A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER
8, 2007
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special
Department Workshop session, Transportation and Public Works, on Monday, October
8, 2007, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman; Jennifer Hill, Vice Chairman; Debbie
Stivender; Elaine Renick; and Linda Stewart.
Others present were Sanford A. “Sandy” Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy
Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s
Office; Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan,
Deputy Clerk.
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDING ISSUES
Mr.
Fletcher Smith, Community Services Director, stated that there was an emergency
issue that had come up and that he provided them with some information about
that before the meeting started. He
informed the Board that the Medicaid funding that they had been receiving for
the Transportation Disadvantaged Program had been almost cut in half, which was
a $439,000 cut from their projected $1,015,000 funding that they were
anticipating from the State Medicaid revenue.
He showed a chart that explained how they were going to operate within
that reduced funding and explained that during the budget reduction exercise
this year, they already had reduced the portion of the trips the County paid
for by 4500 trips per year, which was right at $93,000. He added that this did not create a huge
issue until they received the State cuts.
He specified that currently they had an average daily trip demand of
around 767 trips per day and were not able to provide 151 of those trips.
However, they needed to provide as many of the medical and nutritional trips as
possible, because they had some dedicated funding sources that required them to
make those trips and would lose that revenue if they stopped making them. He
noted that instead they were going to reduce the trips for employment,
training, education, life sustaining, and other purposes from the previous
funding. He mentioned that there were a
number of people in attendance that day that represented vision impaired
agencies that were having their funding reduced for trips for training where
they learned how to maintain their ability to live independently. He explained that the reason behind the
Medicaid cuts was that the State was funding Medicaid HMO’s to provide
transportation to their clients and that they initially cut 9700 Medicaid
clients from the list of those they needed to provide transportation for and
will cut another 5000 clients in January, but that, unfortunately, most of
those HMO clients did not require transportation. However, there had actually been an increase
in the number of Medicaid transportation clients that they were providing
services to in the two months since the State budget year started in July,
leaving a very disproportionate way they were funding clients.
Ms.
Marianne Kasper commented that one of the women from the Blind Association was
depending on this service to get to work since she could not drive herself
there.
Ms.
Colleen Kollmann, President of New Vision for Independence, the agency that had
been hired by the Division of Blind Services to provide the services in Lake
and Sumter Counties, stated that they had some of their classes at specific
locations in the County so that they were near to the residents who needed the
classes and that they were not on the college campus where they had their
offices where they conducted their Braille and access technology classes. She added that they also had a number of
support groups where individuals who had previously had the classes and
graduated met for continual peer support and that they had between 40 and 50
individuals who rode the bus every month. She related that as a new agency, they were
just beginning to expand their classes, but with the withdrawal of services for
their students, they might very well have to withdraw all services, because
they would not have the ability to get all their people to the classes.
Commr.
Cadwell suggested that they take their enthusiasm for this program to the
State, because the biggest cuts came from Tallahassee. He commented that it would be easy for the
County to put their $93,000 back in to provide some trips, but that would not
cure the problem, and the problem was that the State of Florida continually
knew that the County would step up and finance something that they decided not
to fund anymore. He stated that it was a
problem for them philosophically and physically, and they had to continue to
work through it.
Mr.
Smith explained that the State has taken money away from the County and given
it to the Medicaid HMO providers.
Commr.
Hill stated that during the budget process, they put $100,000 in Board
reserves, and inquired if there was any other funding apart from that.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that if the Board gave her direction to look
for funding, they would do that.
Commr.
Stivender suggested that this was an issue that needed to be worked on at the
legislative session in Tallahassee. She
mentioned that Senator Carey Baker said he would work on that for them, and
they had an appointment with Senator Paula Dockery next week. She opined that they still had to take care
of the people in their county.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that there was no way locally that they could make up for the
deficit that the State cuts caused.
Commr.
Hill asked if there were private providers, such as churches, that had buses
and would be willing to help with this, or if there were obstacles to doing
that.
Mr.
David Hope, General Manager of MV Transportation, Inc. (MV), stated that was
always a good question to ask statewide, and that he was looking into the
possibility of using the private sector, but that there were problems with that
such as insurance, liability, drivers, and maintenance. He stated they could also look at things such
as ride share, other funding, and putting funding back in and that they could
be creative to try to provide more service.
Dr.
Tom Cuppett, Treasurer with New Vision for Independence, stated that they had
looked into the church issue and were told that they could not be insured if
they were not taking their own members.
He also pointed out these cuts would put their organization out of
business, because they were on a fee for service basis, and if they could not
get their students to the classes, they could not run or pay for the class.
Mr.
