A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
april 27, 2010
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 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; Elaine Renick, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; Jimmy Conner; and Linda Stewart. Others present were: Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, Interim County Manager; Melanie Marsh, Acting County Attorney; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Barbara F. Lehman, Chief Deputy Clerk, County Finance; and Susan Boyajan, Deputy Clerk.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Reverend Brooks Braswell from the First Baptist Church of Umatilla gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA UPDATE
There were no updates to the agenda.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the County Manager’s Consent Agenda, Tabs 1 and 2, as follows:
Community Services
Request for approval for staff to submit an application for the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Trip and Equipment Grant for FY 10-11 as well as the supporting Resolution No. 2010-47.
County Manager
Request for approval to combine the Community Services Department with the Economic Growth and Redevelopment Department to create a new department titled Economic Development and Community Services. Additionally, approval to fill a new Economic Growth & Redevelopment Division Director position and new Housing Services Division Director position.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VACATION PETITION NO. 1152 – journey circle m ranch
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, related that Vacation Petition No. 1152 was to vacate a portion of a right of way on Number Two Road by Journey Circle M Ranch and Harvey Massey. He explained that this was a section of right of way that was acquired as part of the development, and he noted that even though the road curves away, the right of way remains straight. He related that the property owners asked them to vacate the portion that would not be parallel with the road, since it is much further away, and he recommended approval to vacate that portion of the right of way.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Vacation Petition No. 1152, Journey Circle M. Ranch, to vacate a portion of right of way on Number Two Rd., in the Howey-in-the-Hills area, and approval and execution of Resolution No. 2010-48. Commission District 3.
other business
appointments to lsmpo bicycle pedestrian advisory committee
Commr. Cadwell explained that at the April 6 BCC meeting, the Board appointed two people that had not reapplied for Districts 1 and 5, so the first motion would be to rescind those appointments.
On a motion by Commr. Stewart, seconded by Commr. Renick and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to rescind the reappointments of Pam Humble and Mike Stephens made on April 6 to the Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (LSMPO-BPAC).
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board appointed Mr. Chris Barnhart representing District 1 and Mr. John Sharp representing District 5 to the LSMPO-BPAC to serve two-year terms ending December 31, 2011.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING AGENDA
Mr. Brian Sheahan, Director of Planning and Community Design, informed the Board that the rezoning agenda was properly advertised and that they had no changes to the agenda. He reported that Rezoning Case No. PH#2-10-3 was continued until the May 5, 2010 and June 1, 2010 Zoning Board hearings. He also noted that they have had several calls on CUP#985-5, because there was some confusion on the part of the public that the relocation of the mine meant that they were removing the approval and not granting approval.
CONSENT REZONING AGENDA
The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding the Rezoning Consent Agenda.
There being no one who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Hill, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved the Rezoning Consent Agenda, as follows:
Tab 1 – Ordinance No. 2010-19
Rezoning Case No. PH#7-10-3
Lucille S. Allegre, La Finca Stables
Request to rezone property from Rural Residential (R-1) to Agriculture (A) to allow a Riding Stable/Academy Facility.
Tab 2 – Ordinance No. 2010-20
Rezoning Case No. CUP#10/4/1-3
Lucille S. Allegre, La Finca Stables
The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit in the Agriculture (A) Zoning District to allow a Riding Stable/Academy Facility.
