves and All Reserves Chart. Ms. LaMarche briefly discussed the General Fund Revenue Detail by Line Item for Fiscal Year

2000 and 2001, Expenditure Summary by Line Item for Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001, Expenditures by Cost Center with Corresponding Revenue Offset for Fiscal Year 2000, Analysis of Contributing Causes of Expenses in Excess of Revenues, and Analysis of Sheriff's Budget for Fiscal Year 1995 through 2001. She noted that Libraries have not been included in any of the numbers.

Assessed Taxable Value Comparisons - Fiscal Years 1996 - 2000

Commr. Hanson noted that the percent of the total assessed taxable value for commercial was at 16.5% and residential was at 75.2% for Fiscal Year 2000. She questioned why the percentage for commercial was so low when the County was doing so much to encourage commercial growth. She expressed concern that the County was doing several things to discourage commercial growth, one of which was shutting down commercial uses that are non-conforming. She expressed concern that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan policies were affecting commercial growth and stated that the County was encouraging more residential growth than commercial growth which will have an impact on the County's tax base.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Assessed Taxable Value Comparison Chart clearly indicates that Lake County was becoming a bedroom community and to continue to excessively approve residential development will create problems with services and taxes.

Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management Services, stated that the Bureau of Economic and Business Research Report predicts an increase in multi-family and commercial, and a slight drop in residential through Year 2015.

General Fund Comparison of Expenditures

Ms. LaMarche explained that the Comparison of Expenditures Chart illustrates expenditures less offsetting revenues and the percent of the revenues received for Unfunded Mandates, BCC Personal Services, BCC Operating and Capital, Clerk of Circuit Court, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector, Sheriff, Supervisor of Elections, and Courts.

General Fund Current Revenues and Current Expenses/Special Reserves and All Reserves

Ms. LaMarche explained that the purpose of the Current Revenues and Current Expenses Chart, and the Special Reserves and All Reserves Chart was to illustrate a trend that she was seeing showing the actual current revenues to current expenses. She stated that, for the past two years, she has brought clues to the Board about the fact that revenues are flat and the expenditures are rising. She directed the Board's attention to the Historical Summary and Current Issues spreadsheet showing the actual dollar amounts of the current revenue, current

expense and excess (deficit) revenue/expenditure. She briefly discussed the major contributing factors. She stated that the spreadsheet illustrates the amount added from prior year excess dollars to Special Reserve and to Capital Projects Reserve and illustrates the ending fund balance of Special Reserve and All Reserves. She stated that funds will not be added to the Special Reserve for Year 2000. She noted that areas to monitor in Fiscal Year 2000 were in Courts expenses due to an increase in case load and a potential increase due to the Health Care Responsibility Act. She briefly discussed other factors affecting the Fiscal Year 2001 budget and noted that the Infrastructure Sales Tax provides $840,000 to the General Fund and the funding source ends in Fiscal Year 2002.


Ms. LaMarche discussed the Risk Management "FAST FACTS"graph and noted that the the graph would be included in the monthly reports. She stated that the "FAST FACTS" graph illustrates a monthly budget for medical claims, prescription claims, number of Worker's Compensation claims and the Worker's Compensation claims dollars. She briefly discussed the Employee Group Benefits Fund budget status as of January 31, 2000. She stated that Whittner's projections, as of January 31, 2000, for estimated expenses was $2,407,695 and that the Contingency, as of February 11, 2000, was $1,454,798. She stated that they have paid out approximately $200,000 for old bills from the prior insurance plan and approximately an additional $200,000 should pay the remainder of old bills.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that staff may come back to the Board for approval to go after the former insurance company in an attempt to recollect those monies.

Ms. LaMarche explained that the Monthly Claims Experience Compared to Budget worksheet assesses where the Board was with respect to any numbers that have been anticipated and budgeted as a cap for expenses, and includes Assumptions and Targets vs. Actuals, Estimated Funding Factors and a Monthly Reconciliation of Budget to Actual Costs.


At 9:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes and reconvene at 10:05 a.m.