T. J. Fish, Executive Director of the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), stated that their job was to oversee, plan, and evaluate
the CTC (Community Transportation Coordinator), which was the Board of County
Commissioners, and they were looking at that through future years. He foresaw that the Medicaid funding would be
gone completely by 2011, unless there was a legislative change. He commented that the MPO had been talking
for two years about the fact that legislatively CTC’s were the model for the
nation for coordinating the transportation for the public and had been
completely eroded with the change for the Medicaid funding for HMO’s. He hoped that they could include para-transit
in the discussion about funding transportation, using state and federal funds
and also supplementing the general funds as they were faced with this question
today. He also commented that this was
not a social service but a transportation service, although it was connected to
various social services. He pointed out that
para-transit was very different than the LakeXpress and not the same program,
and he was very protective of both and did not want LakeXpress changed or
decreased in funding, because they just got it started. He stated that he would be happy to look at
trying to find a dedicated funding source as part of this overall
transportation funding approach.
Ms.
Florence Norrito from the group from Clermont stated that she did not
understand why they could not pick up and take home all the individuals needing
this service all at once instead of making several trips, since they all were going
to the same place at the same time.
Mr.
Smith commented that when they determined who and where the people were, they
could do a route schedule.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that some of the counties in the State
were dropping the Medicaid service altogether and not doing any Medicaid trips
or taking the money. He specified that
he thought Palm Beach County and a couple of others had withdrawn from the
program this year because of this problem.
Commr.
Stivender asked what it would do to the overall program if they did that.
Mr.
Hope stated whenever there were fewer trips, the cost would be increased per
trip accordingly, so that would increase the cost of the remaining service for
the TD riders.
Commr.
Cadwell directed Mr. Smith to get the Board the information regarding the
number of riders and the costs they were talking about.
Commr.
Stivender summarized that the direction was that they were going to keep
working on this issue to try to resolve it as much as they could. She asked them to break it down to show the
kinds of trips that were requested specifically, since she had received quite a
few calls from people who visited their spouse in a nursing home.
CHERRY LAKE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT (DRI)
Mr. Fred Schneider, Director of
Engineering, Public Works Department, showed some maps on the overhead from the
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, showing Mascotte as a red area,
Groveland as a blue area, Clermont as a green area, and Minneola as
purple. He pointed out the site of
Cherry Lake Tree Farm in the red area, as related to State Road 19, US Hwy 27,
State Road 50, the Turnpike, and Cherry Lake Road. He explained that the East Central Florida
Regional Planning Council had sent out the documents to all the agencies, such
as MPO, Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), the County, and the City and
that MPO and DOT had provided very detailed technical comments on the
transportation part, and the County provided more general comments on transportation. He showed an aerial of the location of the
site showing residential, village center, institutional such as school, and
open space areas. He related that the
County’s comments were that if they were going to do this, that Cherry Lake
Road would need to be realigned through their site. He understood that there was a discussion
relating that Cherry Lake Road would also need to be four-laned in Phase III of
the project, which went out to 2020, from State Road 19 to Lake Wilson Parkway
and that State Road 19 would also need to be four-laned from their entrance
north to the Turnpike. He reported that
the County had already started a widening and resurfacing of Cherry Lake Road
with paved shoulders, but they did not have any program in mind to look at that
as a four-lane road. He noted that one
of the issues was that if the four-lane requirement was needed, it would have
to be both in the City’s and the County’s Comprehensive Plans. He wanted the Board to give them direction
about whether they should be commenting regarding how the City’s Comprehensive
Plan would affect the County’s Comp Plan to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA). He thought that they could
provide those comments to the Growth Management Department, who would provide
transportation related as well as any other comments they had on Comp Plan
issues to DCA.
Commr. Stivender stated that she
thought working through Growth Management and giving them their comments was
the correct way to do that.
Commr. Cadwell added that he assumed
that they would make the comment that that road project was not in their
Comprehensive Plan or their Capital Improvement Plan.
Mr. Schneider commented that they had
made those kind of comments previously in other DRI’s, such as for Hills of
Minneola, where they commented that they did not have the funding for those
roads and that the developer needed to assume the full cost unless someone else
came up with a match.
Commr. Cadwell commented that in this
case, the County already did not have enough money to do what was in the plans.
Mr. Schneider inquired whether the
Board wanted them to follow that same procedure on the Comp Plan issues overall
on other DRI’s, because currently they were working through the East Central
Florida Regional Planning Council on transportation. He also asked whether they would like the
Growth Management staff and Public Works to provide comments on City Comp Plan
changes, since some of those may be minimal and not paramount, while others may
be significant.
Commr. Cadwell stated that they just
wanted to know how it was working to make sure that they were getting their say
in that process.