Tab 6 – Ordinance No. 2010-21
CUP Revocations:
CUP #89/10/5-5, Franklin Kauffman/Brian Wall – DB&B of Brevard (6A)
CUP#972/972-3A, Dwain Zagrocki (6B)
CUP#985-5, R.J. Eichelberger/W. Glenn Tyre Trustee (6C)
CUP#86/12/5-3, Sunshine Peat Co. (6D)
CUP#960-2, W. Spicer/K. Boykin (6E)
REGULAR REZONING AGENDA
REZONING CASE NO. CUP#09/10-2-2 and cup#89-10/1-3A – john arnold
Mr. Rick Hartenstein, Senior Planner, stated that he would be presenting Rezoning Case No. CUP #09/10/2-2 and CUP#89/10/1-3A, that the applicant is Ned Biggs, and that the owner is John Arnold, Jr. of Showcase of Citrus, Inc. He explained that these CUP’s are located south of the Clermont area with one on the east side of US Hwy 27 near Frank Jarrell Road and the other on the west side of US Hwy 27 near North Boggy Marsh Road. He specified that the future land use for CUP #09/10/2-2 is Urban Expansion and Rural, and the future land use for CUP#89/10/1-3A is Rural Conservation and is in the Green Swamp. He added that zoning for the CUP on the east side of Hwy 27 is Agriculture and R-4, and the zoning on the west side is Agriculture. He also mentioned that the land areas for the east side are approximately 1980 acres, and the land area on the west side of 27 is approximately 120 areas. He reported that the request was to repeal and replace CUP #08/10/1-2 to comply with the settlement agreement between John Arnold (Showcase of Citrus) and Tradd’s Landing Home Owners’ Association that was dated February 19, 2010 and to combine all six of the conditional use permits for both of these properties under two CUP’s. He pointed out on the map shown on the monitor the areas that the CUP’s encompass as well as the location of those areas in relation to US Hwy 27.
Mr. Hartenstein specified that the CUP for the east side of Hwy 27 is to allow citrus groves, hay production, a citrus museum, citrus sales center, Eco Tours, gift shop, ten recreational vehicle spaces for employees and security, a residual management facility producing “Class AA fertilizer” and “Reclaimed Irrigation Water,” and a domestic wastewater residual land application in certain areas on the property. He explained that the CUP on the west side was an existing CUP that was done in 1989, and the amendment was only to take any reference to the lands on the east side of Hwy 27 out of that CUP so that it actually would be established for this particular use in that area with no change of uses and no change in intensity. He noted that by amending this, it would still be a permitted non-conforming use. He pointed out that one small change would be requested in the settlement agreement as part of the ordinance, which was a proposed amendment in that agreement which stated that they would rezone the 40 acres of property from agriculture back to R-4, since it was not capable of meeting the density points for the R-4, so they are going back to propose a lower density that they would be capable of meeting. He commented that these CUP’s would not interfere with the development of neighboring property and that there were significant buffering setbacks that are incorporated into the attached ordinance to mitigate any interference to development. He noted that there had been no changes in the west CUP and that it was the same boundary that has been there since 1989 with the uses that have been approved, and they were only making it stand alone under this legal description so that there was no confusion when Code Enforcement does any inspections. He stated that staff has reviewed the application for the proposed conditional use permits and found them to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and recommends approval of CUP #09/10/2-2 and CUP#89/10/1-3A as conditioned in each ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Ondis, who owns the property next to the Arnolds, pointed out that in 1991, two years after the CUP was granted, the Green Swamp Protection Act was enacted which would have precluded the Arnolds from receiving the permit if it had been enacted at that time. He stated that recently the Environmental Protection Agency noted in 2010 that the residuals were stored less than 100 feet from standing water and as close as 25 feet away from wetlands. He mentioned that since he has owned the property in 2005, they have put human waste residuals right beside his property, which he felt was contaminating the wetlands. Another concern he expressed was that the gate to this property would be opened up to the public with a right of way that would go through from South Boggy Creek to North Boggy Creek Road and that the waste was stored right beside the road. He commented that the sludge used on the property smelled like a large septic system, and he was concerned that these problems would lower the value of his property. He requested that the Board at least deny the application for the property located on the west side of Hwy 27.
Commr. Renick noted that the operation on the property has taken place since 1989 and that this was an approved use for agricultural lands.
Ms. Georgette Hudson, owner of five acres of property on Boggy Marsh Road for over 20 years, stated that although the applicants use the sludge, her main concern was the opening of the road, because many vehicles travel recklessly about 50 to 60 miles per hour down that clay road. She commented that the applicants have been good neighbors and spread the sludge quickly.
Commr. Cadwell pointed out that the rezoning would not affect whether that road would be open or not, and that was a separate issue.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Rezoning Case CUP#09/10-2-2, John Arnold, Jr., Trustee/John E. “Ned” Biggs, IV, and Ordinance No. 2010-22, to repeal and replace CUP #08/10/1-2 to comply with the Settlement Agreement between John Arnold (aka Showcase of Citrus), Tradd’s Landing HOA and Lake County dated February 19, 2010, and allow the following uses: citrus groves, hay production, a citrus museum, citrus sales center, Eco Tours, gift shop, ten recreational vehicle spaces for employees and security, a residual management facility producing “Class AA fertilizer” and “Reclaimed Irrigation Water,” and a domestic wastewater residual land application in certain areas on the property.
