City Commission Workshop Meeting

APPROVED: 3/5/2015 City Hall City of Eustis, Florida 10 North Grove Street Post Office Drawer 68 Eustis, FL 32727-0068 Meeting Minutes - Final* City Commission Workshop Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:30PM City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Eckian- 7:08p.m. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QUORUM AND PROPER NOTICE I. Workshop Item 15039 Review of Road and Street Light Conditions and Funding Alternatives Dianne Kramer, Acting City Manager, reviewed the 2012 Pavement Management Study which evaluated all of the City's roads and provided a numerical index rating for each of the roads. She explained the rating system which indicated the condition of each road and presented a map showing the location of the roads needing either structural improvement or base rehabilitation. She provided an update of the estimated costs for all of the recommended works with a total of $9,834,400 plus another $1,900,000 for preventative maintenance. She noted that the cost estimate for Kurt Street is only for the minimum that needs to be done. She reported on discussions she has had with Lake County concerning Kurt Street. She stated that $75,000 has been currently budgeted to do a conceptual study for improvements to Lakeview Avenue. It was explained for the audience that the estimate for Kurt Street of $793, 700 is only to do a repave of the existing two lanes but that the road actually needs to be rebuilt at a cost of approximately $10,000,000 which would bring the total road improvement costs to $22,000,000. Ms. Kramer commented on the problem with mutual ownership of Kurt Street and the County's intent for the City to assume long-term responsibility for maintenance of the street. She then reviewed the current roadway funding from Sales Tax revenues and provided the following funding scenarios: 1) No change to funding sources - current average pavement condition (PC/) will decline with a current average of 73 or Fair; 2) Increase annual allocation - will just maintain current average PC/; or 3) Fund major rebuilding projects - current level of funding could then maintain the PC/. Ms. Kramer then reported on the possible funding sources as follows: 1) Local option gas tax- additiona/5 cents- if approved by the County estimated annual revenue of $301,850; 2) Revenue Bonds- Estimated annual debt service of $67,000 per $1 million which would require the City to pledge a certain revenue source, dependent on renewal of penny sales tax and would require a majority vote of the Commission; or 3) General obligation bonds - Would require a majority vote of the Commission to place a referendum on the ballot to approve a voted debt millage. II. Commission Discussion The Commission discussed the various funding possibilities as follows: 1) the probability that the County Commission will not approve an additional five cents for the local option gas tax; 2) unwillingness to increase the millage rate in order to issues General Obligation Bonds; and 3) what the debt service would be for a $10 million revenue bond and are the funds available in the budget. It was also suggested to determine that, if the City maintains the current millage rate, how much of an increase in property value would be required to fund the debt service. They also questioned that, if the penny sales tax is reapproved, how much of that could be set aside for roads. Ms. Kramer confirmed that the Commission wants to know how much can the City afford and what can be done with that level of funding. She stated staff is working on the budget preparation calendar and a discussion will be needed regarding priorities for the next budget year. City of Eustis, Florida Page 1 Printed on 212712015 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final February 19, 2015 Ms. Kramer then reported on the City's current expenditures for street lighting noting Resolution No. 85-15 which set criteria for the placement and expansion of street lighting. She reported on the methods and costs for improvements including the following: 1) increasing the number of fixtures and expanding service to other roadways, 2) increasing the intensity of the existing fixtures with a lower capital cost but increased operating cost; and 3) changing the heads to LED. She revie wed the following additional options: 1) Residential subdivisions - a lighting district could be formed and those residents would be assessed for the cost of installation and operating costs; 2) Individual property owners can lease directly from Duke Energy with an installation cost of approximately $250 and a monthly usage fee of $9 per month or $20 for a decorative fixture; and 3) Installation of solar fixtures at an estimated cost of $4,000 for a new pole and fixture but a limited operating cost. Ms. Kramer also reported on the possibility of establishing a street light assessment with a monthly charge to residents and businesses to cover the cost of existing street lights and expansion to other well-traveled public roadways. She estimated the monthly fee at $2 per month and explained that it would initially require a professional assessment analysis. The Commission discussed the following: 1) multiple homeowners sharing in the cost of installing a streetlight; 2) the amount of light provided by and the cost and life expectancy of solar fixtures; 3) use of flood lights with motion sensors by individual homeowners; 4) the need to ensure that existing street lights are kept operational; and 5) the need to address the darkest areas first with Ms. Kramer noting that the City needs to primarily address areas that are publicly traveled with residential only areas to be addressed by the area 's homeowners. The Commission discussed the possibility of revising the street light resolution to provide more flexible criteria for the installation of lighting. It was also suggested that the City research the cost for purchasing a large number of motion-activated flood lights which could be offered to the public at a lower price than what they could purchase individually. The Commission cited the need to discuss the issue further during the budget workshops and the need to first revise the lighting resolution . III. Public Input Kress Muenzmay, 33121ndian Trail, commented on difficulties with motion-activated lights, prioritizing needs, the need for the penny sales tax referendum to be passed and the high cost for installing solar lights and the cost of batteries versus the cost of normal street lights. IV. Commission Direction The Commission further discussed the various issues concerning street lights with Derek Schroth, City Attorney, indicating that, if the Commission was interested in the street light assessment fee, he would have to conduct some research on what would be required to legally implement such a fee . CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission to discuss the issue further during the budget process with Ms. Kramer confirming that she would have a budget preparation schedule for review by the second meeting in March. V. Adjournment- 8:07 p.m. ALBERT G. ECKJAN City Clerk Mayor/Commissioner *These minutes refl ect the actions taken and portions of the discussion during the meeting. To review the entire di scussion concerning any agenda item, go to www.eustis.org and click on the video for the meeting in question . A DVD of the entire meeting or CD of the entire audio recording or verbatim transcript of the meeting can be obtained from the office of the City Clerk for a fee . City of Eustis, Florida Page2 Printed on 2127/2015