Commr. Stivender asked Mr. Schneider
what they currently were doing and commented that what they were already doing
might be appropriate.
Mr. Schneider responded that right
now the Planning Council coordinated the comments and that Public Works did not
write directly to DCA and provide comments to the Planning Council, and in this
case with IMG, Growth Management would be writing the main body of the letter
to DCA directly.
Commr. Hill asked who was doing the
preliminary engineering study.
Mr. Schneider answered that Cherry
Lake had been on the County program long before Cherry Lake Tree Farm
existed. He further explained that they
were not doing all the design work right now and were looking at what the
social, environmental, and property impacts would be mainly for two-lane
roadways, paved shoulders, and turn lanes, and if they moved forward with
design, it would be on the east side of Cherry Lake Road. He noted that they were still in the public
meeting process, and once they finished that, they would come back to the Board
with their findings for the roadway itself.
He emphasized that they were not proposing the four lanes on the west
side and that it came forward from IMG.
Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager,
clarified that the Board direction was that they were going to be making
comments directly to DCA indicating that they did not have funding for the
improvements that were associated with this project. She commented that as part of the broader
picture, they would need to perhaps come back for more discussion and not lump
everything into that decision today, and this would be related to the Cherry
Lake Tree Farm DRI.
Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director of
the MPO, commented that in this case it was bigger than just a funding issue,
and it was not even in the 20-year plan of what they needed to fund. He mentioned that the MPO was under contract
through an interlocal agreement with Groveland to review this DRI for
transportation. He related that they had
talked about Cherry Lake and that State Road 19 was in the MPO’s plan, but it
was not funded. He added that the MPO
did not want to fund anything close to a DRI, because if they were funding it
for them, they did not have to provide proportionate share. He commented that the rules for DRI’s were
more stringent on the level of proportionate share. He felt that the MPO could help a great deal
with inter-governmental coordination between the County and the municipalities
in cases where there was an impact to the Land Use Map and a County road.
RECESS AND REASSEMBLY
At 9:50 a.m., the Chairman announced
that the Board would recess for five minutes.
INTRODUCTION – “THE TEAM”
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Public Works
Director, had members of his Public Works team introduce themselves and tell
how long they had been in their job and anything else they wanted to add. He started with himself, stating that he had
been with the County for 29 ½ years, and then the County Attorney and the
Commissioners also introduced themselves.
Other staff included Mr. Kristian Swenson, Road Operations Division
Director for 7 years; Mr. Dave Vasquez, Fleet Management Director for 1 1/2
years; Mr. Bobby Bonilla, Division Director for Parks and Trails; Ms. Lori
Conway, Funding and Production Division Director; Mr. Fred Schneider,
Engineering Division Director for 9 years; Mr. Sam Cauley, Professional
Surveyor Director; and Ms. Wendy Pope, Park Ranger.
ROAD OPERATIONS FUNDING AND
EXPENDITURES
Mr. Kristian Swenson, Road Operations
Division Director, stated that Road Operations was the division responsible for
the maintenance of signs, signals, roads, and drainage that made up the County
maintained system. He explained that
they did tasks such as mowing, grading roads, inspecting signs and signals, and
any other normal maintenance that might not be noticed. He distributed a handout which included “Fun
Facts” about the County-maintained road system showing that they had almost
1,400 miles of roads in the County network, approximately 10 percent of which
were clay and that they maintained over 26,000 signs and 27 bridges. He noted that there were 82 employees who
took care of that network, including mower operators, equipment operators, and
administrative staff and that they were funded by approximately $10.5 million,
which did not go as far as it used to and which was obtained mostly from gas
tax, with a small amount from the MSTU, General Fund, and Sales Tax. He mentioned that the staff was made up of
the Administration arm; the Direct Maintenance, including special projects and
traffic operations; and Indirect Maintenance, which were outsourcing contracts,
and he gave specifics about those departments.
Mr. Dennis Warren, Road
Superintendent, stated that their work was citizen request driven, including
mowing, grading, and sign maintenance. He
specified that last year in 2006/07, they received 2,943 requests, each of
which generated a work order, and they sent a comment card to each of those citizens. He related that he read all the comment cards
they received back, and if it was an average, fair, or poor rating, then the
field supervisor would contact that person to find out what could be improved;
and if it was a good or excellent rating but they still had questions, the
field supervisors would talk to them to answer those questions. He had his district maintenance supervisors
tell what their districts were, how many miles they maintained and the main
problems they encountered in their districts, which included hilly terrain,
drainage problems, weather, and potholes.
Mr. Dennis Dietz, Supervisor of
Traffic Operations, stated that currently they maintained 279 traffic
control devices and conducted a monthly scheduled inspection and more intensive
annual inspection of each of them. He
noted that through interlocal maintenance agreements, they maintained traffic
signal control devices for all the cities except Groveland, creating annual
revenue for the County of $177,121 last year.
They also participated in a reimbursement program through FDOT for
signals on their system and received $53,659 last year for that. He specified that currently they were
maintaining well over 25,000 signs and conducted scheduled inspections on each
one of those. He related that they were
responsible for all three maintenance districts and all five Commissioner Districts. He stated that they also took care of all the
striping, and the cost for striping had gone up 233 percent since last year. They also responded to emergency requests,
such as emergency road closures.
Mr. John Bringard, Senior Contracting
Officer, stated that his main duties were to write the specifications and work
with Procurement and the County Attorney’s Office to secure good contractors
that helped them out and supplemented what the maintenance areas were
doing. He reported that over the last
year, they spent approximately $3.6 million under contracts, including 264
miles of mowing to help them keep up with a five-week cycle and picking up
52,000 pounds of trash, which resulted in a lot less complaints. Also, this last year they were able to start
up a tree trimming contract for approximately 60 miles worth of roads. They also have repaired over 32 guardrails
that had been damaged from accidents at a cost of over $143,000.
Commr. Cadwell asked Mr. Warren what
his biggest challenge was.
Mr. Warren responded that one of
their challenges was the non-maintained roads, which they had to keep passable
for emergency vehicles. He commented
that the road conditions were usually horrible and it was a never-ending battle
to keep them passable. He was hoping
that since the resurfacing money was increasing a little bit, that they would
hopefully be able to get more of those roads taken care of.
Commr. Renick asked about the costs
of maintaining those roads.
Mr. Swenson explained that there was
an operational cost for the fuel, maintenance, and employee time with a capital
expense for the grader. He pointed out
that construction costs have gone up a huge amount and that it would be very
costly to do any construction on those roads, but that they did a lot of the
double surface treatments in house, which put two layers of granite on it. He described the treatment as just like a
conventional road, except that the top layer was not asphalt but two layers of
stone imbedded in a liquid asphalt, and commented that it was a little rougher
riding but was well received by the residents who lived on the roads receiving
the treatment.
EMPLOYEE NUMBERS
Mr. Stivender specified that there
were 171 employees in the Public Works Department, and showed a chart showing
how it was broken down, commenting that Parks and Trails had grown the most in
the last couple of years. He opined that
they had a very good team that did a very good job and noted that the divisions
under Public Works are Engineering, Funding and Production, Parks and Trails,
Fleet Management, and Road Operations.
ENGINEERING FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES
Mr.
Fred Schneider, Engineering Division Director, stated that transportation and
traffic engineering, land surveying and design, right of way, development
review as it related to roadways, and stormwater management were all part of
the Engineering Division. He went
through some division responsibilities, such as working with the County
Attorney’s Office on agreements, looking at policies and standards, improving
technology, future planning of new roads, public meetings, road design, traffic
engineering, and staff training to keep employees updated technically and
professionally. He went through the
funding sources broken up into gas taxes, road impact fees, stormwater MSTU,
and grants. He also talked about
transportation planning responsibilities and mentioned that the annual traffic
counts they did were published on their web site and were used by the MPO and
that the crash data base and traffic studies were often used to justify to DOT
why they needed funding. He explained
that when the State changed the rules for proportionate share regarding transportation
concurrency a year or two ago, the end result of that would be that when the
cities were making changes or agreements with developers, it would come back to
the Board because the Board administered the funding for the road impact
fees. He suggested that they get all the
cities and the County in one large concurrency management system if they were
all sharing the same source of money. He
also mentioned that they were going to turn the GIS system, which was up and
running now, over to the MPO in January to be the clearing house to coordinate
that effort.
Mr.
Schneider related that the land surveying section was involved in surveying
many things in the County for Public Works as well as other departments that
had surveying needs, such as plat reviews, landfills, parks, roadways,
intersections, and right of ways. He
stated that they had two field crews and three staff in the office. He explained that the Design Section dealt
with all types of technical work including roadway drainage design and
construction, sidewalks, and multi-use trail alignments. He noted that this
section used the five-year road program as its guide of what they needed to
include for PD&E studies or designs.
He then explained that there was a long list of agencies that they
needed to get permits from and that they had developed a good system to keep
track of permits they had or needed. He
noted that they met once a week to get an understanding of where they were, and
currently had over 60 projects that were in design. He talked about the Right of Way Section,
which was responsible for all the research work to secure the necessary right
of way from the property owners with land fronting on the proposed roadway of a
road construction project, and he discussed the costs of acquiring those right
of ways. He discussed the road project
costs and timeline of the County Road 466 project, which consisted of two miles
of roadway, and all that that entailed, including a survey and an appraisal.
Mr.
Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, commented that the survey for that project cost
$800,000 and took a year and a half to complete and that the appraisal cost was
$500,000. He explained that they used
this project as a real-life exhibit because they were currently involved in
this project, they were starting to get the appraisals back, and this was the
first project that they had ever hired a right of way consultant, at a cost of
over $300,000, because the project was too large for the current right of way
staff to deal with, since they were dealing with over 100 parcels and roughly
50 property owners. He commented that
before they even got to the point of acquiring right of way, they had spent
about $2 million on this project, and it had taken them about 3 ½ to 4 years to
get to this point. He stated that the
right of way acquisition cost was estimated to be about $4 million to $5
million, but that it was likely that they would spend about $8 million to $10
million to acquire right of way for this project. He reported that their current schedule had
them coming to the Board in December for the eminent domain petition, and they
anticipated using eminent domain so that Mr. Schneider could get this road under
construction by next summer. He pointed
out that the total cost of the project was going to be about $35 million, with
$20 million being Lake County’s share of the cost. He noted that Lake County had never done a
large-scale eminent domain taking before, and this one would probably have 25 or
30 property owners who would be defendants with perhaps 50 different easements
that they would be taking. He informed
the Board that they were planning on using his office in house to handle this
through the eminent domain petition and through the court proceedings up to
trial, but if they went to jury trial, they may use outside council to help
them, since they did not have those resources.
He anticipated in this process that they would be getting offers from
the property owners, and he would like to come back to the Board with an
alternative process where the Board would give him and the County Manager some
authority to settle those cases without coming back to the Board for each of
them, because it would take two to three weeks to make it through the Agenda
process for each offer and counter offer and it would be very difficult. He relayed that they would like to come up with
a policy that would give them authority to resolve that without Board approval
with a threshold of perhaps 150 or 200 percent of the appraised value. He wanted to make sure that the Board would
be comfortable with that, and he thought that they would pay more than the
appraised value in almost every case. He
also stated that the percentage could vary with the value of the property,
making the threshold less for property of higher value.
Mr.
Schneider added that stormwater ponds were part of this, and the agreement was
that the Villages would take the first 3,000 feet or quarter mile into Sumter
County for the stormwater pond there they were donating. He stated that they already owned or had
agreements on four ponds and only had one left that they needed to purchase. He commented that in Clermont, in many cases
where the roads were done through developer’s agreements, the developers were
responsible for maintaining the retention ponds, saving the County money on maintenance
of those.
Commr.
Renick asked whether it would be cheaper in the long run if Mr. Minkoff could
work those out and avoid eminent domain.
Mr.
Minkoff responded that it would be much cheaper. He added that they would probably have no
jury trials, but that they would probably have to use eminent domain with at
least half of the parcels, and those cases would have to settle through the
court process. He specified that when they
did eminent domain, they paid for their attorney’s fees, appraisal costs, and
engineering costs, as well as the property owner’s legal fees, appraisal,
engineering, planning costs, and other costs.
Mr.
Schneider explained that some of the things the Development Review Section
looked at were site plans and subdivision construction plan review as well as
Zoning Support for the Growth Management Department. He commented that they did not make
determinations on land use in Public Works, but that they would provide
comments and recommendations to the Growth Management Department, who would
make the final recommendation. He also
related that some things that they required developers to do were turn lanes,
possible traffic signals, lot grading, and stormwater design. He also went over the different programs that
the Stormwater Section was involved in such as the TMDL Program, the NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), Floodplain Program, and
construction retrofit projects.
PUBLIC
INTERACTION
Mr.
Stivender stated that there were about 10,000 to 15,000 people that they got
most of their correspondence from that were either thrilled with what was
happening or not happy about anything.
He said their challenge was a balancing act between making sure to
appreciate the ones that compliment them and helping those that complained to
them, while trying to serve everyone and address all the issues that they received.
RECESS
AND REASSEMBLY
At
11:30, the Chairman announced that they would recess for 15 minutes.
PARKS
AND TRAILS FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES
Mr.
Bobby Bonilla, Parks and Trails Division Director, commented that their park
maintenance staff was at the same level as 1995, but that their park acreage
had increased to three times that amount and they had additional
responsibilities of the trails. He
opined that they have provided a lot of customer service, which had increased
from five to seven days a week with the ranger program and responded
immediately to phone calls and actually met people in the field. He commented that their team had been hand
selected, including a landscape architect and park specialists. He stated that the master plans that came
before the Board were done in house rather than using consultants, which saved
money and resulted in the best product.
He added that usually a master plan did not come to the Board until they
had public meetings, then it went to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
for their approval, and then it was brought before the BCC. He commented that the County continued to
acquire new property, most of which came to the Parks Department, and some of
them required management and some got developed into an active park. He noted that they were going to be getting
into more restoration and management this year that would be led by the park
ranger program.
Mr.
Tom Eicher, Parks and Trails Manager, spoke about what they had accomplished
and what they were presently working on, including Blue Ways, which opened in
November of 2006, and eight trails throughout the County, with a total of 145
miles of trails, and he commented that almost all of the work was done in
house. He noted that they were in the
middle of a trails master plan, which was a one-year project, where they were
looking at connecting current trails with ones in the future and which would
take regional trails and hopefully allow connections to local trails throughout
the cities. He related that they were
working with Lake-Sumter MPO to make sure all the different areas were
discussed, and hoped that it would be finished by February 2008. They also had identified, laid out, and cut
22 miles of unpaved trails, which would eventually be paved for a multi-purpose
trail and which was presently being used for ranger led hikes, nature walks, and
identification of plant material, butterflies, and birds. He reported that they also produced a
five-year sidewalk construction plan with an evaluation priority matrix to help
them identify which sidewalks needed to be constructed first because of limited
funds.
Ms.
Wendy Pope, Park Ranger, stated that they had a mailing list currently of
several hundred people who either attended or had hoped to attend a meeting, a
kayak or canoe trip, a scheduled program, or other events and who had asked to
be put on an e-mail list to be notified as each thing came up. She said they had as many as 100 individuals
attend an event, and they were seeing an increase in the interest. She mentioned that there were 50 people who
were present at the wildlife presentation that they just held at PEAR Park, and
they turned people away, because they could not fit any more people in the
door. She has received e-mails from as
far away as the United Kingdom inquiring about events that were going on while
they were in town or in the Orlando area.
She commented that interest in a lot of the events has skyrocketed,
especially events guided by their staff, since people did not always feel
comfortable or knowledgeable enough to go out on their own in these settings,
and that all the materials that they produced in house were extremely well
received by the public. She also opined
that this interest generated hotel stays and other tourism dollars spent in the
County and was definitely a positive thing for the County. She foresaw interest skyrocketing in the
future for their events.
Mr.
Bonilla commented that the more they educated, the more responsibility they
could spread to the citizens that visited their parks to be another set of eyes
and hands in the parks to minimize vandalism.
He stated that events required a minimum of at least two rangers and
that so far it had been very hectic, and the rangers also picked up trash and
provided feedback to the maintenance crew.
He added that they were getting a lot of increase in attendance and the
pavilions were all full, which also gave an opportunity for the park rangers to
get feedback and exchange information with the public. He also commented that he appreciated all the
support they received from the Board and the County Manager to implement the
ranger program and that the benefits were endless.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that the expectations for the parks would continue to grow
now that more people were using the parks.
Commr.
Renick inquired if the Parks Division would be managing and maintaining the
PLAAC properties.
Mr.
Stivender responded that would have to be worked out in the future.
FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES
Mr.
Dave Vasquez, Fleet Management Division Director, stated that he had been there
for a year and five months and that it had been a monumental task to get a
handle on the fleet assets that belonged to Lake County and to catalogue them
accurately. He explained that in the
past, the County structure dictated that each individual department took care
and procured their own fleets, and as a result, everyone had their own
territory to protect as to what they were and were not buying and how they were
buying it. He related that they had changed
that routine completely and that their department was now the focal point for
all purchasing, specifications, and inventories. He specified that the numbers that they
currently had were 673 total pieces of equipment that included trailers and
everything up to fire trucks and that their garage in Leesburg maintained 534
of those. He reported that the budget
last year for replacements was about $2.6 million worth of vehicles, and out of
that $1.7 million was for fire rescue equipment. He stated that the budget this year had
dramatically been adjusted to reduce the number of vehicles purchased for a
total of $815,000, and that fire rescue was only replacing one unit this year
for $280,000. He opined that this was
not enough money to keep the fleet at a young age, and it probably would have
cost close to $4 million or $5 million to bring the vehicles into a replacement
life cycle. He noted that they would
probably have to spend more in maintenance on the older equipment and that some
pieces of equipment needed to be kept on a short life cycle. He also related that he planned to develop a
fleet replacement plan that would come before the Board for approval based on
the needs of each department and that they had been looking closely this year
at vehicle utilization and justification of those assets, such as where the
vehicle traveled and how many miles were put on it and were feeding that back
to the directors with justification forms and recommendations. He noted that they did all of those things
out of Leesburg with twelve employees, including four administrative and seven
technicians. He mentioned that one of
those technicians was a helper that took up all the slack for the smaller jobs,
which resulted in a huge boost in productivity for the technicians. He specified that originally the productivity
numbers were 60 percent direct wrench time and 40 percent indirect time doing
other things, but this year they had narrowed that to an 85/15 split, which has
enabled them to leave two current vacancies unfilled. He commented that they previously had no good
method to track fuel management, but he has since been working to implement a
better card system that required a PIN entry and the mileage into the terminal.
Mr.
Vasquez commented that their operation was an enterprise fund and that they
charged for everything they did, and this year they balanced to about $2.6
million in parts, labor, and fuel, which included the Sheriff’s Department fuel
and any of the outside agencies that used their fuel systems. He related that they made six cents a gallon
on the fuel that they sold, which was not really enough to pay for the
infrastructure and the repairs that the fuel system would require. He commented that the system was fairly
antiquated and had been there since at least the 1980’s, and they have been
running into individual problems with dispensers that had to be replaced. He stated that they just started a new fuel
system last October using a state fuel card called ComData, which amounted to
about $450,000 through August, and most of that fuel was used for the MV
Transport project. He opined that they
got a significant discount off of the fuel rate, amounting to about 5 or 6
percent less, and the best part of using the ComData card was the convenience
of being able to buy the fuel anywhere and that it was automatically reported
back to them so that they could bill it back to the individual customer. The mileage and fuel information was captured
by their RTA system, allowing them to keep track of the mileage the vehicle was
accumulating. He also reported that they
standardized this year with Ford products, which had rolled over their prices
for the third year in a row on the Sheriff’s contract, resulting in significant
savings, and this also had the benefit of simplifying maintenance.
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, added that their budget process this year required
any one who requested a vehicle to get Mr. Vasquez’s approval, giving him the
chance of evaluating that request.
Commr.
Renick clarified that the customers of the enterprise fund were the different
County departments, and commented that if they raised the price of what they
charged for fuel, it would affect everyone else’s budget.
Mr.
Vasquez also pointed out that they charged the low rate for maintenance of $59
per hour, based on the math that it took to balance the budget, and that price
was lower than any mechanic outside the County was charging. He commented that increasing their
productivity rate has allowed them to keep that charge cost effective. He also related that his goal was to set the
system up as a private cap lease rate where they actually charged the
departments by vehicle, paying one fee per month for that vehicle regardless of
what maintenance it required. This fee
would also fund a replacement value of the vehicle, taking the guesswork out of
its lifecycle. He opined that private
industry worked that way and that it helped level the budget.
FUNDING
AND PRODUCTION DIVISION
Mr.
Stivender stated that one of the big issues for them has been revenue.
Ms.
Lori Conway, Funding and Production Division Director, explained that the
Funding and Production Division had 17 employees, broken up into production and
budgetary. She stated that one of the
things they were responsible for was the transportation construction program
that they brought before the Board in August.
She related that it was an annual program that kicked off with an impact
fee meeting in February, and they got together with all the cities and
discussed their priorities. She stated
that the cities submitted new projects to her, and their department made sure
they qualified for impact fee funding.
She reported that their goal was to produce the draft program in July
for distribution so that they could bring it back to the Board by August 20 of
every year. She also explained that the
construction inspection group consisted of five inspectors, who did stormwater
inspections as required, filled out paperwork daily, and kept track of all the
costs. She commented that the department
was unique in that they took the lead role in bidding their projects, but they
worked very closely with Procurement and the County Attorney’s Office. She related that they had a standardized
bidding document and standardized bidding process. She stated that there were times when they
used contracted construction inspection services, usually with multi-million
dollar projects. She also showed a chart
in the handout which showed examples of how construction costs had risen since
2002 as much as 106 percent, and she provided a graph of all the utility
permits that came through their office from FY 2000 to FY 2007 and commented
that they increased the permitting fee to $100 this year. She mentioned that they also handled the
special assessment program and that if there were 55 percent of the property
owners that were willing to move forward with a program, they would bring it
forward to the Board for approval and to identify a funding source. She explained that they worked with their own
department as well as other departments, such as Growth Management,
Environmental Health, and the County Attorney’s Office for subdivision
coordination. She commented that in
spite of all that had gone on with the economy, construction plans and final
plat amounts have stayed around the same, but were actually indicative of the
year before.
Ms.
Conway reported that they had an $86 million dollar budget, 70 percent of which
was capital, and which included a $42 million cash carry forward that was part
of their budget. She pointed out a chart
in the handout which showed the sources of the $43 million of the revenue without
the carry forward amount, the majority of which came from gas tax money at 27
percent, followed closely by impact fees at 25 percent. She went over the origin, estimated revenue,
uses, and distribution for some of the pennies of the gas tax money, including
the Constitutional Gas Tax and the County Gas Tax.
Mr.
Stivender pointed out that there had essentially been no increase in revenue
from the gas tax since 2005 statewide, since people leveled off on their
spending when the price increased. He
stated that they were still performing services and eating down their cash
carry forward, and that in this year, they cut their budget by a large amount
by cutting back substantially in all the Public Works divisions. He predicted that revenue would increase some
over the next couple of years when the economy stabilized, but mentioned that now
they had very little in reserves and that between now and next October, they
might not be able to handle as many calls and essential services and would have
to defer them. He also pointed out a map
which showed what locally imposed motor fuel taxes were adopted by which
Florida counties, showing others had brought back extra pennies to the
electorate and were adopting an extra five pennies more of tax than Lake
currently had, and that he would be showing that to the people on the
committee.
Commr.
Cadwell opined that he did not think there was a difference in the gas prices
between the counties that adopted the extra pennies and those that did not and
that gas prices were set by the market and not by taxes.
Ms.
Conway reported that impact fees were 25 percent of the department’s revenue
source and presented a map which showed the six Benefit Districts and the three
Park Districts. She specified that their
estimated revenue was $10.9 million, and Benefit District 5 was currently
producing the most, which was the Clermont, Minneola, and Montverde area. She noted that funds collected in each
district must be expended or encumbered from that district within six years
from collection.
Commr.
Renick asked if one district could borrow the impact fees from another district
if there is a desperate need, as long as that money was paid back.
Ms.
Conway responded that they had borrowed money from the impact fee fund for
sales tax projects, but they had not borrowed from an impact fee benefit
district to fund another impact fee project.
She added that those funds could not be used for maintenance. She presented a chart which showed the impact
fee revenue from 2001 to the projections for 2010 and commented that the last
road impact fee increase was in 2002.
She pointed out that the boost in 2005 correlated with the boost in
residential driveway permits.
Mr.
Stivender stated that the trend from 2001 to 2003 was nice and steady, and then
all of a sudden, just like the economy boost, there was a huge influx between
2004 and 2006, and they had collected $6 million more in 2004 than they had in
2003. He commented that when they did the
Southern Connector, it quickly ate into those dollars. He projected revenue through the year 2010
and opined that the economy would not get back to normal until 2010 by looking
at the surplus of the market.
Ms.
Conley reported that sales tax made up 11 percent of their department revenue
and that it would sunset in 2017. She
commented that this year they were changing their normal distribution
percentages to increase the resurfacing program to 50 percent. She noted that these funds were not for
maintenance and were road project related and it had to involve fixed capital
expenditures associated with construction or reconstruction that had a life
expectancy of five or more years. She
also reported that the Stormwater, Parks, and Roads MSTU made up 14 percent of
the department revenue, which was $6.1 million.
She related that the Stormwater assessment began in 200 at .1 mill, and
the millage had increased .1 mill each year through 2004.
Mr.
Stivender pointed out that the rollback millage of .4984 was adopted for 2008
and that they expected to increase it in 2009 and 2010 another .1 mill to bring
revenue up in the areas of road maintenance and the parks program, since it was
a flexible fund.
REPORTS
– COUNTY MANAGER
AUTHORIZATION
TO SIGN OFF ON SHIP PAYMENTS
Ms.
Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that she needed authorization to sign off on
some payments, primarily for SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) which
were over the amount of $25,000. She
also explained that eventually they were going to have a policy coming to the
Board for check writing authorization that actually would make mention of some
of the checks specifically.
Commr.
Cadwell commented that the SHIP amount increased for affordable housing to over
the $25,000 amount the County Manager had authorization for.
Ms.
Hall specified that she had eight items and read them off to get the Board
authorization for the following:
$30,000
for a home purchase for clients named Seth Pause and Giana Frisaura
$30,000
for a home purchase for a client named Jessica Cassella
$30,000
for a home purchase for a client named Pamela Adams
$30,000
for a home purchase for a client named Daniel Cockcroft
$26,694
for FAC (Florida Association of Counties) dues
$30,000
for new home construction for a client named Nakia Myles
$35,000
for new home construction for clients named Gumercindo and Maria Nunez
$30,000
for new home construction assistance for a client named Christopher Kirkland
On
a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a
vote of 5-0, the Board moved to put that item on the Agenda.
On
a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a
vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s request to be able to sign
the above-mentioned SHIP payments.
ADJOURNMENT
There
being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:26 p.m.
__________________________________
WELTON
CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
JAMES
C. WATKINS, CLERK