On a motion by Commr. Renick, seconded by Commr. Stewart and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board approved Rezoning Case CUP#89-10/1-3, John Arnold, Jr., Trustee/John E. “Ned” Biggs, IV, and Ordinance No. 2010-23, to repeal and replace CUP #08/10/1-2 to comply with the Settlement Agreement between John Arnold (aka Showcase of Citrus), Tradd’s Landing HOA and Lake County dated February 19, 2010 and to amend existing CUP by removing all reference to uses on land east of US Hwy 27 and amending the legal description as such, with no changes to the permitted use conditions.
rezoning case no. ph6-10-5 – harbor hills development lp
Mr. Hartenstein explained that Rezoning Case No. PH#6-10-5 was a staff-initiated rezoning request to amend the Harbor Hills PUD (Planned Unit Development), which was brought through from Public Works to the Planning Department. He related that the owners of the development are Harbor Hills Development LP located in the Lady Lake area north of Griffin View Drive and south of Lake Griffin Road and that the property was approximately 866 acres. He specified that the future land use is Suburban, and the property would retain its existing zoning of PUD. He pointed out the conceptual plan that goes with the ordinance, showing in red the boundaries of the PUD and how it has already been developed. He stated that this County-initiated amendment is combining three PUD ordinances under one PUD to make it more manageable and resulting in less confusion. He noted that the ordinance will also be removing certain transportation improvement requirements that are related to external roads that have been completed or deemed unnecessary and would be correcting scrivener’s errors contained in the boundary legal description for the PUD. He pointed out that the amendment proposes no change to the previously approved densities, permitted uses, setbacks, or open space requirements for this development. He stated that staff has reviewed the application for the proposed amendments, found them to be consistent with the Comp Plan and the LDR’s, and recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions set forth in the proposed ordinance. He related that the Zoning Board recommended 6-0 for approval with the conditions that they wanted some additional information brought before the Board justifying why they were coming forward with this and some questions about the obligation with the PUD that needed to be cleared up. He noted that they received a letter of support from the Harbor Hills Homeowners Association and a letter of opposition from the Property Owners of Harbor Hills, Inc., which was a not-for-profit association that represented 236 households within the Harbor Hills community. He also added that there were a total of nine e-mails that were forwarded to the Commissioners for their review, one against the project, which discussed additional traffic counts and why they did not feel that this should be approved; one in support; two offering suggestions for a stop sign at the southern entrance of Harbor Hills just to the east of the entrance on Griffin View Drive and Thrill Hill Road; and seven which expressed concerns with the intersection at the southern entrance.
Mr. Jim Stivender, Public Works Director, discussed the external road improvement requirements that were requested in the ordinance. He clarified that they were adding back in improvements that were not in the original PUD that have been done and were completed on or before 1994. He showed an illustration of the road network in that area from the late 1980’s referencing Hwy 441, Hwy 25, and Hwy 466, which they had just widened and resurfaced, as well as Eagles Nest and Lake Unity Road, which were 24-foot pavement. He pointed out the location of Harbor Hills on the map, and he noted that the Villages and other retail businesses did not exist at that time, since everything south of US Hwy 27/441 was a vacant field. He stated that the original request by staff to the Board was to widen and resurface Griffin View from Hwy 27 to the south entrance, but during rezoning they realized that they were required to make improvements to the entrance. The County proceeded with acquiring right of way, but ran into opposition from the residents, which made that difficult. Meanwhile, the subdivision was doing their final design work and wanted the improvements on the north road. He noted that some challenges that the County encountered were that there were two hills on the south road and the north had two 90-degree turns. He pointed out that this was the only DRI that they had on the county road, since most of them were along US Hwy 227/441. He related that during the first phase of construction the developer cut the hill down and made it much safer, and they required the developer to make improvements at the entrance to redirect the traffic into the subdivision rather than bypassing it. There was an agreement made with the Board stating that the County would use impact fees if Harbor Hills Development contributed $200,000, with the actual construction cost being $814,000 to put turn lanes in, widen the road to 24 feet, and realign the road in the early 1990’s. He summarized that some of the improvements originally in the PUD were shifted to other locations which they felt were needed the most for the safety at those intersections.