Ms. LaMarche presented an overview of the Capital Improvements Program and discussed the Infrastructure Sales Tax Projections for Year 2001 to 2002 and the Fund 301 Infrastructure Capital Project List for Fiscal Year 1999/2000, as follows:

Infrastructure Sales Tax Projections 2001 to 2002

Ms. LaMarche discussed the Infrastructure Sales Tax Projections and stated that $11,252,258 was anticipated to be used for the Capital Projects Fund. She explained that the spreadsheet does not include $3,387,000 that was due to be paid back from the Ford Park Fund as land sales permit, which will result in a total of $14,639,258 available in Infrastructure Sales Tax dollars before the sunset of the program.

Fund 301 Infrastructure Capital Project List for Fiscal Year 1999/2000

Ms. LaMarche explained that the Fund 301 Infrastructure Capital Project List was a spreadsheet for the current Fiscal Year 2000 budget illustrating the budgeted dollars that have been set aside for government building projects and identifies those projects that have been completed, projects in progress and proposed projects. She stated that the Community Services Annex phone switch project, in the amount of $27,975, and the relocation of Environmental Health, in the amount of $20,752, are unexpected projects that will be brought to the Board for approval in the near future. She stated that the Special Reserve for Fund 301, in the amount of $3,804,865, would be used as carry forward to the following year.

Summary of Five Year Capital Improvements Program

Ms. LaMarche presented the summary of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program, as of February 18, 2000, and briefly discussed the traditionally funded items by General Fund and by Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Mr. Anderson discussed the summary on the space needs shortfall for the Clerk of Circuit Court, Judicial Department, Public Defender and State Attorney and stated that there was a current deficit of approximately 30,000 square feet. He discussed the impact on the Judiciary resulting from proposed Article 5 changes and normal population growth and stated that Fred F. Hooten, Trial Courts Administrator, was phasing in his operation in Lake County this year which will have an impact of 20 plus positions that will be housed in Lake County. He stated that two judges will be added in Year 2000, and it was anticipated that there will be a total of nine judges by Year 2005 and fourteen judges by Year 2010.

At this time, Mr. Anderson directed the Board's attention to four sketches and explained that the sketches were feasibility sketches illustrating options for a north wing and were not intended to define the total use of the area or the design. He stated that the County was currently in the process of the build out of Courtroom 8 in the existing Judicial building and space was being made in the Law Library for two judge's suites to accommodate Judge 9 and 10. Extensive discussion occurred regarding the use of the courtrooms. Commr. Hanson questioned what percentage of time were the Judges' suites being occupied and were the County's facilities being utilized to maximum efficiency.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, responded that all of the judges in Lake County were full time, and the need for new judges would continue to grow as quickly as the population grows. He explained that Lake County will have ten judges and eight courtrooms and there will be some multiple scheduling of courtrooms. He stated that the feasibility sketches do not address parking and the expansion cannot occur without providing additional parking.

Mr. Anderson stated that the County could acquire the School Board property on the north side of Old 441for parking or office space with consideration given to attaching a bridge from the property to the Judicial Center. Mr. Anderson explained that the feasibility sketches were to demonstrate that the building does lend itself to expansion and different management philosophies are reflected in each sketch. At this time, Mr. Anderson discussed the options illustrated by Sketch A, B, C and D.

Mr. Minkoff stated that a long range plan to Year 2010 was not adequate and consideration should be given to planning infrastructure past Year 2010.

Discussion occurred regarding the issue of the Law Library. Commr. Cadwell stated that there was a significant space need for the Law Library and that there will be a concerted effort by the Attorney's and Judges not to move the Law Library out of the Judicial Center.

Commr. Hanson stated that the bottom line was how was the County going to fund and operate the additional wing.

Commr. Pool discussed extending the Infrastructure Sales Tax and suggested that there was an opportunity to develop a partnership with the municipalities and the School Board to sell the idea of extending the sales tax for infrastructure.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the League of Cities has requested a meeting with the Chairman of the School Board and himself to begin discussions on the Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Discussion continued in regard to the utilization of the courtrooms. Commr. Hanson stated that she needs to know, before we move forward with the expansion, what percentage of the time that the courtrooms were being used at this time and, if additional judges are added, what percentage of the time would the courtrooms be used. She suggested that scheduling of the courtrooms by an individual, and not scheduling them months in advance, would provide more flexibility. She stated that it was a tremendous cost to have a courtroom sitting vacant much of the time.

Mr. Minkoff stated that Judge Briggs has indicated that he could foresee the Legislature putting three additional judges in Lake County this year and, if that happened, we would not have space for the third judge.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was more concerned about the Law Library from the standpoint of the citizen that uses the library than the attorney that uses the library. He suggested that the best approach might be to move the library to a new location and put three judge's suites in the Law Library location now rather than to add the third suite at a later time. He suggested the old post office as a possible location for the Law Library and using a portion of the post office for mediation.

Commr. Cadwell brought up for discussion the issue of security for the Law Library if it should be moved to a new location off-site. It was suggested that the Law Library could be housed in a section of the lobby which would provide adequate security.

Mr. Anderson discussed the estimated costs for Option A through Option D, including Building G, and stated that the ranges run from $14,088,000 to $16,548,000 depending on the option. He stated that Fred Hooten's space needs would maximize the square footage of Building G with a .26 circulation ratio. He stated that Building G could be expanded up to 12,000 square feet at ground level or a 4,000 square foot second level could be added. He explained that Option A was the structurally easiest one to build and all options have basically the same mechanical and electrical requirement. He discussed the parking deficit and stated that consideration could be given to a ground level, intermediate and roof top low profile parking garage designed to accommodate up to 500 cars. He stated that the Board has discussed the need for a parking garage on several occasions, and the County was at the point where consideration should be given to a parking garage. Discussion occurred regarding the appropriate location of a parking garage; at which time, Mr. Anderson stated that, if the parking garage was located on the existing parking area, there could be walkways between the different levels into the Judicial Center.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Clerk of Circuit Court has indicated that he still wishes to move computer services out of the Judicial Center and, if the post office was not an option, his second choice would be Building G.

Mr. Anderson stated that moving computer services to Building G, rather than the old post office, would result in a slightly less cost and only on the connection with the computer lines and the fiber optics because of the shorter distance to run the cable.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the Clerk has requested that, if the Board did not agree to the move to the old post office or Building G today, he would like to meet with the entire Board to discuss this issue. He stated that the Clerk has indicated the need to move computer services off-site to free up space because computer services was the one area that he had no concern about citizen involvement. Commr. Cadwell requested that Mr. Minkoff add the Clerk to the list for Tuesday's Board meeting.

Mr. Anderson explained that the price per square foot for the first and second levels, which were the large public areas, courtrooms and judicial suites, was approximately $110 per square foot. The general office areas were approximately $75 per square foot.

Discussion occurred regarding security for transporting prisoners to the courtrooms in Option A. Commr. Hanson suggested eliminating the north wing and expanding to the east of the public entry way into the parking lot. Mr. Anderson suggested that the north wing in Option A could be moved to the south end of the building which would solve the issue of security for transporting prisoners.

It was the consensus of the Board to support in concept Option A, including a parking garage and the modification of a south wing in lieu of a north wing, and to discuss Option A with the Judges and the Clerk.


Ms. Lourdes Ramos, Personnel Manager, provided a general overview of the Compensation Study and distributed a booklet titled A Guidebook for Evaluating Performance Excellence, dated October 1, 1999; and a copy of the Employee and Supervisor Performance Evaluations. She stated that the Pay for Performance Team has played a significant roll in helping the County to set the direction for evaluating and rewarding performance based on specific job competencies and goals. Ms. Ramos explained that the implementation of the Pay for Performance and Merit Program went into effect on October 1, 1999. She stated that 183 performance evaluations have been received since the inception of the program and three employees have received zero (0%) percent merit, three employees have received nine (9%) percent merit, and the average performance rating was 3.85 with the average merit award being 5.77percent. She noted that employees that do not reach a 3.0 rating do not receive a merit raise. Ms. Ramos stated that the Compensation Study Summary and Recommendations outlines the overall objectives and approach, and the principal recommendations and implementation steps based upon the study conducted by Charles Hendricks and Associates. She stated that the Board and the Clerk of Circuit Court collaborated in the study and the overall purpose of the study was to develop a classification and compensation plan for the Board. She explained that the specific objectives were to ensure that employees were appropriately titled and graded in relationship to their job duties; paid salaries at levels competitive with prevailing practices of other comparable local governments and local employers; and that the system motivates employees individually and collectively to strive to meet and exceed the Board's goals. She stated that the study has resulted in reclassification of several positions, consolidation of clerical titles, a new grade/range structure, new pay ranges, and recommendations regarding related policies. She discussed the principal recommendations, as follows:

1. Reclassification of one-third of all Board workers, including introduction of an "office associate" class series.

2. Design of a streamlined 25-grade structure.

3. Development of competitive and affordable salary ranges that provides the Board of County Commissioners' workforce additional opportunities for advancement based on employee performance.

4. Establishment of an innovative way to relate salary advancement to competitive market conditions and individual performance.

Ms. Ramos stated that the Board's current pay range structure trails counterparts by approximately 15%, and the ranges that are proposed are competitive with governments comparable to the Board. She explained that, under the new range schedule, the differential between the minimums, midpoints and maximums of the various grade levels will be 8.75%. The range depth will be 60% to provide opportunities for salary advancement based on performance. She stated that the Board should adopt an "open range" pay plan where "percentage of midpoint" would replace the current "percentage of base" salary advancement system.

Ms. Ramos stated that the immediate cost to implement the salary ranges was approximately $217,000, or 1.5 percent of the payroll, and would only raise the salaries of employees who fall below range minimums. She explained that a more realistic formula would be to apply 5.5% of the midpoint of salaries to the merit funding, which would cost approximately $1,088,000.

Commr. Hanson requested that a copy of the original Steerling Assessment be provided to the Board for review.


At 11:50 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 12:35 p.m.


Ms. LaMarche distributed a booklet titled Race Track Team Recommendation.


Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, stated that the Race Track Bond Team Report was comprised of Ms. Sharon Farrell, Mr. Matt Kalus, Ms. Sarah LaMarche, Mr. Fletcher Smith, Mr. Don Post and himself and a support staff of Mr. Bob Stevens and Ms. Kitty Cooper. He stated that their mission was to leverage the funds to achieve maximum return for the County's investment, and to develop a premier recreation facility project which would provide the citizens of Lake County with venues conducive to active and passive recreation programs.

Level of Service

Mr. Bob Stevens, Parks and Recreation Manager, directed the Board's attention to the Level of Service Chart and explained that said chart was a generic level of service standard used to gauge deficiencies for parks and recreation using the unincorporated population per Commission District and indicating existing acreage by mini parks, neighborhood parks, and community parks using National and State Level of Service Standards. He discussed the Activity Based Park Land Level of Service Chart which illustrates Lake County's existing facilities, needed facilities and deficiencies using the National and State Level of Service Standards.

Field Trips/Research

Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Department of Community Services, discussed the field trips and fact finding efforts of the Race Track Bond Team. He explained that the Team collected information from a wide variety of sources in an effort to discover how other counties and municipalities have addressed recreational issues. The Team made a special effort to visit with each of the cities and towns in Lake County not only to collect information about their current policies, programs and initiatives but also to learn of their future vision and challenges regarding recreation. The Team also met with representatives of a number of current and past advisory boards/committees and agencies and with representatives of the Lake County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Lake County Water Authority, and the St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated that the Team met with representatives or conducted telephone surveys with the counties of Seminole, Alachua, Collier, Manatee, Okaloosa, Marion and Orange, which provided the Team with some valuable insights as to what will help to build a sustainable environment for current and future generations in Lake County, allow our citizens to enjoy varied cultural opportunities and experiences, and enable all residents of the County to enjoy an aesthetically pleasing, safe abundant and healthy lifestyle.

Projects Explored

Mr. Matt Kalus, GIS, stated that the list of potential projects researched, visited and discussed have been broken down into the categories of Parks and Recreation and Rail Trail. He discussed projects listed under each category.


Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management Services, stated that the Team's data revealed that recreation space, linear parks, rails trails and open space are important elements of a sustainable community and a really good expenditure of public funds. She stated that the degree to which open space and recreational facilities contributes to the economy is an important factor to consider in policy and expenditure decisions, and recreation facilities have a major impact on the local economy. She stated that, based upon the Team's research, interviews and field trips, the following criteria was adopted in evaluating sites for the para-mutual recreation project funds:


Mr. Anderson and Ms. Farrell discussed the following options for projects funded by Race Track Bond Issue:

Option A:

Fully develop one of the following Rail Trails:

Option B:

A single, large park location located north of the Turnpike, east of U.S. 27, west of S.R. 19 and south of C.R. 48, which is totally built out for all recreation functions including practice fields, picnic areas, trails, possible lake access, as well as potentially including active recreation facilities.

Option C:

This option takes the best of both Option A and Option B, providing for a timely implementation. It includes completing three district parks, one each in the north, central, and south parts of the County in order to maximize citizen use, as follows:

Mr. Anderson stated that the advantages that make Option C the better plan include maximizing park accessibility to Lake County citizens, the ability to do something now for multiple uses, immediate partnering with multiple agencies and being proactive now by acquiring park sites for future development.

Commr. Pool stated that he was not in support of the Hartwood Marsh Road location because of the Expressway Authority's desire to move in that direction. He stated that there was approximately 26 acres of land on Hancock Road, just east of Hartwood Marsh Road, which the Board has just contributed $75,000 this year and next year for a regional park. He explained that his goal would be to form a joint partnership with the State of Florida, who has just acquired 3,000 acres on S.R. 27 south of Lake Louisa, to develop a major regional park on the front portion of the 3,000 acres.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would like for the money to go toward the extension of a current rail trail. She stated that more tourism dollars would be generated if people could travel on the Lake County trails for several days or over a long weekend.

Commr. Cadwell stated that Option C would provide services to all of the residents in Lake County in the way of passive or active recreation, and noted that the Board has discussed building a regional park with the Race Track Bond funds.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would support Commr. Pool's suggestion of a regional park on Hancock Road at the Lake Louisa site. He suggested that the Board may want to look further for a potential site for Central District Park. He stated that the concept of Option C was good and that he would support moving forward with Option C.

Commr. Pool suggested that a recreation impact fee for new homes coming into Lake County would generate funds for infrastructure for parks. He stated that he would support Option C with the understanding that the Board will continue to develop other areas as revenue sources become available.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried by a 4 - 1 vote, the Board approved the Race Track Bond Team recommendation to support in concept Option C and to continue to reevaluate some of the proposed locations for a South District Park, a Central District Park and a North District Park.

Commr. Hanson voted in opposition.


Ms. Ava Kronz, Director of Continuous Quality Improvement, stated that County staff has been using the focus areas and goals that the Board has established as their strategic plan. She explained that the strategic plan needs to be reviewed every three to five years to assure that the plan was still adequately directing the activities of the staff. She stated that they have drafted some critical areas and will be looking at the environment, demographics, the Lake County Tomorrow Report, and will do a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) on those issues. A report will then be presented to the Board at a Strategic Planning Session.


Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Department of Community Services, presented a library update and explained that staff was currently reviewing and considering a tentative lease agreement in the Cypress Crossing Shopping Center in the four corners area of South Lake County for lease space for a library.

Mr. Mike Anderson, Senior Director, Facilities and Capital Improvements, stated that a property owner in the City of Groveland wishes to partner with the County to open a library under the same rental conditions as the previous owner and wants the County to work with the architect in designing a facility to fit the County's needs. The property owner has a goal of a grand opening on July 1, 2000 and has offered to contribute 500 hot dogs for the grand opening celebration.

Mr. Smith reported that a site for a library has not been found for the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento area. He provided an update on staffing for the new libraries and stated that staff would be available as the libraries are built.

Commr. Swartz stated that the budget process needs to include a dedicated library funding source, and suggested an increase in the millage dedicated to libraries or a separate dedicated funding source as a separate line item on the millage which would be his preference.


Mr. Fletcher Smith, Senior Director, Department of Community Services, distributed a copy of the Tentative Consolidated Plan Timeline for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for Fiscal Year 2000 and explained that they were developing a Citizen Participation Plan and would be conducting a series of community public meetings on the CDBG program to determine needs and strengths. He noted that seventy (70%) percent of the CDBG funds need to be spent for low to moderate income citizens. He stated that a workshop with the Board has been scheduled on April 11, 2000 regarding possible projects and public hearings would be conducted in June on the proposed plan and the final public hearing would be scheduled in July. The Consolidated Plan will be submitted to the HUD Office in Jacksonville by August 17, 2000 and implemented on October 1, 2000 if the Consolidated Plan is approved. He stated that Lake County will receive $929,000 per year which may increase slightly each year.


Lake County Transit Fixed Route Information

Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Department of Public Works, presented the Transportation Disadvantaged and Lake County Transit Report and stated that a request was received on February 1, 2000 from LifeSteam Behavioral Center for funding, in the amount of $58,181 in matching funds, to keep the fixed route service that they are currently providing. This funding was for the period of July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000. He explained that, for the year ending June 2000, they were projecting revenue from advertising in the amount of $2,400; and fair box revenue, in the amount of $20,833, of which $15,000 is funded through a contract with the Villages. There was an operating deficit of $116,362 that could be funded by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Lake County. He explained that options that have been discussed were to cease service on both routes, cease service on the southern route and pay a matching share on the northern route, or pay the $58,181 in matching funds to keep the fixed route in place. He stated that in 1999 there were 7,000 riders for an average of 27 riders per day. He stated that future considerations for next year would be to prepare a RFP for fixed route service; prepare an RFP for fixed route and transportation disadvantaged service and if so, hire a consultant to do a ridership study; or negotiate with Lynx about routes into Lake County.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Transportation Disadvantage Board has discussed and questioned the fixed route service. The ridership was extremely low and changes will have to be made by the end of this year because of new state regulations. He stated that the only feasible route service to keep running would be the route from the Villages, and the Villages should have the option to keep the fixed route service. He stated that the only way the fixed route would work in Lake County was to convert people from the door to door system over to the fixed service route and that has not been successful.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would meet with LifeStream Behavioral Center and the Villages to discuss LifeStream's contract with the Villages for a fixed service route. It was the consensus of the Board that the Chairman also inform LifeStream Behavioral Center that the County will have to discontinue the other fixed service routes due to low ridership if they require funding from the County to continue the routes.

Transportation Disadvantaged

Mr. Stivender discussed the Transportation Disadvantaged Expenditures from the County Transportation Trust Fund and explained that LifeStream Behavioral Center was also requesting additional funding, in the amount of $109,819, for non-sponsored door-to-door pickup and has indicated that this service will be discontinued on March 1, 2000 unless a 50% match is provided by the County. He stated that the County was required to provide a 10% match for transportation disadvantaged, and the County was currently paying the 10% match on the door-to-door trips and does not have any obligation to pay more.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he would provide an update on the obligation that LifeStream has pursuant to the contract with the County to provide transportation to the transportation disadvantaged at the Board meeting on February 22, 2000.


Mr. Jim Stivender, Interim Senior Director, Solid Waste Management Services, distributed a booklet titled Department of Solid Waste Management Services Update. He stated that the Development Time Line for Special Assessment Module Chart illustrates the time line between January and September for the Special Assessment Module. He explained that the Proposed Equipment Repair and Replacement list was a plan to repair equipment that has been sitting on the back lot that either had not been operated or was in need of repair. He stated that the plan was to put equipment back on line, at a cost of $434,000, and briefly discussed the identified items in need of repair or replacement. He stated that they were in the process of discussing methods of funding the Repair/Replacement Plan.

Ogden Martin Update

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, provided a brief update on the negotiations with Ogden Martin Systems of Lake, Inc. and stated that they have negotiated a contract with Gray, Harris & Robinson at a negotiated rate of $175 per hour for a total amount not to exceed $150,000 to perform the work on the first stage of the review. He stated that they have also negotiated a contract with Brown & Wood that will not go into effect until after a meeting tentatively scheduled in mid-March with Ogden Martin and H. Brown Gregg. He stated that he would have a further report after the tentative meeting in March and hope to provide the Board with a final report in April 2000 answering the questions presented by the Board with regard to the existing contract.


Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Department of Public Works, distributed a Transportation Issues handout which addresses questions previously asked by the Board; and a Stormwater Management Steering Team handout addressing the role of the Steering Team with regard to stormwater management

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

__________________________________ WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN