A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BUDGET
RETREAT
May
20, 2005
The
Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Friday, May
20, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., at Trout Lake Nature Center, Eustis, Florida.
Commissioners present at the meeting were: Jennifer Hill, Chairman; Catherine
C. Hanson, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; and Robert A. Pool. Commr. Debbie
Stivender was absent. Others present were: Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County
Attorney; Cindy Hall, Interim County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office
Manager, Board of County Commissioners’ Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy
Clerk, County Finance; and Judy Whaley, Deputy Clerk.
CALL
TO ORDER
Commr.
Hill called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA) UPDATE
Ms. Regina Frazier, Director, Office
of Budget, reported that reimbursements received from FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency), the State of Florida and others for damages which occurred
during the 2004 hurricane season (hurricanes Charley, Frances and Jeanne) total
$6,193,636. Additionally, pending worksheets that total $13,062,578 have been
submitted and are in the review process and project worksheets for permanent
work for damage to facilities are being prepared. Expenditures in the general
fund are $20,698,503 and do not include any personal services time for
employees. Once the project worksheets are completed, staff can differentiate
how much the total cost was versus the reimbursements. Ms. Frazier further
explained that $5.4 million of the reimbursement is for debris clean up and
most of the rest is salaries, supplies, etc.
Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney,
stated that FEMA will decline the debris pick up services in private gated
subdivisions. His office will be recommending an appeal of that decision to the
Board, in an approximate amount of $1 to $1.5 million, once the decline occurs.
The Sheriff’s Office, EMS (Emergency
Management Services) and the municipalities submitted project worksheets to
FEMA as separate agencies.
Ms. Frazier will provide periodic
updates to the Board.
PRESENTATION – LAKE COUNTY’S FINANCIAL
CONDITION
Ms. Cindy Hall, Interim County
Manager, explained that the presentation, Analyzing
Lake County’s Finances, was given to
the Board in 2004 and the same statistics, updated for today’s presentation,
are being followed to ensure trends are trending in the right direction.
Mr. Jason Showe, Revenue Coordinator,
Office of Budget, stated that the ICMA (International City/County Management
Association), in conjunction with the GFOA (Government Finance Officers
Association), developed a handbook in 2003 called Evaluating Financial Condition – A Handbook for Local Government. Mr.
Showe stated that the 22 indicators in today’s presentation are not easily
comparable to other municipalities because of the variation in ways the County
does business. It is important to look at trends. In most cases, audited data
from Fiscal Years 2000-2004 was used for the report. Some 2005 budget figures,
as well as projections, were also used. The presentation, Analyzing Lake County’s Finances, (a copy is included in the backup
material) includes the following:
Responding to Commr. Hanson, Mr.
Showe reported that the commercial/light industry taxable value, as a percentage
of the whole, is going down a little and is partially due to the rapid
residential expansion. In 2001 it was 12.55% and in 2005 it was 11.7%.
Per Commr. Pool’s request, Mr. Showe
will provide a comparison, at a later date, of Lake County to other like-sized Florida
counties.
BUDGET ISSUES FOR FY 2005/06 – HEALTH
INSURANCE
Ms. Frazier presented information on
funding for health insurance contributions for Fiscal Year 2006. Projections
indicate a $1.5 million deficit for 2006 if contributions are kept at the same
rate as 2005. Ms. Frazier stated that the recommendation is to increase the
employee’s contribution by $5 per pay period for single coverage and by $10 per
pay period for family coverage. The insurance fund can be supplemented by
$250,000 from the worker’s compensation fund. The Board’s contribution would
need to be increased from $6,100 to $7,522 per budgeted position.
Ms. Hall stated that the insurance
team has been reinstated and now has representation by each department and is
working toward a different plan to present to the Board next year.
Ms. Sharon Wall, Employee Services
Director, stated that benefits are very important to employees and changes need
to include involvement by the employees. She stated that educated choices
should be provided to the employees.
Commr. Hill pointed out that about a
year and a half ago employees indicated that insurance benefits were far more
valuable than a cost of living increase.
Ms. Wall stated that a question has
been added to the employee survey that will be going out soon. The wording is,
“I would be interested in paying more towards my health insurance premium in
order to receive a cost of living increase.” The respondent would “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree,” based on a scale of one to five.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0, the Board
approved the recommendation to increase the employee’s health insurance
contributions for Fiscal Year 2006 from $10 per pay period to $15 per pay
period for single coverage for CPO; and increase family coverage from $80.64 to
$90.64 for CPO; other rates would be adjusted $5.00 for single coverage and
$10.00 for family coverage regardless of the plan; approved to supplement
$250,000 from the worker’s compensation funding; and approved that the Board’s
contribution would be increased to $7,522.00 per employee per budgeted
position.
BUDGET ISSUES FOR FY 2005/06 – MERIT
RANGE
Ms. Frazier presented information on
merit increases, noting that the current year merit range is 0% to 5%, that 4%
was budgeted and that the current average is 4.1%. Staff’s recommendation for
FY 2006 is to maintain the same 0% to 5% merit range. Three and one-half
percent has been included in the budget, allowing for vacancies, etc.