Mr. Stivender explained that Part 2 is the current condition of the road in that area, and he described the traffic counts in that area and noted that there were about 1,000 cars at the entrance of Harbor Hills, which drops off because of other properties out there down to a low volume of about 100-200 vehicles per day. He commented that there was not a need to widen these roads. He specified that their data shows that there have been no accidents at the Harbor Hills south entrance, but there have been 30 accidents and one fatality over the last eight years at the Grays Airport entrance west of there, which would have been a lot worse if they had not made the improvements, including cutting the hill down. He stated there were 16 accidents at the Griffin Grays Airport over that time period, and the north entrance has only been the scene of one accident. He summarized that the improvements on network roads leading to Harbor Hills are more critical than actually at Harbor Hills itself. He reported that they looked at the intersection and added an advisory speed, but their recommendation was to add a flashing light to the intersection of Griffin View Drive and Harbor Hills Blvd., and they would reassess the situation in a year and come back when they do their annual traffic counts around the County and their evaluation of all the traffic concerns.
Commr. Stewart wanted to clarify whether the developer did meet his obligations, but just at different points than were originally planned.
Mr. Stivender responded that they were trying to put the money from the developer into the right locations to make improvements which were agreeable to both the County and the developer.
Ms. Melanie Marsh, Acting County Attorney, clarified for the record that the historic map they were first discussing was labeled as Map 1, the second map that showed improvements made as part of the developer’s agreement is Map 2, and the third map shows the current traffic counts.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peder Hong, a resident of Lady Lake, commented that he did not feel that what was just discussed by staff adequately covered the safety considerations which were emphasized by the Zoning Board, and he did not believe that a flashing light by itself would meet the criteria that the Zoning Board referred to. He noted that a study was done that shows that the south gate has more traffic than the north gate, which was in contradiction to the amendment proposal which indicated that the north gate was where all the traffic was located. He requested that the Board follow the Zoning Board’s recommendations.
Mr. Lou Jones, a retired FBI agent, commented that there was a safety factor that was a problem there, and he did not think a flashing light would slow traffic down. He suggested that the County put a three-way stop sign at that intersection to slow traffic down as well as a right turn lane coming out of Harbor Hills. He stated that there were school children that were being picked up and dropped off there.
Mr. Larry Bell, a resident of Harbor Hills, stated that this was a very dangerous intersection, and he was concerned that the emergency vehicles went through Harbor Hills Blvd. to get to the south gate as a shortcut, since it was a shorter distance.
Mr. Bob Best, a resident of Harbor Hills, stated that he attended the meeting before the Zoning Board and heard their recommendation that there should be a legal opinion from a lawyer as to whether a legal proceeding was used to amend the original ordinances. He also stated that the Zoning Board requested a traffic study, which showed that the same amount of people used the front gate as the back gate. He pointed out that when the plat plans were first initiated 20 years ago, the engineers and the County thought that the hill should be reduced by 15 feet to reduce the blind spot that existed, but currently vehicles heading up the hill could not see anyone coming out of the entrance, including school buses which stop there to let children off and on to cross the road. He opined that it was a very dangerous road and might lead to a lawsuit against the County in the future, which would end up costing the County more in the long run. He was concerned that if this rezoning case was approved, all the necessary safety improvements to this area would not be done. He requested that the County put this on the list of engineering studies to decide what should be done with Thrill Hill to improve safety there.
Ms. Marie Louise Stribling, a resident of Harbor Hills, stated that traffic could not see the vehicles coming out of Harbor Hills, and that situation needed to be changed.
Ms. Guadalupe Robles, a resident who owns four acres on Thrill Hill Road, agreed with the safety issues brought up by the previous residents who spoke and felt that safety was the most important factor. She asked the Board to decide what would be best for their children and would result in fewer accidents.
Mr. Leslie Ridge, a resident of Harbor Hills, stated that he had a close call and almost got into an accident on Thrill Hill Road recently. He pointed out that the guard shack was built about 12 feet lower than the highway, because the builder originally agreed to lower that road, and it was expected to be level with the road. He recommended that the Board do something such as put in stop signs or lower the road to avoid a fatality from happening there.
Ms. Ellen Wilcox, a resident of Harbor Hills for 12 years, showed a Springstead Engineering drawing of Thrill Hill which was done in 1988 which illustrated how steep it was and the area that has been lowered. She stated that the hill at Grays Airport Road was lowered, but the other hill east of that was only lowered 3 ½ feet rather than the 10 to 15 feet that was anticipated, which she noted was confirmed at the Zoning Board hearing on April 7. She stated that the developer-controlled homeowners’ association by no means represents all 465 families who live there, and the alternative organization called the Property Owners of Harbor Hills, which was a voluntary organization, does represent almost 50 percent of those that are not represented by the developer. She reported that back in 1987 the projected traffic on that road was 658 vehicles, but it was currently 1440. She related that at the hearing on April 7, Mr. Stivender commented that perhaps it would be a good idea to close the south gate, but she noted that closing that back gate was not an option, because more than 50 percent of the traffic now goes in and out of that gate. She noted that she had presented at the April 7 hearing with the Zoning Board eleven e-mails testifying to near hits at that gate in addition to the ones referred to in the backup materials, and she had four more to submit. She referred to the comments about school children who were let out and picked up by the school bus there, and she pointed out that there were children let off at a location of a women’s shelter down the road a few feet as well. She mentioned the comments by the other residents noting that the emergency vehicles use it as a shortcut to get to the 100 or so residents that live to the east of the Harbor Hills gate. She implored the Board to represent the people that use the gate and live there and not the developer-controlled homeowners’ association. She also requested that the Board put in their outlay budget some improvements for that area. She suggested that the County employ eminent domain if the County was having difficulty obtaining right of way to widen the road and to build a left turn lane. She requested that the County implement the original plan and that the Zoning Board recommendations be met. She concluded by asking the Board to improve this area and keep safety considerations foremost in their minds, because the residents all believe that it was an accident waiting to happen.
There being no one else who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
recess and reassembly
The Chairman announced at 10:00 a.m. that there would be a ten-minute recess.
rezoning case no. ph6-10-5 (cont.)
Commr. Cadwell commented that he had agreed with staff on changes to the PUD, but he felt some very good points have been brought up at the meeting and that there was some more work to be done. He recommended that they approve the PUD today and hire an independent engineering firm to do a safety study on the intersection as part of the motion, bring those recommendations back to the Board, and make a decision on placing them into their plan.
Commr. Renick commented that she was uncomfortable with going ahead and approving the PUD with the understanding that they would do those things afterward, and she believed that they should postpone the approval of the PUD and in good faith do the engineering study and make the improvements.
On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0, the Board moved to postpone this case until the July BCC Meeting on July 27, 2010 in order to do an engineering study and to meet in a public process to discuss those recommendations; and also directed staff to hire an independent engineering firm to bring back recommendations and an implementation plan.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER RENICK – DISTRICT 2
comments regarding zoning cases
Commr. Renick commented that she thought that whenever the Board approved a conditional use permit, they needed to know if there were any code enforcement issues before the Zoning case was heard.
She also related that Commr. Boyd from Orange County discussed with her the issue of different grove owners having serious concerns about greening and canker as horses from the property of the stables that had been approved on the border of Orange and Lake Counties were riding through that area, and she wanted to emphasize the County should make sure that Code Enforcement very strictly follows the requirements of the CUP’s that the Board has approved.
Mr. Minkoff commented that Code Enforcement was aware of and investigating that situation, since it was a violation of the CUP.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER CONNER – DISTRICT 3
resolution recognizing leed certification
Commr. Conner stated that the Honda dealership that opened in Clermont was the first platinum LEED certified building in the state and second in the nation, and he asked the Board if they could present a resolution recognizing that business for that accomplishment.
There was consensus to have staff bring that resolution back to the Board.
REPORTS – COMMISSIONER STEWART – DISTRICT 4
winner of 2010 option 4 photo journalism competition
Commr. Stewart congratulated South Lake High School and Alyssa Kosiorek for winning the 2010 Option 4 Photo Journalism Competition. She mentioned that Ms. Kosiorek was a twelfth-grade student of Ms. Belinda Russo, a visual arts teacher at South Lake High School, and her entry was entitled “Life Entangled Branches,” which recounts the lifecycle of a tree and its relationship to people from the tree’s perspective. She added that they have also received some noteworthy entries from East Ridge and Tavares High Schools.
welcome to the woods festival
Commr. Stewart announced that the “Welcome to the Woods” event at Seminole Forest Wildlife Management Area would be held Saturday, May 1, at the Seminole Forest Wildlife Management Area, located just off SR 46 west of the Wekiva River. She mentioned that the activities that would take place at the festival include a hayride to Blackwater Creek, learning to fish at Bear Bond, shooting a bow and arrow, canoeing, and a hike along the National Florida Scenic Trail. The noted that space was limited, and people could register at 352-732-1225.
budget workshop
Mr. Minkoff informed the Board that they had delivered to them some information that they had requested as well as some additional information, and he mentioned that the Clerk’s Office and the Budget Department were very helpful in preparing it. He explained that the first chart showed a listing of employees in budgeted positions for all of the Lake County government offices for the last ten years, which was an illustrative way to look at the growth of government in general. He pointed out that the current number of filled positions for the Board of County Commissioners was actually 799, which was a significant decrease from the 2009 budget, and that 190 of those are in the Fire Department. He stated that they also provided the Board a breakout of the Fire Rescue positions from the rest of County government to show the significant amount of growth in that area from 2000 to 2009. Additionally, they provided the general fund revenues and expenditures for the last ten years which came directly from the CAFR and were actual expenditures, but he noted that this data gets skewed when trying to figure out total revenues or expenditures for a specific one-year period, since revenues could come in at one time and be expended over a two or three-year period. They also handed out a Schedule VI and a Schedule VII which were similar to the previous schedules that were handed out, with one showing what would occur if they used only $5 million of operating expenses and the other showing a 15 percent carryover at the end of the third year as opposed to 10 percent.
Mr. Minkoff related that the statute and the County code require that the County Manager provide the Board with a balanced budget on or before July 15, and he stated that the intent of this exercise was not for the Board to make any final decisions but just to give him guidance. He suggested that he act on the budget with the understanding that they maintain a minimum of 22 percent reserve in the general fund at the end of the year 2010-11 as shown in the last example in Schedule V, which also called for an additional almost $5 million in cuts over Tier 2 reductions. He mentioned that he currently has a good idea of what the state legislature would pass, and on June 1 they would get the unofficial estimate from the Property Appraiser as to the values as well as the constitutional officers’ budgets. He commented that if the Board was comfortable with ending up with 22 percent at the end of the year and with the assumption that they would be getting some reductions on the transfers to the constitutional officers, then he thought they could bring the Board a balanced budget that they would be satisfied with.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he now had the information he needed to discuss the budget with the Sheriff and the Clerk and a better idea of what percentage reduction to ask them to make.
Commr. Conner inquired how much money they would be pulling out of reserves under this scenario to balance the budget for next fiscal year.
Mr. Minkoff stated that their goal would be to stay with the $5 million figure that the Board has been discussing.
Commr. Conner commented that he would support using $5 million from reserves. He asked if this scenario shows any reductions for next year.
Mr. Minkoff answered that it was possible that it would show either small cuts or no cuts next year, and he commented that he was trying to accommodate all the needs of the County and stay within the parameter of the 22 percent.
Commr. Conner commented that he was anticipating that the Board would be changing their policy to require a 15 percent reserve, and he opined that revenues would continue to go down. He thought that the Board would be forced to make very tough cuts in the future, and he believed that the sooner the Board made those cuts, the more fiscally sound they would be.
Mr. Minkoff noted that he was seeing encouraging trends in revenue, and he assured the Board that when he brought them the budget, he would also bring them what the anticipated impacts would be in the 2012-13 year. He also commented that all the constitutional officers were aware of the issues, and he thought that they were all working to try to resolve the issues for them.
The Board gave consensus for Mr. Minkoff to move forward with his assumptions while working on the budget.
money put in reserves for supervisor of elections
Commr. Hill pointed out that Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, has reduced her budget by $30,000, and she wanted to place that money in reserves for Ms. Stegall’s office in case it was needed in the upcoming election year. There was consensus to do that.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
__________________________________
WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________
NEIL KELLY, CLERK