Ms. Wall explained that there is an
employee performance evaluation and the amount of increase is tied to the
evaluation. A future project for Employee Services will be to look at the
performance evaluation form which has been in use for about five years and
which grades employees on five categories.
Commr. Hill pointed out that the
Sheriff and other Constitutional Officers, in past years, have given their
employees the highest percent increase across the board.
Ms. Hall clarified that, while the
performance plan allows increases up to 5%, the County’s budget reflects 3.5%.
Commr. Pool commented that the
Consumer Price Index should be considered in an effort to keep people at least
even with what they had last year.
Ms. Hall explained that the
recommendation is to budget $75,000 to conduct a complete study of the pay
system. It is likely from that study that some salary adjustments will need to
be done and the recommendation is to budget $100,000 to implement those
potential study results.
Commr. Cadwell advised that the Board
members should stay out of employee input on the study until the study is
completed.
A motion was made by Commr. Cadwell
and seconded by Commr. Hanson for Board approval of the following
recommendations: for Fiscal Year 2006: maintain the same 0% - 5% merit range;
budget funds to conduct a countywide compensation and classification study
($75,000); budget funds in the General Fund Reserves to implement the potential
results from the study ($100,000); and budget 3.5% merit increases in the
actual fund.
Under discussion, Commr. Hill stated
that she feels the merit range should be left at 4% considering that the
compensation study will be done; however, because that would be in the next
budget, that would allow a time to adjust for that if the merit increase needed
to be dropped down.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the
motion which carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0.
BUDGET ISSUES FOR FY 2005/06 –
MILLAGE RECAP
Ms. Frazier gave a millage recap
illustrating the proposed millage rates for FY 2006 compared to actual FY 2005.
Millage Rate*
|
FY 2005 |
FY 2006 |
General Fund Operating |
5.0870 |
5.0870 |
Transfer to Environmental Services |
0.7300 |
0.6800 |
Environmental Lands Program Administration |
0.0000 |
0.0300 |
Total General Fund |
5.8170 |
5.7970 |
Stormwater MSTU |
0.5000 |
0.5000 |
Ambulance
and Emergency Services MSTU *per $1,000 of assessed taxable value |
0.5289 |
0.5289 |
Environmental Lands Program |
-- |
Up to 0.3033 |
Ms. Hall explained that the voter
referendum on the environmental lands program allowed one-third of a mill,
which would be 0.3333, and the Board requested that one-tenth of that (0.0300) be
used for the administration for the program. When the Board approves the
tentative millages in July 2005, it is likely to be less than the 0.3033 but it
is included as a reminder.
Ms. Hall confirmed that she is
comfortable with the reduction of the solid waste millage.
Ms. Frazier informed the Board that
these rates were run against what was paid to the CRAs (Community Redevelopment
Agencies) for the cities and payments could end up being close to $1.5 million
to the CRAs based on these rates for next year. A 10% growth was incorporated
to get a rough estimate.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 10:50 a.m., the Board took a ten
minute recess.
JAIL CAPACITY ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Lake County Sheriff Chris Daniels and
Criminal Justice Operations Chief Gary Borders discussed current jail capacity
issues and options of the Lake County Correctional Facility.
Sheriff Daniels informed the Board
that the jail population has increased year after year. Two pods of the prelude
have been opened and have been filled. Sheriff Daniels asked the Board to consider
building an additional pod (Pod E) that was originally slated when the jail was
built. Construction of Pod E would provide 256 additional beds.
Currently, 64 jail beds are leased to
the federal government. That generates a net amount of approximately $20.00 per
prisoner per day. The federal government’s need for rented jail space will
diminish in the future as the federal prison in Coleman continues to build more
space .
Sheriff Daniels explained that the
Department of Corrections has changed the way it handles violation of probation
(VOP) offenders and that has added to the routine increase in the population in
the jail due to growth. There are currently 200 VOPs in the jail. New laws
relating to sexual offenders and sexual predators may also increase the jail
population. There are almost 300 offenders or predators in Lake County. While
not at critical mass right now, Sheriff Daniels stated that the crowding issue
should be addressed now because of the amount of time necessary for planning
and construction.
Sheriff Daniels stated that the jail passed
a recent inspection but one area of concern is crowding. Accreditation of the
jail, which is in the process, will require some population control to ensure
that the jail is not crowded.
Research of the jail population by
Chief Borders indicates an increase of 50 to 100 prisoners per year, every year,
for the last ten years. The jail was built to house 128 female inmates but the
current female population is 155; seven juveniles take up 32 beds because they
have to be kept separate from adult inmates; the current jail is a 960-bed
facility and the current inmate population is 987. Counting lost beds,
approximately 150-175 inmates are without assigned cells.
Regarding the cost of an additional
pod, Sheriff Daniels said a wild guess would be around $10,000,000 and that was
based on the original cost of the jail.
Chief Borders estimated that a new
pod would be filled when it opens and that would bring the jail up to 1,216
beds.
Sheriff Daniels stated that he wanted
the Board to be aware of the jail crowding issues. He explained that many of
the inmates who have mental health problems (approximately 75) also have
criminal charges and probably would have to be housed at the jail rather than
at a facility like LifeStream Behavioral Center.
Regarding an inquiry by Commr.
Hanson, Mr. Minkoff stated that an organizational meeting of the Lake County
Public Safety Coordinating Council (approved April 5, 2005, by Ordinance
2005-29) may be held in July.
Sheriff Daniels stated that he will
be happy to explore all kinds of possibilities regarding facilities and
locations. He pointed out that the current jail was cheaper to build originally
but it costs more in the long run to staff with direct supervision as opposed
to indirect supervision.
Commr. Hill remarked that some
decisions by the legislature may fall down to the counties without funding,
such as juvenile detainees.
Sheriff Daniels stated that the
judiciary is under greater pressure not to release anybody that might be a
danger to the community. He noted that 70% to 75% of the jail’s population is
pre-trial confinement (prisoners who have not been sentenced).
Commr. Pool suggested exploring the
possibility of seeking state funding for ankle bracelet monitoring.
Regarding Commr. Pool’s suggestion to
explore the possibility of housing juveniles in tents, Sheriff Daniels pointed
out that it would be staff intensive and the risk of escape would be greater.
Ms. Hall explained that the RSQ
(Request for Statements of Qualifications) that is out for expansion of the judicial
center includes some programming of a potential expansion of the jail, not
necessarily the design, and that tool could be made use of fairly quickly. She
suggested having an architectural firm speak with the Sheriff and Chief Borders
on their needs and come back with some ideas.
Sheriff Daniels pointed out that no
new bed space has been added to the jail in 13 years.
Commr. Hanson stated that we need to
move forward.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the state
probably will make a run again at extending the sentencing years that prisoners
have to be housed. With Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) cost shifts, he
opined that the next step is going to be to turn operations over to the County.
He stated that he hopes that will be opposed locally.
Regarding Lake County’s Emergency
Operations Center (EOC), Commr. Cadwell informed the Board and the Sheriff that
U.S. Congressman Ric Keller (R-FL) has said that one of his top funding
priorities is getting some federal dollars for the EOC. The Sheriff’s office
will be located at the EOC facility.
Sheriff Daniels remarked that most of
the architects responding for additional facilities in south Tavares have
experience in building law enforcement complexes and EOCs. He suggested using
that same architect for the Sheriff’s building, thereby making the design
similar and speeding up the process.
Regarding employee pay increases,
Sheriff Daniels stated that he would like to transition the Sheriff’s Office
into pay increases on anniversary dates based on evaluations rather than the
current, traditional across-the-board pay raise each October 1. There are two
ways to do that transition. One way is to give the traditional pay raise on
October 1 and begin merit pay increases on October 1. The other way is to
cancel the October 1 raise and begin the merit increases October 1. He stated
that doing the second takes the money out of the employees’ pockets. Right now,
the policy is that every employee, even those hired in September, gets a pay
raise on October 1.
Commr. Cadwell remarked that the
Board offered to try to buy that out with the former sheriff. He stated that
the Board realizes there will be an additional cost that first year.
Mr. Minkoff stated that both RFPs for
architects are broad enough to include the Sheriff’s building along with the
other office building at the south Tavares complex and to include the jail with
the judicial center/courthouse. He asked if the Board would like staff to
negotiate so that those are separate add-ons when the contract is brought back
to the Board.
Sheriff Daniels stated that it may be
beneficial, at some time in the future, to create a substation/satellite
facility in south Lake County to book and house prisoners. That would relieve
some of the crowding at the main jail. He stated that he would recommend a new
facility in south Lake County. He would not enlarge the current location.
By consensus, the Board requested
that the two RSQs include the programming of a jail in the expansion of the judicial
center and include the programming of the Sheriff’s facility with the
government complex in south Tavares.
LANDFILL EXPANSION OPTIONS
Mr. James A. (Jim) Nissen, P.E., DEE,
Senior Associate, and Mr. Daniel N. (Dan) Courcy, Project Manager, with Brown
and Caldwell, Environmental Engineers and Consultants, gave a summary of work
that their company has been doing with respect to the planning and design of a
new Phase III Landfill at the Lake County Solid Waste Management Facility. The
presentation (a printed copy is included in the backup material) included the
following points:
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board
needs options for the disposal of solid waste and this will be an asset no
matter what is decided in the future. He stated that the County is required to
take the ash and the presentation on the split cell design makes sense. He
stated that we need to move forward.
Regarding questions by Commr. Hill,
Mr. Nissen explained that the two cells in the split cell option were sized to
give the same life expectancy as any one of the mixed waste cells. While some of
the ash could be put in the garbage cell, that would eliminate the benefits of
doing the split cell concept. He confirmed that there may not be a market for
the ash right now, but there might be in five years and splitting the two cells
preserves the flexibility for future use of the ash. He pointed out that there
are localized reuse ash projects in the State of Florida. Also, the leachate
produced by the ash is very high strength and is very expensive to haul off
site and have treated for disposal. In addition, mixing the ash with the
garbage might create leachate that cannot be handled by local treatment plants.
The concept of the split cell option is to keep the ash in a localized, small
manageable area which will save a lot of money on leachate treatment and
disposal costs. Regarding construction costs, Mr. Nissen explained that, over
the 20-25 year life of the Phase III Landfill, the entire area will be lined
anyway so more money will not be spent on the split cell option. About $1
million more would be spent only in the first year.
Commr. Hill asked if it would be a
cost savings if there was a transfer station at the Covanta site. She stated
that we need to extend the life of the landfill now. She asked questions
regarding construction costs and the possible reduction of the size of the
Phase III landfill.
Commr. Cadwell stated that probably
the first mission given to the solid waste group would be to look at those
options to see if those two or three prong things should be done.
Mr. Nissen stated that a transfer
station can be part of a long-term plan. Regarding the size of the Phase III
landfill, he stated that initial construction costs will not be reduced
proportionally to a reduction in area.
Commr. Pool asked if dollars are
available today to build the expansion without increasing the solid waste costs
to the citizens.
Ms. Hall stated that there are
additional costs, such as design, permits and construction oversight, to the
$4.8 million for construction of the split cell option. In the financial
analysis, the number being used is about $6 million. Ms. Hall confirmed that,
over the next three years, the money is available without increasing any fees
to the citizens.
Commr. Pool stated that not everyone
embraces a landfill expansion in any location. He asked if any research has
been done in the neighborhood to be sure that there will not be opposition.
Ms. Hall stated that she has talked
with Ms. Dottie Keedy, Tavares’ City Administrator. The adjoining land on the
western side of the expansion area is in the City of Tavares and development is
slated for that land.
Mr. Nissen stated that a lot of those
concerns can be addressed, before they become problems, with some education and
being proactive and meeting with community leaders to explain the design and
operation.
Commr. Pool stated that those things
should be done right up front to show consideration and concerns about the
buffering, etc.
Regarding the delivery of ash, Mr.
Gary Debo, Solid Waste Operations Director, explained that ash is delivered from
the waste-to-energy plant to the landfill. Each day truckloads of ash, from one
to as many as nine or ten truckloads, are delivered for a total of
approximately 40,000 to 45,000 tons per year. The costs of those deliveries are
probably pass-through costs in the contract with Covanta.
Mr. Nissen further explained that the
process of mixing ash with waste is one of proportion. If the proportion of the
garbage to the ash is high, a little bit of ash might be able to be blended in.
However, the percentage of ash in the Phase II landfill is about 75% to 80% ash.
The percentage of ash is going down now that the waste-to-energy plant has reached
capacity and it might be closer to 50% to 50%.
Commr. Pool stated that multiple
ideas should be looked at, including the idea of transporting additional
garbage somewhere else or having sub-contracts and he has asked staff take a
good look at those dollar figures. He stated that, once permitted, the landfill
should be used sparingly if there are options to use others’ capacities that
could be cost effective.
Commr. Hanson asked if the ash-only
layout could be looked at, rearranging some of the buildings and moving them
closer to the road, creating greater capacity for the solid waste itself.
Ms. Blanche Hardy, Environmental
Services Director, confirmed that some buildings could be relocated. Some of
the buildings are used by the Public Works Department.
Mr. Nissen remarked that may be a
viable approach for the longer term but his concern for the short term is that
it probably could not be done fast enough to get some additional capacity in
place before Phase II runs out. Extending that corner of ash-only further to
the north, increasing the height, could be done in the future as part of a
future phase of the ash disposal facility. Mr. Nissen stated that the 4.6 acres
of the ash-only will last five to six years last.
Commr. Pool stated that splitting the
cell, although more expensive, is the best option. He stated that he wanted to
be assured that additional dollars will not be charged to users and that staff
has made that assurance.
A motion was made by Commr. Pool and
seconded by Commr. Hanson to approve Option 3, the Split Cell design, for the Lake
County Landfill Phase III, including authorization of scope and cost of
services with Brown and Caldwell.
Mr. Minkoff clarified that the motion
is asking for $485,584 for design and permitting services, and a not-to-exceed additional
amount of $400,000 for the construction phase services, including the liner
inspection that is required to be done which is the bulk of that amount; for a
total lump sum not to exceed $885,584; and authorization to sign the contract
with Brown and Caldwell.
Commr. Hill stated that she is hoping
the expansion will last longer than five years and that the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee will come back with some long-term options that can be
considered.
Commr. Pool reiterated that he wants
to hear the costs associated with transferring the ash and that is what he
wants to do with it if we can.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the
motion, as clarified, which passed unanimously, by a vote of 4-0.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 12:20 p.m., Commr. Hill announced
that the Board would break for lunch until 1:00 p.m.
CITRUS RIDGE LIBRARY UPDATE
Mr. Richard LeBlanc, Jr., Architect
III, Facilities Development & Management Department, gave a presentation on
the proposed Citrus Ridge Library, Project Update, which included the following
(a printed copy of the presentation is included in the backup material):
Staff’s total cost estimate (including construction
and other) is $6,939,334.
The professional estimator’s total cost estimate is $6,012,350.
Estimated funding (both estimates) is $6,218,957.
The actual numbers will not be known until the project
is bidded out.
Mr. LeBlanc confirmed that there will
be access to the library behind Cagan’s Crossing and the library will be
visible from US 27.
Commr. Pool expressed concern for the
cost of the project and for the lack of participation from other counties in
maintenance and upfront costs. He stated that he supports the library but, if
Lake County cannot find a commitment from other counties to help, he would have
a tough time in supporting dollars from Lake County for a stand alone library.
He stated that it is not right that Lake County build, maintain and staff the
library for the use of everyone else when almost 40% of use would be by other
counties.
The percentage of out-of-county patrons
at the current Citrus Ridge Library for May 2005 is as follows: Orange County
6%, Osceola County 11%, and Polk County 21%.
Ms. Hall stated that she has had
contact with the three other counties. Osceola County’s County Manager indicated
that they do not have capital funds available but are willing to look at a
formula-type participation in operating costs. A package of information has
been sent to Orange County’s director who is interested in talking to Lake
County and is willing to talk to the Orange County Board. Ms. Hall and Ms.
Wendy Breeden, Lake County Library Services Director, have a meeting next week
with Polk County staff members who seem to have an interest.
Ms. Breeden stated that the design of
the building was predicated on the size and scope of Lake County’s population.
The percentage of use by out-of-county patrons is going down while the
percentage of use by Lake County patrons is going up.
Mr. LeBlanc confirmed that, in the
programming stages, other counties were not considered in the factor of the
size that was needed for this project.
Commr. Hanson commented that some
things have changed since this project first began, particularly the potential
partnership with Lake-Sumter Community College (LSCC) for a major center. She
opined that it will not be long before Orange and Polk counties have libraries
near this area. She stated that she really likes the green building aspect but
the cost is a concern. If that much money is going to be spent, she stated that
it would be better spent with the partnership with LSCC.
Discussion occurred regarding the
size of the project; the distance from other libraries; the cost of the
property; the need for a library on this site; the possibility of a total
redesign of the project; the deadline with Cagan’s Crossing; the timeline with
the construction grant; the original $3.2 million quote estimate for
construction while the total project was estimated to cost more than $5
million; reciprocal agreements with other counties.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he would
like to give staff a chance to get commitments from the other counties. He
noted that Osceola County has been committed even though nothing has been put
in writing. He stated that he would prefer a commitment to operational money
versus construction money. He stated that, even without use by other counties,
a library is needed in this area.
Commr. Pool agreed and opined that it
is cheaper to build the facility today than to wait five or ten years. He
stated that he would like to table a final decision today, allowing staff an
opportunity to meet with, and put a little pressure on, the other counties.
Regarding proceeding with working on
the documents, Commr. Pool stated that, if he has Board support, he is happy to
go forward but he does not want to say it in a manner that gives the other
counties any indication their support is not necessary.
Discussion occurred regarding concern
that the design is too futuristic; the price tag for the entrance and the
elevation; compatibility with other buildings; and redesign of the roof line.
Commr. Hanson reiterated the need for
a library and recommended giving staff some time to meet with the other
counties.
Ms. Hall noted that her meetings have
been with staff members of other counties and a commitment from those boards
would be necessary.
Commr. Pool stated that he had a
conversation with Orange County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs who seemed to
indicate a support for the library. He indicated to her, and she agreed
wholeheartedly, that all four counties do not need to duplicate services in
that area. He reiterated his support to staff to go forward with what we have
but stated that we should get as much of a commitment as we can from the other
counties.
Ms. Breeden remarked that the concept
of shelling out the second story provides for future expansion. It should be
able to be absorbed by impact fees. Taking off the second story will cost less
now but will cost more in the future.
Regarding Commr. Pool’s concern for
expensive fixtures and features, Mr. LeBlanc confirmed that the chandeliers
were estimated to cost $2,000 each. He stated that the fixtures will not be
inconsistent with the design. He assured the Board that Value Engineering (VE)
will be followed. However, he pointed out that thirteen new County projects are
being planned and there is a civic responsibility to the community to combine
architecture that is pleasing to the community and that sets our signature of
our responsibility to them.
Mr. LeBlanc further explained that the
earlier $3.2 construction cost estimate did not include contractors’ overhead,
contingency fees and other items. He stated that his November 2003 estimate for
the complete project was $5.7 million.
Ms. Hall stated that it is correct to
say that the previous estimate of $3.2 million is equivalent to the current
$5.6 million (staff’s estimate) or $4.7 million (estimator’s estimate)
construction estimates.
Mr. Minkoff reminded the Board that
the architect’s fee has already been paid and it will not cost a lot of money
to get the bids to see what dollars are involved.
Regarding library impact fees and the
amount needed to provide a level of service, Ms. Breeden estimated that current
fees are $192.
Commr. Pool opined that increasing
those fees in the future is not a bad idea.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he will
make calls to some of the commissioners in other counties to remind them of
their past commitments.
Commr. Pool suggested that the second
floor might be utilized for other needs and be income producing rather than
sitting vacant until the space is needed for library services.
By consensus, the Board asked staff
to come back with some commitments for dollars from other counties, but to
proceed and go forward with the bids, using Value Engineering practices, which
will provide project cost numbers.
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County
Manager/Growth Management Director, emphasized that the other county commissions,
not just staff, must commit to funding before this Board can budget for the
project.
Ms. Hall explained that the design
process is 90% to 95% completed and it probably will be a couple of months
before staff requests a commitment from the Board to proceed with a selected
contractor.
Ms. Breeden will estimate what the
operational costs will be and what the percentage of use by other counties may
be in order to make a request to the other counties.
Commr. Cadwell stated that either the
district commissioner or the chairman should make a presentation to the boards
of the other counties (Orange, Osceola and Polk) soon to request a commitment.
Mr. Minkoff stated that there is a
benefit to asking for operations only dollars from other counties in the event
Lake County, in the future, should need the whole library. If other counties
provide capital money, there would be a permanent marriage with those counties.
Ms. Breeden confirmed that because this
is a Lake County project, and is too far along, the other counties cannot apply
for grant money.
CIP DISCUSSION
Ms. Frazier led a discussion on the proposed
three-year plan (FY 2005-2007) for the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects), the estimated
funding sources, unfunded capital projects, and funding sources remaining. She
referred to the Revised Project Recommendations pages (copies are included in
the backup material) and noted that the projects highlighted in yellow are
unfunded. The south Tavares expansion projects would be funded through bonds,
not out of current or the next three years’ revenue sources. A lot of the
construction/renovation projects are ongoing and nearing completion. The
balance of the cash in the old sales tax dollars is being utilized first so
that those dollars can be spent and gotten off the books. Then, new
infrastructure sales tax money will be utilized.
Commr. Hanson, in updating the Board
on the Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento efforts, stated that a master plan is being worked
on for the SR 46/CR 437 area. There might not be a great deal of land costs
other than the road (a Public Works cost) because donations from landowners in
that area might be made for a school and park, etc., for the town center.
Mr. Minkoff stated that initial
appraisals for the 85-acre site at SR 46/CR 437 are $2.4 million. Some part
will be paid through impact fees because it is part of a road project to
straighten CR 437. He suggested that the estimated cost of $1.5 million for the
project is probably low.
Commr. Hanson opined that the
regional park might be located between Wolf Branch Road and SR 44 so that it
can serve Eustis and Mount Dora as well as the east Lake County area.
Regarding the Conserve II property
purchase, Mr. Minkoff stated that appraisals should be available within 30
days.
Commr. Pool suggested looking at
multiple funding sources such as road impact fees and stormwater funding and
the School Board.
Discussion occurred regarding the
fairgrounds renovation and a recent article in The North Lake Outpost in which Commr. Stivender indicated that the
fairgrounds might be relocated to another site.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the Board
was unanimous in moving forward with fairground renovations at the current site.
Mr. Greg Mihalic, Economic
Development & Tourism Director, stated that alternative sites were analyzed
but did not work out well. He opined that the current site is constrained but
is the only alternative the Board has for a fairground operation.
Mr. Minkoff reminded the Board that
negotiations are in the process to hire an architect for the fairgrounds
project.
Commissioners Cadwell and Pool stated
that they have not changed their minds about the current site.
Commr. Cadwell stated that the
fairgrounds renovation project has been added to the list for potential funding
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Ms. Hall asked for direction from the
Board regarding the non-funded Cooper Memorial Library (estimated at $7
million) and the potential partnership with Lake-Sumter Community College
(LSCC) in south Lake County. She commented that LSCC is looking for funding
within this next budget year.
Commr. Pool stated that the facility
in downtown Clermont is Cooper Memorial Library and he suggested that the
facility being proposed in partnership with LSCC should not be called Cooper
Memorial Library. He stated that we still need help from the City of Clermont
on the downtown library.
Mr. Minkoff explained that LSCC wants
to apply for a grant from the State legislature in February 2006. In order to
make that application, LSCC has to have the $7 million in an escrow account in
their possession. If the project does not go forward, the County would get the
money back. He further explained that junior colleges submit their budget
requests, including capital, to the legislature. LSCC’s entire part of the
building would be funded in the legislative budget. Doing a joint program with
the County would help LSCC get more money from the legislature. When discussions
were held with LSCC, the County proposed to build a 35,000 square foot
facility. LSCC suggested a joint project of 70,000 or 80,000 square feet.
Regarding other projects, Ms. Hall
confirmed that funding is pay as you go. The jail can be included with the
bonds.
Discussion continued regarding the
library partnership with LSCC. Staffing of the facility would be in partnership
with LSCC. Mr. Minkoff stated that the college is amenable to almost anything
and is willing to discuss all alternatives. Ms. Breeden commented that the
University of Central Florida may also build additional space.
Commr. Pool suggested downsizing the
facility, perhaps to $5 million on the County’s part, if other partners are
available. He stressed the importance of a partnership with LSCC.
Ms. Hall stated that staff will
explore options at the Board’s direction.
Commr. Pool stated that the Board has
committed to three years, with two one-year options, for the downtown Cooper
Memorial Library. He reiterated that the City of Clermont should provide
financial support. He confirmed that he would be committed to the bigger
picture, keeping some smaller opportunity with Clermont in the future, but only
if the City of Clermont participates. He asked for information from staff
regarding funding options.
By consensus, the Board agreed that
the joint venture with Lake County, LSCC, and the University of Central
Florida, is important, as long as the Board is not committing to two libraries
within two miles of each other. The Board needs information from staff as to funding
and the level of commitment.
Discussion occurred regarding the
Tavares and Leesburg health clinics which are on the unfunded list. After a new
director is hired, the Board should have a clearer direction on the desired
location for those clinics. Delivery will be taken on the new mobile health
unit on June 1, 2005, and a schedule of dates and locations will be set up at a
later date.
UPDATE ON OFFICE SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH
CORPORATE EXPRESS
Mr. Minkoff gave an update on Lake
County’s office supply contract with Corporate Express. He explained that the
Clerk of Court’s staff received a computerized printout from Corporate Express of
everything that was ordered and what the County was charged. That was compared
against what was paid. The dispute really is how much should the County have
been charged. That amount was identified by staff without the need to spend
$15,000 or $20,000 for an outside auditor. The first issue is that the contract
contains a list of certain items that Corporate Express agrees they will not
sell to the County, probably because there was a cheaper source on those items.
The contract says if Corporate Express sells those items to the County, the County
does not have to pay for them. They sold the County about $43,000 of those
items. The County ordered them, Corporate Express delivered them, they billed a
certain amount that did not have the full discount. It can be argued that the
County should not have to pay anything for those items, but the County did use
them. That is an issue that is in dispute. Also, there was a large number of
items that Corporate Express claimed were not included in the contract that the
County believes are included in the contract. Mr. Minkoff stated that probably
about $110,000-$120,000 would be in dispute. There was a meeting last week with
the president of Corporate Express’ Florida group. A response from Corporate
Express is anticipated within about a week.
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that a
system has been put into place to verify that a 65% discount is being received.
The contract is continuing in force in the way it was intended in the
beginning. If a County employee tries to order an excluded item, Corporate
Express’ system will indicate it is not available. The discount on the excluded
items the County did buy averaged about 30% from the catalog price rather than
65%. Each individual excluded item has not been analyzed to see what it would
have cost from an alternative vendor.
Mr. Minkoff stated that inkjet and
laser cartridges are also in contention. These items were not excluded from the
agreement. The County bought a large number of cartridges but Corporate Express
claimed they had an oral agreement not to sell those. Corporate Express gave a
discount of about 14% on the cartridges, not 65%. The difference on that
discount makes up a large part of the $120,000.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if Corporate
Express does not offer anything, litigation probably would be warranted. On the
other hand, there probably is a number to recommend to the Board which would be
fair for both parties. Regarding the contract, the County Attorney indicated to
Corporate Express that the County wants to honor its commitment for the rest of
this year. The contract, which was renewed March 1, 2005, is a cancelable
agreement that could be terminated at any time without cause.
DISCUSSION OF COUNTY MANAGER SEARCH
Commr. Hill stated that Ms. Cindy
Hall, who has a lot of good qualities and skills, has done an exceptional job
during the last several weeks as Interim County Manager. She stated that the
Board has had the great benefit of working with Ms. Hall. Commr. Hill suggested
that the Board explore the possibility of hiring Ms. Hall as County Manager.
Commr. Hanson agreed that staff feels
comfortable working with Ms. Hall.
Commr. Hill pointed out that Commr.
Stivender is not at today’s meeting, but opined that the Board could go forward
in working on a contract which would be brought back to the full Board.
Commr. Pool agreed that Ms. Hall, as
Assistant County Manager, understands the mission and knows what the Board is
trying to accomplish. He stated that it is prudent to utilize competent,
capable people who are on board rather than conducting a nationwide search. Commr.
Pool suggested that there should be some kind of review period, possibly in six
months.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he does
not agree (with the six-month review) because Ms. Hall has already been working
in every facet of the position. He suggested that the County Attorney be
allowed to draw up a contract but that the full Board should have a discussion
before a final decision is made.
A motion was made by Commr. Hanson
and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to direct the County Attorney to draw up a
contract with Cindy Hall for the position of County Manager and to bring it
back at the next meeting that is attended by all five Board members.
Under discussion, Commr. Hanson
stated that today’s discussion should be relayed to Commr. Stivender and that
the Board members present today recognize that the full Board should be present
for the final vote.
Commr. Hill called for a vote on the
motion which carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER HANSON –
DISTRICT #4
TROUT LAKE NATURE CENTER
Commr. Hanson advised the Board that
the Trout Lake Nature Center (Nature Center) is asking for an annual commitment
of $30,000 to help fund a naturalist in the education program in partnership
with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD).
Commr. Cadwell stated that SJRWMD is
committed to the other half and the Lake County Water Authority used to budget
a part-time position. He stated that the Nature Center has a great outreach
program for adults and students.
Commr. Hill expressed concern that
staff dollars would be donated to another entity. She pointed out that Cooper
Memorial Library had asked the Board to pick up benefits and the Board was not
able to do that. She stated that she will have many requests from other groups
for staffing. She opined that the Board might not want to set the precedent of
staffing other peoples’ projects and programs.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he
envisions this person being a County employee and that the Nature Center may
even, one day, be a part of the County’s parks program.
Commr. Pool asked if there is an
advantage for this person, regarding benefits, etc., to be an employee of
SJRWMD or of the County.
Mr. Minkoff remarked that it would be
a policy decision. With the appropriate interlocal agreement, it probably would
not be a legal issue. He opined that there probably would not be a discernible
difference in benefits.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he does
not have a problem, philosophically, with this issue. He opined that this is
something the County should help with.
Commr. Hill pointed out that other
groups, specifically the Citizens’ Commission for Children, need staffing and
certain other things. She stated that grant dollars for that group are not used
for staffing and maintenance but are used for programs for children.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson,
seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a vote of 3-1, the Board approved to
contribute $30,000 for the education efforts at Trout Lake Nature Center in
partnership with the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Commr. Hill voted “No.”
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Commr. Hanson reported that she
attended the May 19, 2005, community meeting in Lake Mack in Commr. Cadwell’s
district. She asked that the potential of coordinating transportation services between
Volusia County and MV Transportation (transportation operator for Lake County’s
Transportation Disadvantaged Program) be explored.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CADWELL –
DISTRICT #5
ADOPT-A-KID
FOR CHRISTMAS
Commr. Cadwell informed the Board
that the local Adopt-A-Kid for Christmas group needs a space of approximately
3,000 square feet to store items. They will lose their current space in about
three weeks.
The County Attorney’s office will
research the inventory of County buildings for a possible site for the group.
FEE WAIVER REQUESTS FOR VARIANCE
APPLICATIONS
Mr. Gregg Welstead, Deputy County
Manager/Growth Management Director, presented requests for fee waivers (in the
amount of $365.00 each) for two variance applications. One request, for Karen
Carver and Ronald Creech, is in Commr. Hanson’s district and one request, for
Kennon L. Hawkins, is in Commr. Cadwell’s district.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson,
seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0, the Board
approved to add the two fee waiver requests for variance applications to the
agenda.
On a motion by Commr. Hanson,
seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, by a vote of 4-0, the Board
approved the waiver of the $365 fee for a variance application by Karen Carver
and Ronald Creech (Commission District #4); and approved the waiver of the $365
fee for a variance application by Kennon L. Hawkins (Commission District #5).
COMMENTS – DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER
Mr. Welstead stated that the Board’s
decision regarding Ms. Hall and the County Manager’s position is a wonderful
decision. He stated that she has the support of everyone.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER POOL –
DISTRICT #2
ZONING
ISSUES
Commr. Pool remarked that this Board
needs to try to be consistent when voting on issues of a zoning nature. In lieu
of an arbitrary figure that the Board thinks is acceptable to the School Board,
there should be real numbers and information from the School Board on the
percentages of overcrowding. He expressed concern that the Board may begin to
hear from developers on cases that were denied. If those numbers are not
available from the School Board, he suggested that this Board should arrive at
a capacity, an idea, or a guideline that it recognizes as reasonable or
unreasonable.
Ms. Hall reported that the School
Board looks at capacity on a district wide basis, not on a school by school
basis, because boundary lines can change by the time a development comes on
line. She stated that staff can talk to the School Board regarding the issue.
Mr. Minkoff stated that, if a policy
is developed, it should be developed by June 14, 2005, because there will be
ten Comprehensive Plan amendments coming to the Board for decisions on that
date. The Local Planning Agency recommended against every residential density amendment
(nine of the ten cases) when it heard the cases earlier this month.
COMMENTS – INTERIM COUNTY MANAGER
Ms. Hall thanked the Board for its
confidence and expressed her excitement at the prospect of becoming the County
Manager should a contract be approved by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
__________________________
JENNIFER
HILL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK