BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
March 27, 2018
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Chairman John Horan (District 2)
Vice Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk of Court & Comptroller Grant Maloy
County Manager Nicole Guillet
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer
Chairman Horan gave the Invocation and also a brief remembrance of Edward Hoffer, an inspector in the Building Department who passed away. Mrs. Jill Hoffer, Ed’s wife, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Business Spotlight video for FarmDaddy was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – 2018-0619
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt a Proclamation declaring March 2018 as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ernest Hamilton, Executive Director of Kids House, along with his Kids House team (child protection team, the child advocates, the mental health department, and the medical department) accepted the Proclamation. Mr. Hamilton expressed his appreciation and noted they have been doing this work for almost 20 years. He recognized the Associate Executive Director, Juliette Kong, and advised she has been with Kids House almost from the beginning. Mr. Hamilton emphasized Kids House could not be who they are if it wasn’t for the support that they receive from the Commissioners and the work they have done.
Mr. Hamilton announced several events in April to recognize child abuse prevention. The Light of Hope will be held on April 6 at the Sheriff’s Office Training Facility, and it will be a manicure event. The Kids House Gala will be on April 7, which is their signature event. On April 8, they will be participating in the Light of Hope Ceremony, which will be held at Cranes Roost. At Commissioner Dallari’s request, Mr. Hamilton described the manicure event, where men have one fingernail painted blue, and noted that it is a way for men to show that they too are protectors and are here to stand for child abuse protection as well. Mr. Hamilton introduced Denise Conus and Jordan, a facility dog, and noted that Jordan has been with Kids House for over a year and a half now. Ms. Conus explained that Jordan was specially bred and trained by K-9 Companions for Independence as an assistance dog. Because of her ability to connect with people and to comfort people, she was given to Kids House to work with all of the kids that are coming through the programs. She then talked about the huge difference Jordan makes for the children and for them to be able to start their healing.
At Commissioner Dallari’s request, Mr. Hamilton stated if someone wants to get involved with Kids House, they can visit the Kids House website at www.kidshouse.org or call them at 407-324-3036 and speak to someone at the front desk. He discussed some of the many volunteer opportunities at Kids House. Chairman Horan gave a brief description of Kids House and then talked about Seminole County’s Juvenile Justice System.
Agenda Item #2A – 2018-0648
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-41 honoring the contributions of Dr. John C. Hitt, University of Central Florida President.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Constantine shared some of the University of Central Florida’s accomplishments during Dr. Hitt’s tenure with the audience. Chairman Horan announced they will be presenting the formal resolution to Dr. Hitt at two different events.
Agenda Item #2 – 2018-0638
Charlie Wetzel, County Traffic Engineer, addressed the Board and presented the Seminole County Traffic Calming Program update (copy in Agenda Memorandum). Mr. Wetzel gave a brief introduction as to what traffic calming is and how it can be effective. He then reviewed the County’s history of traffic calming and talked about 1991 (when the BCC approved a road hump program), 2002 (project on Kewanee Trail and Derbyshire Road), 2005 (traffic calming program), and 2007 (when the traffic calming program was eliminated due to budget cuts). The “Where are we Today” slide was reviewed.
Mr. Wetzel discussed Speed Humps, Speed Tables, and Speed Cushions. He reviewed the “Discussion/Criteria” slide and talked about the need to establish criteria for minimum/maximum roadway volume and speed. With regard to Homeowner approval, Mr. Wetzel stated that with their old program, they typically sent out surveys to make sure they had at least 65% of the residents on the street that approved of the devices going in before a project was created. He wondered if they want to consider other owners’ impacted by the devices. Mr. Wetzel continued to review the bullet points on the second criteria slide. Project Ranking was discussed.
Mr. Wetzel advised they don’t have any funding right now. He stated they did use County money before; so they will need to decide if they want to go with County funds or create an MSBU for each project. With regard to any roadway that currently has humps on it, Mr. Wetzel indicated that when they repave it, they put them back; they don’t ask the residents whether they want them back or not. The Traffic Calming Program Flowchart was displayed and discussed. Mr. Wetzel noted they have learned from sending out the ballots or questionnaires whether or not the residents want it or not, that some people do and some people don’t. Some people may be in favor of a speed hump until it goes in front of their house, and then they don’t want the program. He indicated that it is a challenging program.
Commissioner Dallari thanked staff for bringing this back. When he first spoke about this matter to the Board, he was talking about some existing conditions. They have some conditions in some existing neighborhoods where there are some speed tables; and with those speed tables, it is pushing cut‑through traffic onto neighboring roads that don't have speed tables. He believes going from speed tables to speed cushions is the right way to do it and that it actually addresses the fire trucks and ambulances. Commissioner Dallari stated he believes they should be focusing on existing conditions, and he would like see the County do a pilot program in two or three locations to see how this actually works. He reiterated that he believes this is something that the Board should be looking at; but more importantly, they should be looking at existing areas where the existing speed tables are pushing the traffic onto other roads that don't have them.
Commissioner Carey stated that traffic is like water, and it always finds the path of least resistance. She stated she is not a fan of traffic humps or tables. She has heard a lot about communities where they put them right through the main thoroughfare of a neighborhood, and they are not on the side streets. As soon as someone gets through the first one, they go around to the side streets to miss the rest of them and then work their way back out. She personally thinks it should be a community decision and not just one group that lives on a street. Commissioner Carey talked about why she thinks it should be an MSBU. She agreed that speed cushions are probably a better option and added that she would also like to hear back from law enforcement as to how they feel about them.
Commissioner Carey advised that if the County is repaving a road, she believes they should go through the process of inquiring of the whole neighborhood whether or not they want to see the speed humps continued. The Commissioner pointed out that in the neighborhoods, it is usually the neighbors that are speeding. She talked about asking the Sheriff to go to the neighborhoods and do a little law enforcement because it does not take long for the neighbors to get the message that they are going to get ticketed if they are speeding. The Commissioner mentioned the mobile signs that the Sheriff’s Office has that track the speed limit and make people aware that they are speeding in their own neighborhoods. Commissioner Carey stated if they have a request, her recommendation would be to look at it as an MSBU, a community-wide choice. She believes they should look at just speed cushions and not speed humps or other things.
Commissioner Dallari stated that before they actually set something as a policy, they should be doing a pilot program to see what works and what doesn't work so that they understand what the pros and cons are in real life conditions before they start doing MSBU's. Commissioner Carey asked whether they have any requests for speed humps in a neighborhood that would like to be a pilot. Commissioner Dallari advised there is one in Chuluota because he gets phone calls on a regular basis. Commissioner Carey asked whether they can do a pilot as an MSBU and see if they are interested. Commissioner Dallari stated the problem with doing a pilot as an MSBU is that when the individuals invest their money, they are going to want the speed tables to stay there. Commissioner Carey suggested they put them in if they are willing to pay for them. Commissioner Dallari advised that he does not think they should do an MSBU first. Chairman Horan stated he thinks Commissioner Carey's point is the County would pay for the pilot program. Commissioner Dallari confirmed that the County would pay for the pilot program. Commissioner Carey emphasized that she does not think they should put them in any community unless the whole community that drive those roads have voted to put them in. Chairman Horan stated he thinks Commissioner Carey's point is if they do a pilot program, they should make sure it is in a neighborhood that is going to vote for an MSBU. The Chairman stated he is not familiar with the Chuluota situation and believes Commissioner Dallari would be more familiar with that.
Commissioner Henley stated that he has been here long enough to have been through some of these wars over speed humps and other types of devices, and it is a no‑win situation. He talked about how there are some that want it and some that don't. He does not know anywhere where it has solved the problem; it may have transferred the problem to some other area, but it has not solved it. Chairman Horan agreed that it is a limited solution to a very, very large problem. Seminole County is the third most densely populated county in the state. As they become more urbanized, they will have more congestion and traffic issues.
Chairman Horan suggested that if there is consent on the Board, they should direct staff to look into a pilot program. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to see a pilot program. Chairman Horan stated the direction would be that it would have to be in a neighborhood where there is a preliminary poll or vote or something like that indicating they want the pilot program so that if they decide to keep them there, they will pay for them with an MSBU.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that one of the things in the presentation was the Osceola statement saying this would be solely the traffic engineer's decision. She stated she would not support that. She thinks they need to be on a case‑by‑case basis, and it needs to go to a higher level. She believes the district commissioners need to be notified before any decision is made because they are the ones that get the calls after they put these in, especially if they are not doing a community‑wide meeting in advance to have the community vote as to whether they really want this or not. She wants the County to be cautious about what they are doing and does not want to do it without full support of the majority of a community under a pilot or anything else. Commissioner Dallari stated he does not believe that would be the issue. Chairman Horan stated he thinks it is a given that whatever they do with a traffic calming device, it should be imposed with restraint, just like they impose everything with restraint; taxes, fees, and everything else like that.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like, with whatever method they decide to try, to identify clearly upfront what problem they are trying to solve and how to identify success because if they can't do that, then they are wasting their time. The Chairman asked Mr. Wetzel if there is a way in the huge database he keeps of all of the traffic stuff that he could identify some metrics for a successful pilot program. Mr. Wetzel responded he believes it would be just the before-and-after study. If speeding is a problem on a particular roadway, they do a before and then an after to see whether the cushions really reduce speed. They can also obviously get input from citizens and residents and get a feel for whether the traffic has moved somewhere else and caused another problem. There are a few different things they can look at after the devices are put in.
With regard to a study, Commissioner Henley pointed out that they might go out there for one week and things look great and then two weeks later on, it is back to the same way. He thinks they need to look at all of those different types of things in order to determine whether it is successful before they start spending a lot of money of the very tight budget. Commissioner Carey talked about how she sees people, with the speed cushions, speed humps, and speed tables, pulling over to the further point so that they can get one wheel off and one wheel on. Now, there is oncoming traffic crossing the line to miss at least half of the speed hump.
Chairman Horan asked whether they have direction. No objections were voiced. Ms. Guillet stated it has been very good and helpful input. She will get with staff and put together some parameters for a pilot program and run it back by the Board just to make sure they are hitting all of the Board's points. She stated they will also provide some cost analysis so the Commissioners understand what a pilot program might cost and can make some decisions about how they want to fund that as well. Commissioner Constantine clarified that it is speed cushions and not speed humps. Chairman Horan stated he believes they are all agreed that cushions are the only option they really want. Ms. Guillet added that staff will share with the Board any feedback that they get from the Public Safety folks as well.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Nicole Guillet, County Manager, announced there are no changes to the Consent Agenda or anything else remaining on the morning agenda; however, with respect to the afternoon session, they have three items that they expect the Board to take action on continuances: Item #27, a request for the Celery Avenue Right-of-Way Vacate; Item #28, a request for the Starwood Drive Right-of-Way Vacate; and Item #32, a request for the Alta Seminole LSLUA and Rezone. Ms. Guillet advised they have a follow-up item, Item #32-A, that will be presented during the County Manager’s Report regarding the Board’s request for additional information concerning cash flow.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the Consent Agenda and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize and approve the following:
Community Development Division
3. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to Seminole County and Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corporation (ONIC) Home Program Community Housing Development Organization Agreement to amend bonding and insurance requirements for subcontractors performing work under the agreement. (2018-0551)
4. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report for the month of February, 2018, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61. (2018-0625)
5. Approve the certified costs incurred in the amount of $11,946.86, to abate the unoccupied structures located at 6625 S. U.S. HWY 17-92, Fern Park, Record Property Owner/Best Way Inv Inc., as specified in Section 168.8 (a); impose the certified costs incurred in the amount of $11,946.86 as a lien against the property (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Imposing Lien for Cost of Public Nuisance Abatement); and authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien upon payment in full. (2018-0570)
Planning and Development Division
6. Approve the plat for the Hickman Commercial Lot 2, Tract A, and a portion of Lot 1 Replat, containing two lots and two tracts on 2.87 acres zoned C-2 (Retail Commercial), located on the northeast corner of Hickman Drive and West State Road 46; Paramand Investment Group, Applicant. (2018-0594)
7. Approve the plat for the Windsor Square subdivision containing 66 lots on 8.28 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the south side of N. Ronald Reagan Boulevard, east of E. County Home Road; Park Square Enterprises, Applicant. (2018-0575)
8. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-42 vacating and abandoning an exclusive easement to the benefit of Seminole County for drainage purposes, as recorded in the Public Record of Seminole County, Book 637, page 369, and Book 809, page 345, and subsequently conveyed to Seminole County via Right-of-Way Map in accordance with Section 337.29, Florida Statutes, for property located on the south side of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, approximately 600 feet east of County Home Road; William H. Schaubb, Applicant; Evergreen Property PD. (2018-0595)
9. Authorize Release of Right-of-Way Surety Bond (Public Maintenance Bond) #5214709 in the amount of $1,666 for Spring Tree Village Apartments II, LLC; Joseph Savino, Applicant. (2018-0598)
10. Approve the plat for the Acre Place subdivision containing two lots on 2.45 acres zoned A-1 (Agriculture), located at the west end of Acre Court, approximately 790 feet west of Markham Woods Road; Jitendrakumar Patel, Applicant. (2018-0612)
11. Approve the appointment of Paul Zimmerman, Utilities Engineering Senior Engineer, as the Alternative Member to the South Seminole North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority (SSNOCWTA) Board and continue the appointment of William (Johnny) Edwards, Utilities Engineering Manager, as the Representative; and authorize the County Manager to transmit a letter to Mr. Ed Gil de Rubio, Executive Director of the South Seminole North Orange County Wastewater Transmission Authority, advising him of the appointment. (2018-0637)
12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and City of Oviedo Relating to Administration of County’s Share of Funds under the One-Cent Local Government Infrastructure Surtax for Transportation Improvement Project Located within City for the State Road 434 and East Mitchell Hammock Road Turn Lanes Project in the amount of $1,900,000. (2018-0614)
Budget & Fiscal Management
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-43 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-037 through the Fire Protection Fund to appropriate budget of $104,343 from reserves for the Fire Planned Work Program. (2018-0622)
14. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Modification to Grant Agreement with the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management to extend the grant agreement to September 30, 2018, for the School Shelter Retrofit Projects. (2018-0617)
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-40 authorizing submittal of an application to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Boating Improvement Program requesting up to $200,000 in grant funds; and authorize the County Manager to execute any documents associated with the grant application. (2018-0618)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the following:
16. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Sixth Amendment to the Rolling Hills Contract for Sale and Purchase of Land. (2018-0639)
17. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Release and Satisfaction of a Restitution Judgment in the amount of $625, Sarah Jones, Case #12-2036-CFA, which was imposed in favor of Seminole County. (2018-0605)
18. Pulled for a separate vote.
19. Approve the proposed settlement and authorize the County Attorney’s Office to execute a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Final Judgment with property owners, Arthur J. Goebel and Compass Community Church, Incorporated, to settle an inverse condemnation case against Seminole County for $80,910.76 in full settlement, jointly and severally, of all claims for damages of any kind, including statutory interest, statutory and other attorney fees, expert fees and cost reimbursement. (2018-0636)
Under discussion with regard to Item #16, Commissioner Constantine talked about how disappointed he is that the developers, knowing what the County is going through in trying to work with the people that live in Rolling Hills, are requiring the County to pay a non-refundable amount of $10,000 a month. He stated this is nothing against the sale and nothing against the citizens of Rolling Hills, but he finds it objectionable that the developers would want non-refundable money to continue this contract when they should be working together with the County. Commissioner Carey advised that if the County moves forward with the closing, which it appears there is enough support from Rolling Hills to do, the County will get the money credited toward the purchase; it is only if they don’t perform. She does not want the public to think the County was making contributions that were not going to be credited at closing. Commissioner Dallari commended the residents of Rolling Hills, who having been going door to door over the last several weeks for the MSBU. He believes they are close to 70%.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda and public input was closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
County Attorney’s Consent Agenda Item #18 – 2018-0626
Chairman Horan pointed out that Item #18 is a Release and Satisfaction of Order Imposing Civil Restitution Lien for Incarceration Costs. Bryant Applegate, County Attorney, stated the total amount with interest was $1,795. The Applicant, Michael Burgess, asked that that be reduced to $1,500. Mr. Applegate’s Office told Mr. Burgess that they would recommend that but that it required the Board’s approval.
Michael Burgess, 193 Austin Street, addressed the Board and thanked the Board for allowing him to speak today. Mr. Burgess stated that he is asking that the Board reduce the fine. He stated he was told that the Board would not hear reducing the fine to the original cost by Mr. Shields; and that is why Mr. Shields put in $1,500, which is the amount that he currently has. Mr. Burgess stated he is asking the Board to reduce the fine to either $1,500 or the original $950 because he was incarcerated at the time Judge Sloop imposed this upon him. He was not present in his courtroom and had no chance to defend himself. Mr. Burgess stated the judge imposed the fine and he did not know about it. He has been trying for the past ten years to get this clarified. It has taken this long to get to this point. He reiterated that he was unaware of the fine. If he had been aware, he would have paid it. Mr. Burgess stated that according to the paperwork that he has, if he waits five more years, he does not have to pay anything; but he does not think that is quite right. He requested the Board help him out and let him pay the $950. If not, please allow him to pay the $1,500.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the County Attorney’s Consent Agenda Item #18 and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Form for Michael Burgess was received and filed.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that all of the backup referred to the amount of $1,500. The Commissioner confirmed with Mr. Applegate that the actual cost was $950 and the interest added on came to $1,500. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Applegate if they know whether Mr. Burgess has been notified regarding the $950. Mr. Applegate stated he received notice of today's item, but he could not speak to the last ten years. Mr. Burgess stated he put his request into the clemency board to get his rights restored, and that is how he found out about the fine; it took them ten years to find this. If he would have known about it at the time, he would have paid it. He stated he has no other court problems or fines against him.
Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Applegate whether they have any record that Mr. Burgess received notice about this. Mr. Applegate stated normally they handle these when they come in and ask for the release. Normally, they are paid in full. Mr. Applegate explained how the Applicant came in and asked whether they would accept $1,500 and was told that it is a Board decision, and that is why Mr. Burgess is before the Board. They made no effort to try and go back and see if there are notices because they thought the $1,500 was going to be fine. Commissioner Carey stated if the actual cost was $950 and Mr. Burgess never received any notice that the lien was there and he wasn't in court at the time, then he should pay the cost of the incarceration. He has paid his time and he is paying the cost of the incarceration; that is the reasonable thing to do.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Release and Satisfaction of Order Imposing Civil Restitution Lien for Incarceration Costs in the amount of $950, Case #03-1787-MMA, which was imposed in favor of Seminole County, upon Michael Burgess paying Seminole County the original sum of $950 within 30 days.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Clerk & Comptroller’s Office
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the following:
20. Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated February 26 and March 5, 2018; Payroll Approval List dated February 22, 2018. (2018-0634)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed”:
1. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0099-CO-EI re: petition for determination under Rule 256.115, F.A.C, and approval of associated revised tariff sheet 6.300, by Florida Power & Light Company, Docket #20170148-EI, issued February 22, 2018.
2. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0103-PCO-EI re: application for limited proceeding for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes Irma and Nate, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Docket #20170272-EI, issued February 26, 2018.
3. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0105-PCO-EI re: fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor, Docket #20180001-EI, issued February 26, 2018.
4. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0100-FOF-EI re: environmental cost recovery clause, Docket #20180007-EI, issued February 22, 2018.
5. Memo from William Carroll, the Division of Inspector General, Seminole Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, to the BCC re: the completed and enclosed Special Review Report #022318 of Rescue Outreach Mission of Central Florida, Inc.
6. Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #30007627 in the amount of $5,588.50 for the right-of-way known as Balmy Beach Drive Apopka; Taurus CD 186 Balmy Beach FL, LP.
7. Performance Bond (Roads, Streets, Drainage) #60121238 in the amount of $852,768.31, and Performance Bond (Water and Sewer Systems) #60121239 in the amount of $274,737.47 for the subdivision known as Clifton Park Phase 2 with Recording of Plat and the Title Opinion Letter; Beazer Homes, LLC.
8. Maintenance Bond (Water and Sewer Facilities) #9243012 in the amount of $4,437 for the subdivision known as Savannah Park Retail; ACS Construction, Inc.
9. Bill of Sale accepting the on-site and/or off-site water and sewer lines for the project known as Savannah Park.
10. Conditional Utility Agreement for water, wastewater or reclaimed water services with Santres LLC, for the project known as Westwood Village Outparcel – Kiddie Academy.
11. Information Sharing Access Agreement (ISAA) between the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA) Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) and Seminole County for FEMA-4337-DR and FICO-684.
12. Subrecipient Agreement with Virginia Miller Helping Others in Need Ministry, Inc. d/b/a Kidzkare Preschool and Childcare Center for Program Year 2017-2018; as approved by the BCC on September 26, 2017.
13. Subrecipient Agreement with The Seminole County Coalition for School Readiness, Inc. d/b/a Early Learning Coalition of Seminole for Program Year 2017-2018; as approved by the BCC on September 26, 2017.
14. Subrecipient Agreement with the St. Johns River Festival of the Arts, Inc. in Historic Sanford for Program Year 2017-2018; as approved by the BCC on September 26, 2017.
15. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Perfect Game Youth Florida, Inc. for the Florida Elite Invitational.
16. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. for the 2018 FHSAA Tennis State Championships.
17. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Florida Collegiate Summer League for the Florida League High School Invitational.
18. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with A-Game Travel Baseball, Inc. for the Boombah March Mayhem NIT.
19. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement with Florida Half Century Amateur Softball Association, Inc. for the March 50s Senior Softball Tournament.
20. Assistant Tennis Pro Agreement with Alejandro Enrique Vargas Arvedo.
21. Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreements with Eric Pedrosa Quinones, Corinne Ballard, and William House, III.
22. Parks Contracts for Services with Tweet Coleman.
23. Denial of Vesting Certificate for the project known as Orange Creek; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
24. Denial of Vesting Certificate for the project known as Retreat at Oregon; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
25. Developer’s Commitment Agreement #17-20500025; International Parkway Medical Center Phase 1; JPM AA Housing, LLC.
26. Approval Development Orders #17-30000109, 772 Brightview Drive, Abby Scherer; #17-30000117, 4660 Gilbert Street, Davis Voncile; #17-30000118, 7335 Fieldcrest Avenue, Barre & Jane Baggett; #17-30000119, 112 Long Leaf Lane, Amy James; #17-30000120, 410 East Citrus Street, Kent & Juanita Griffin; #17-30000121, 511 1st Avenue, Monique Bradley Evans; #17-30000123, 3544 Premier Drive, Joshua & Stephanie Fahlstrom; #17-30000124, 511 West Lake Brantley Road, Kelly Llaurado; #17-30000126, 6900 South Sylvan Lake Drive, Richard Vaughan; #17-30000127, 2852 Charmont Drive, Amber Musee; #17-30000128, 180 Lyman Road, Florida Natural Flavors, Inc.; and #17-32000013, North Ronald Reagan Boulevard Lot 33B, Seminole Baptist Association, Inc.
27. Development Order #18-27500013 for Alcoholic Beverage License, Wings-N-Fire, 5420 Deep Lake Road, Bridgewater Commons Investors, LLC.
28. Work Orders #7 and #8 to RFP-0532-15 with Connect Consulting, Inc.
29. Second Amendment to CC-0559-15 with Central Florida Environmental Corp, Inc.
30. Closeout to Work Order #15 to CC-0559-15 with Southland Construction, Inc.
31. Work Order #21 to CC-0559-15 with Central Florida Environmental Corp, Inc.
32. Change Order #3 to CC-1204-17 with Tyrell Enterprises, LLC.
33. Work Order #3 to PS-1320-17 with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp.
34. Change Orders #2 and #3 to CC-1331-17 with Glen Holt Aluminum LLC.
35. Work Order #2 to CC-1391-17 with Ryan Fitzgerald Construction, Inc.
36. Work Order #1 to PS-1405-17 with Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.
37. Change Order #1 to CC-1453-17 with Blackstreet Enterprises.
38. Eleventh Amendment to IFB-601656-13 with Bound Tree Medical, LLC.
39. Third Amendment to IFB-601802-13 with Cintas Corporation No. 2 d/b/a Cintas Fire Protection.
40. Sixth Amendment to IFB-602048-14 with Design Lab, Inc.
41. Second Amendment to IFB-602346-15 with Chinchor Electric, Inc.
42. Second Amendment to IFB-602346-15 with Traffic Control Devices, Inc.
43. First Amendment to IFB-602237-15 with Stericycle, Inc.
44. First Amendment to RFP-602341-15 with Trademark Metals Recycling, LLC.
45. First Amendment to IFB-602367-15 with Fisher Scientific Company, LLC.
46. Fourth Amendment to IFB-602588-16 with Cintas Corporation No. 2 d/b/a Cintas Fire Protection.
47. First Amendment to RFP-602659-16 with Baker & Taylor, LLC.
48. Term Contract BID-602917-17 with Clifton Tower Service, Inc.
49. Work Order #44 to PS-8186-13 with Reiss Engineering, Inc.
50. Work Order #45 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.
51. Work Order #5 to PS-9462-14 with Ayres Associates, Inc.
52. Work Order #27 to PS-9738-14 with Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
53. Bids as follows:
CC-1422-17 from Zabatt Engine Services, Inc. d/b/a Zabatt Power Systems; GenerX Generators, Inc.; Accurate Power and Technology, Inc. d/b/a A Generator Guy; Morrissette Electric, Inc.; Eau Gallie Electric;
BID-603071-18 from Global 7 Environmental, Health & Safety Corp.; RLKing Training, LLC; Wiland Associates, Inc.;
BID-603090-18 from Working Fire Furniture & Mattress Co., Inc.; Commercial Design Services; Interior Contract Services; W.B. Mason Co., Inc.;
RFP-603046-16 from Charles Aquatics, Inc.; and
PS-1802-18 from Metric Engineering, Inc.; Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; Kisinger Campo & Associates, Corp.
Agenda Item #21 – 2018-0640
Tamsin Bell, Economic Development & Community Relations, addressed the Board to present a request to consider approval of a Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement with Benada Aluminum Products, LLC, providing an incentive of $1,000 per job for a total of $35,000 to be split evenly with the City of Sanford for the creation of 35 jobs; and approval of an Interlocal Funding Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive of $17,500.
Ms. Bell gave a brief description of the JGI program and then presented the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She pointed out that the annual salary for these 35 newly created jobs will be $34,914, which is 80% of the County’s average annual wage of $44,552, which was the average annual wage requirement in January of 2018. The jobs will be vested for a period of two years before eligibility for payout and the incentive award includes a capital investment of $2.7 million for the extruder press and the reconstruction of the foundation for the property at 2540 Jewett Lane in Sanford. Ms. Bell advised that staff is recommending approval.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke regarding Item 21 and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve a Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) Funding Agreement between Benada Aluminum Products, LLC, and Seminole County providing an incentive of $1,000 per job for a total of $35,000 to be split evenly with the City of Sanford for the creation of 35 jobs; and approve an Interlocal Funding Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Sanford addressing the City’s contribution to the JGI incentive of $17,500.
Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine stated that he knows they have a work session coming up on April 24 to look at this whole economic incentive and the strategy. He knows they have two cities that are taking advantage of it. He thinks one city has a very strong strategy and he does not know exactly what strategy the other city has or doesn’t have. Commissioner Constantine stated that in this case, he is not in support. Of the ten points that he likes to look at, they are not looking for any other location and they do have direct competition with a company in Lake Mary.
Commissioner Constantine referred to the jobs being created and asked whether the average salary has to be exactly 80% or higher. Ms. Bell replied that according to the JGI, it is 80% for expanding and for new business in the county; yes. Commissioner Constantine advised that in looking at the numbers, it is 78.4%. The Commissioner asked whether they round up; and if so, he does not think they should be rounding up. A brief discussion ensued with regard to the math, and Commissioner Carey suggested they take a break to allow staff to check the math.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:48 a.m., reconvening it at 10:52 a.m.
Chairman Horan asked whether there is a resolution to this matter, and Ms. Bell replied that the Applicant has agreed to raise the wage to $35,914. Chairman Horan pointed out that will put it well within the 80%. Jim Piperato, President of Benada Aluminum Products, addressed the Board and advised that most people are going to make one and one-half times this because of the overtime they get with the new acquisition. Commissioner Carey stressed that it is an average and pointed out in looking at his application, Mr. Piperato has got jobs that are paying over $60,000 and over $37,000.
Commissioner Carey amended her motion to say that all of the jobs created will meet the 80% average. Chairman Horan added that amount is $35,914. Commissioner Dallari stated that he, as the seconder, agrees.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Horan briefly discussed the JGI program.
Agenda Item #22 – 2018-0600
Patt Hughes, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present a request to consider an appeal of the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the requested reduction of the Special Magistrate lien of $171,250 to $1,000 for Case #14-57-CESM on the property located at 131 Warblar Lane, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #15-21-30-503-0B00-0270; Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO James M. Stansberry IRA and Yanick R. Benschop, current owners/Appellants; Sandra Laborde, previous owner. Ms. Hughes presented the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum and reviewed the background time line.
Ms. Hughes advised that a Request for Reduction was received on October 23, 2017, from the current owners; and on November 8, 2017, the Deputy County Manager denied the request for reduction as the owners were aware of the lien when they purchased the property. On December 29, 2017, an appeal of the Deputy County Manager’s denial was received from the owners. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the Deputy County Manager’s denial. Ms. Hughes added that the current owners are claiming a financial hardship; however, they have not provided demonstrable evidence proving a financial hardship.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine as to the staff cost for this case, Ms. Hughes reported that the administrative costs were $574.23. Commissioner Carey referred to the application from Mr. Stansberry and pointed out that it states that Mr. Stansberry was aware of the $90,000 lien at the time that he purchased the property; Ms. Hughes replied that is correct. Commissioner Carey added that what Mr. Stansberry was not anticipating was the $82,000 worth of interest; Ms. Hughes replied that she believes so. Commissioner Dallari noted that he does not see anything in the packet that shows the financial hardship and asked Ms. Hughes if she has seen any documentation; Ms. Hughes indicated that she has not seen any.
James Stansberry, 400 18th Street, addressed the Board and explained that when he first found out about the property, he saw that the lien was already almost $100,000 and he knew about the problems with the property. He stated that he naively assumed that for the betterment of the neighborhood that if he fixed the property, the County would see fit to reduce the amount of the lien. That had happened to other friends of his. He sees now that he was very naive to think that. Mr. Stansberry talked about bringing in his stepson to invest with him.
Mr. Stansberry stated that the amount of $1,000 was arbitrary. He asked for a financial hardship because on the original application he saw no other choice; it was either physical hardship or financial hardship. He mentioned that the neighbors and the HOA all want to see the property sold. Right now there are tenants and he can continue to do that although that is not what they want to do. Mr. Stansberry stated that without help with the lien, they will not have any choice but to continue renting the property.
Commissioner Constantine reported that he did have a conversation with Mr. Stansberry and congratulated him on his honesty in saying that he did know about the lien. When asked by Commissioner Constantine what the property was assessed at, Mr. Stansberry replied $168,000 and then added that he has invested $143,000, which includes some income from the tenants. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Stansberry explained that it took five months to get the permits and another five months to complete all of the repairs; he talked about why it took so long to complete the repairs.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Stansberry that he is in the business of buying houses and flipping them. He confirmed that the four houses that he owns are the entirety of his career; that is his income. The four houses are owned in a self-directed IRA. Commissioner Carey remarked that it does not put him in a financial hardship. She summarized that there was a $90,000 lien and Mr. Stansberry knew about it; it was identified when the property was purchased. She stated the $168,000 value is a taxable value, not a market value. Commissioner Carey advised that she would not want to see anything less than the $90,000 from her perspective because Mr. Stansberry knew about that going into it. To think that it was just going to be forgiven, an investor would not believe that. Commissioner Carey stated from her standpoint, if it is anything less than the $90,000, she will not support the motion. With regard to the four houses that Mr. Stansberry’s IRA owns, Mr. Stansberry confirmed for Commissioner Henley that there are no mortgages on any of those houses.
Commissioner Dallari commented that Mr. Stansberry is asking for a hardship, and he does not see hardship yet. He stated he understands this is a business for Mr. Stansberry and does appreciate his honesty. The Commissioner is trying to understand why the Board should reduce the actual dollar figure. Mr. Stansberry stated if he has to pay the $90,000 lien, then they would have over the market value invested in the house. The house still needs about $30,000 invested to bring it to a retail value of $230,000. With the lien, the house will continue to be rented as long as they can hold onto the house and then it would pass on to their heirs. He believes it would be best for the neighborhood, the County, and for the next-door neighbor especially to get this house fixed up and sold.
Commissioner Dallari advised that unless he hears anything different, he believes Mr. Stansberry’s exposure is what the lien was when he took on the house, which was $90,000. The Commissioner indicated he is willing to take the amount down to $90,000. He would have liked to have heard from Mr. Stansberry right before he purchased the house, but he did not hear anything except there is a financial hardship; he does not see a financial hardship yet. Mr. Stansberry explained there was no other way to present his case other than a financial hardship.
Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Stansberry that the title company at closing did identify the lien. Mr. Stansberry stated everyone was aware and it was sold with the lien. With regard to an attorney representing Mr. Stansberry on the transaction, he stated he did not have an attorney representing him but he did consult with his attorney; his attorney said that it looked like he would probably be okay and that the County would work with him.
Judy Benschop, 400 18th Street, addressed the Board to state she is from the Netherlands and it was her son who invested with her husband on this house. Ms. Benschop advised that she came to live in the United States about the same month they acquired this house and she did not know anything about real estate. She had to trust the people that her husband trusted. She was told that normally in these cases, the County will work with the investors because they want to get the neighborhood to a better standing. Ms. Benschop stated that she understands now that you should never buy a house with a lien on it.
Ms. Benschop talked about how her husband fixes up the houses so they will be nice family homes. They would love to be able to move on and fix up this house and make it a really nice family home. In that, Ms. Benschop stated they do need the Board’s help to reduce the lien.
Speaker Request Forms for Mr. Stansberry and Ms. Benschop were received and filed.
Commissioner Henley indicated to Mr. Stansberry that he is in the situation he is in because of decisions he has made. The Commissioner stated that in spite of Mr. Stansberry’s attorney’s advice, Mr. Stansberry should realize it is not this government’s responsibility to make him profitable by forgiving a $171,000 lien. Commissioner Henley stated he is not in favor of forgiving the lien but will consider the district commissioner’s recommendation.
Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Applegate what the Board’s options are. The Commissioner stated he is trying not to be arbitrary in just picking a number; that is his issue. He stated until he actually sees some additional information that shows there is an actual hardship, he would like to make a motion to uphold the Deputy County Manager’s decision.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari to uphold the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the requested reduction to the Special Magistrate lien of $171,250 for Case #14-57-CESM on the property located at 131 Warblar Lane, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #15-21-30-503-0B00-0270.
Commissioner Dallari indicated to Mr. Stansberry that if he can provide additional information so there is something to make a decision on, the Commissioner is willing to look at it. A brief discussion ensued with regard to what information would be necessary to justify reducing the actual lien amount.
Paul Cooper, Brittney Circle, addressed the Board and began to ask Mr. Stansberry questions about the cost of fixing up the house. Commissioner Dallari called a point of order and advised they are here to talk about the reduction of the lien from $171,000 to $1,000. Commissioner Carey stated if Mr. Cooper would like to address the Board of County Commissioners and make three minutes of comments, that is fine; but for him to question the Applicant is not correct. Mr. Cooper stated he wanted to find out why they can’t take the money that Mr. Stansberry has put into the improvement of the house and put it into the lien; he spent the money already to improve the house. He added they are trying to get houses sold in Seminole County and put people to work. Commissioner Dallari explained that he had no documentation at all.
No Speaker Request Form was received for Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Applegate advised the Board that there is a one-time appeal, which is now. The Board can continue this item to a time certain, but that is the leeway they have. Commissioner Carey remarked that the hardship requirement has not changed and Mr. Stansberry cannot show a financial hardship based on the information the Board has. She talked about the IRA that Mr. Stansberry is funding this operation through. Commissioner Dallari stated they can’t base a decision on that. Commissioner Carey referred to Mr. Stansberry’s financials and pointed out there are only a couple of ways to show a hardship. Commissioner Carey stated she thinks Mr. Stansberry has invested some money and she is willing to support the original lien amount that he went into this with, $90,000; but if Commissioner Dallari gets a second to his motion to stay with $171,000, she thinks they can resolve it. She does not believe continuing the item will make any difference. Mr. Applegate advised what the Board’s legal options are; they can deny it if they want to deny it and if they want to give Mr. Stansberry more time, they have to specify that in the motion.
Commissioner Constantine offered another alternative. He stated it took Mr. Stansberry five months and eleven days from the time that he was able to get the permits to get it completed. That number times $250 would be $40,750 plus an additional $574.23 of administrative cost would be $41,324.23. The Commissioner believes that is enough punishment and amount of money that whatever Mr. Stansberry buys again, he will never do this again. Commissioner Dallari stated he is not looking to punish anyone. Commissioner Constantine stated that he understands but believes it is a lesson learned. Also, the County will have gotten done what they needed done, which is to improve the property. Commissioner Carey reminded the Board that there is a motion on the floor and there is no second. Commissioner Dallari withdrew his motion and stated he will make a motion to continue the item for 30 days so they can have additional information so they have actual numbers that they can base a decision on.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue until April 24, 2018, the request to appeal the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the requested reduction to the Special Magistrate lien of $171,250 to $1,000 for Case #14-57-CESM on the property located at 131 Warblar Lane, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #15-21-30-503-0B00-0270; Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO James M. Stansberry IRA and Yanick R. Benschop, current owners/Appellants; Sandra Laborde, previous owner.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey voted NAY.
Commissioner Constantine left the meeting at this time.
Agenda Item #23 – 2018-0540
Chairman Horan advised that the County has an Educational Impact Fee ordinance that they voted on. There are certain aspects of the vesting that the Board is reviewing with regard to the ordinance. The Chairman explained that is not really being addressed today in its entirety. What is being addressed today is the specific issue of amending the Administrative Code, and there are different notice requirements concerning the other issues with regard to vesting.
Clerk Maloy left the meeting at this time.
Chairman Horan advised that the only thing being considered today and being voted on today is an amendment to the Administrative Code which deals with the language of the code that addresses the metric or the standard that someone would have to meet in order to prove a vested right.
Paul Chipok, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to present a request to amend Section 30.30 of the Seminole County Administrative Code, Educational System Impact Fee Vested Rights Process. Mr. Chipok advised that they are here today on very specific language that the Board directed to be brought back to them at the March 13 meeting. Based on some language that was presented for review by the AAGO (Apartment Association of Greater Orlando), the Board requested that staff look at that language. Mr. Chipok displayed a modification to the standard for the Impairment of Contract section in the vesting criteria of the Administrative Code (copy received and filed). He stressed that what this does not do is change the parameters of applications that can be filed and the contract still has to be in existence as of January 9.
Commissioner Constantine reentered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Chipok explained the intent is the same, which is to not impair the obligations of any contracts. He explained should the increased Educational System Impact Fee create such an impairment to the contract, the increased fee shall not be imposed and the applicant shall pay the impact fee in effect as of January 9, 2018. Basically, they would pay the old rate if an impairment is found. The criteria for what they have to submit are the same, and the only thing that is changing is the standard by which they are measuring it. Mr. Chipok explained the former standard was that the contract specifically address the impact fees and it also rendered the contract devoid of all profit by the contracting party. They are changing that particular standard in Subsection (f) to evidence that the new fees result in the diminishment of the contract so it is just how they are measuring the amount of impairment that is being changed. Chairman Horan stated that rather than requiring proof that the impact fee imposition causes a total loss of profit on the deal, what they are talking about here is a different standard where they have to prove there is an immediate diminishment in value of the contract. Mr. Chipok agreed that the Chairman’s statement is correct. He added that ultimately the Board would be arbiters of that because the way the rest of the administrative code is set up is they supply the evidence, it is reviewed administratively by the Development Services director and then that decision, if it is a denial, is appealable to the Board.
Commissioner Carey pointed out they are right around the corner from the deadline date of people being able to apply for this and she asked how many applications they have had. Mr. Chipok stated they have ten applications; seven have been approved and three have denials presently. Commissioner Carey remarked that this is coming back at the next meeting for some additional discussion about terms. She wondered with this change, would Mr. Chipok’s opinion of the three denials change; and Mr. Chipok replied it would not.
Clerk Maloy reentered the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Carey commented that she believes they have two different issues they were dealing with. She thinks this language probably addresses the one issue. When she looks at the application and in the ordinance under Section 3 where it says "the governmental permitting process has commenced," she thinks they need to better define what that is. In her briefing with staff, the answer they used was final engineering as the evidence they would consider. Commissioner Carey pointed out that if you are in the process, if you are under contract, if your contract is subject to you being able to get a rezoning, if you are going to do your conceptual plans, then you are probably not doing final engineering until you have your zoning in place. She wondered how long that takes and what the County's standard is besides final engineering because she believes contracts can be impaired before final engineering. The Commissioner stated they need to better define what that is so the Board understands and staff understands how these will be evaluated.
Commissioner Carey noted that she knows Ms. Guillet is going to bring back to the Board what the actual financial impact has been and suggested Ms. Guillet may have some ideas now that she would like to share. Ms. Guillet explained there are two opportunities for vesting with respect to the new school impact fee, two different standards. One is the impairment of contracts, which the language being displayed addresses. The other mechanism by which someone might claim a vested right is through equitable estoppel, which is really an issue of fairness; how much has someone invested into the project and how much have they relied on the actions by the governing body or the governmental entity. In each case, both the issue of impairment of contract and equitable estoppel, they are very fact dependent and every situation is different.
Ms. Guillet reported that of the applications that have come in, they have reviewed them under the equitable estoppel standard, which is the B(3) section of the administrative code. From a staff standpoint, they decided to take a somewhat conservative approach in their determination as to how far along in the process you need to be for it to be unfair to impose the new impact fee immediately. Ms. Guillet talked about how they decided that in most (if not all) cases, it would be at final engineering. If a project was far enough in the process where they had received final engineering approval, it would be unfair to not give them an opportunity to utilize the prior fee for whatever time period the Board decides. The ordinance right now contemplates that being a year, that they have to pull permits within a year. With respect to what the Board is considering today, Ms. Guillet stated this wouldn't change that because this particular standard is under impairment of contracts. If the Board feels staff is missing the mark with respect to this idea of final engineering being the appropriate point to make that fairness determination and if the Board thinks it should be earlier or later in the process and if the Board wants to give staff some guidance today, it would be helpful to staff to have a better idea of where the Board might land because if they do deny based on staff's belief that it wasn't far enough along in the process for staff to be comfortable to vest them against the new rate, it will be appealed to the Board; so the Board may make that decision anyway.
Commissioner Carey explained why she thinks someone needs to at least be in the queue for zoning or through the zoning process. If someone is through the zoning process, they may be finishing final engineering and getting it all together, but there may be conditions on the zoning. The Commissioner stated she would like it to be clearer that if you have been through the zoning process or been through P&Z and are now waiting to come to the Board of County Commissioners, there should be some consideration for that because you have moved through that whole process based on information that you went into the contract with. She also thinks they should define what "pulling the permit" really means. They have said in their ordinance that they do not collect impact fees until pre-power. If a building permit is pulled at a certain time, what is the performance for that? She knows a permit is only good for six months; but if someone pours the foundation, can they drag it out for another six months. Commissioner Carey stated they really need to not let this be a game‑playing kind of thing and they should have specific rules in their policy.
Ms. Guillet pointed out they have had the discussions internally about what constitutes obtaining a permit. The language of the ordinance says you have to obtain a permit within the first year in order to be eligible to pay the prior rate; so a foundation permit would be sufficient because of the way building permits are currently defined. She added that they do define what a building permit is and asked Mr. Chipok to walk through the language. Mr. Chipok displayed and reviewed the “Process for Education System Impact Fee Rate Assessment and Collection” document (copy received and filed), which shows how the system works now outside of the scope of the vested rights provisions they are talking about today. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Chipok that he is talking about vertical construction.
Commissioner Carey gave an example of an apartment developer who is going to build three buildings. They get their building permit for all three buildings right now but they are not going to build all of them right now. The Commissioner asked Mr. Chipok what happens if only one building is being built; is it just the one building that is vested? She explained that she just wants everyone to understand what the rules are because she does not want the game playing going on. Commissioner Carey reiterated that she thinks they need to define exactly what the expectation is. If you are just trying to “game it” for a building that you may build two years down the road, she does not think that should be vested. Chairman Horan asked what happens if they get foundation permits. Commissioner Carey stated that is why she is trying to have this conversation, to clarify what they actually mean. She wants to define it upfront so everyone knows what the deal is.
Chairman Horan stated that the situation Commissioner Carey is positing is important because what they are dealing with here with an apartment complex is materially different than a homebuilder. Commissioner Carey stated in the homebuilder scenario, if they get an approval for 200 homes, they are not going to go start 200 homes tomorrow. They will do those in phases. She asked whether it is for the first year that they are vested. And after that, do they pay the regular rate? Chairman Horan pointed out that the difference, of course, is with the investment for an apartment building, you can't rent one unit until you finish the entire building. Commissioner Carey added that they get to rent that building for 50 years. When they take that difference and spread it across, it is peanuts.
Mr. Chipok displayed and reviewed the "Process for Education System Impact Fee Rate Assessment and Collection with Vesting Certificate" document (copy received and filed). Chairman Horan gave an example of someone who has a vesting certificate and is building an apartment complex with three buildings. He confirmed with Mr. Chipok that the vesting certificate covers all of the units in the three buildings. He then asked whether that vesting certificate is only good for all of the units in those three buildings if they are finished within one year. Ms. Guillet stated they have to obtain a building permit. The Chairman confirmed with Mr. Chipok that they would have to obtain a building permit within a year. Mr. Chipok continued his review of the document and explained that the building permit is then issued and must be pulled by the applicant prior to the expiration of the vesting certificate, which is one year. Mr. Chipok stated the "one year" is on the table for the Board to discuss at the April 10th meeting. He then concluded his review of the document. With regard to building permits, Mr. Chipok stated if someone makes application but does not pull the building permit during that one‑year period, the vesting certificate is void. They then would need to get the impact fee statement to pay the impact fee rates that are applicable at that time.
Commissioner Dallari asked about the definition of “building permit,” and Ms. Guillet stated there is a definition in the ordinance. Mr. Chipok stated that a building permit is “the official document or certification issued by a municipality or a county under the authority of the ordinance or law authorizing construction or siting of a building, or any portion thereof, within the educational system impact fee construction. For purposes of this ordinance the term ‘building permit’ shall also include a tie-down permit for a building, such as a mobile home, that does not require a building permit in order to be occupied.” He added that the effective language in this is the “authorizing the construction or siting of a building.” Commissioner Dallari asked whether "siting of a building" constitutes a site permit, and Mr. Chipok stated that it did not. Chairman Horan commented that it does constitute a foundation, and Mr. Chipok agreed. The Chairman stated if he has three buildings and pulls the three foundation permits at once, he is vested. Mr. Chipok agreed but added that he is also obligated at pre-power to pay. Chairman Horan added that that is whether he is vertical or not on Buildings 2 and 3. Commissioner Carey reiterated that they have to be very clear or there will be some gaming of the system going on, and she does not think that is the Board's intent. Commissioner Dallari stated he does not believe that is the Board's intent, and he is just trying to get it clear so people understand what a building permit is.
Mr. Chipok advised that there is a substantial investment to get to a foundation permit; it is not something they come in with haphazardly. It does have to be appropriately engineered. All the additional site work has to be completed. He reiterated that there is a substantial investment in the project. He does not think it lends itself to gamesmanship because at that point in the process there is a substantial investment on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Guillet added it is a very different situation for multifamily structures versus single‑family buildings.
Commissioner Carey agreed they are two different animals. She then gave an example of someone who pours a foundation; they have a building permit or they just got a foundation permit. If they don't go vertical from that point in that year, she asked whether that becomes null and void. She wondered what happens then. Commissioner Carey pointed out that they use the Florida Building Code, and she does not think there is anything in there that says when a building permit is going to expire. Mr. Chipok explained that a building permit needs to have active inspections within six months or the permit expires naturally. Commissioner Carey asked, from a legal standpoint, if someone goes out and does anything at all every six months, can the inspector then come out and they can continue that permit. Mr. Chipok stated that is the way the system is established. With regard to someone who keeps on asking for inspections within that period of time when there is nothing to inspect, Commissioner Dallari asked how they could ask for an inspection. Mr. Chipok stated they would have to do some type of work that warrants the inspection request; so there needs to be some type of construction activity that warrants the next level of inspection request in the process.
Hal Cantor, attorney with Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed and representing Apartment Association of Greater Orlando (AAGO), addressed the Board and stated there is something about the subject the Board is talking about that they are leaving out; and that is, when someone gets to the point they are talking about in the development process and there is concern about gaming the system, before they build something, they bought the land and spent potentially millions of dollars. It is not in the interest of a developer or their lenders nor their investors to let that lie. They are going to build because that is the only way they get funds to pay back the loans and make money. He believes they have to look at a bigger picture than just permits.
Mr. Kantor began a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Seminole County Educational System Impact Fees Selected Implementation Issues” (copy received and filed) and talked about the AAGO organization and who they are. He advised that the issue they are talking about is very limited; and it is one of the two types of vesting; namely, impairment of contract. The Vested Rights Process and the Application Requirements slide was displayed. Mr. Kantor pointed out with regard to impairment of contract, there were two provisions that were at issue. The County was saying you can get vested if you meet these standards and then put in a standard that no one would meet. He advised that no contract ever talks about who is going to pay for impact fees after the seller has sold the property to the buyer.
With regard to the other provision, Mr. Kantor pointed out that there are all different kinds of developers in terms of apartments depending on the type of investor they have; is it institutional, is it foreign, what is their expectation for revenue, are they building the project to hold or to flip? He advised that all of these things play a role and would put the County in the position of having to make a judgment as to whether or not the profit they were seeking was appropriate. Mr. Kantor displayed the Vested Rights Issue – Representational Graphic slide and talked about the two types of vested rights. He pointed out the tiny sliver on the pie chart that represents the issue of impairment of contract and noted that is what they are talking about today. Mr. Kantor then continued his review of the slide.
Mr. Kantor stated there have been statements made that developers are trying to not pay impact fees. He advised that is not true; they just want the fees to be fair. That is why they approached the County regarding the provision in the implementation of the administrative code. They also do not think it is fair to have a 400% increase in the impact fees. Mr. Kantor discussed who really pays the impact fees and explained that the reason developers get nuts about impact fees, even though they are not paying them, is because it reduces the market of people that can buy and people who can sell. The higher the cost is, the fewer who can qualify.
Mr. Kantor remarked that the School Board’s “hair was set on fire” because they said this has been going on for two years. He emphasized that this issue came up on January 23. The County put out the proposed changes in the code on the 21st of January and had a hearing on the 23rd. Mr. Kantor advised that he sent a letter and no one paid much attention to it. He was not able to appear before the Board. The letter is about exactly the same subject that they are here to talk about today. He remarked that it has created somewhat of a firestorm at the School Board. The Board says apartments are different from homes because that is what the Commissioners deal with. The School Board does not deal with that kind of thing. He stated he thinks the School Board is confused.
Mr. Kantor stated he is going to play some video excerpts from a School Board meeting. The first video excerpt played depicted the School Board, Kami Corbett (attorney for the School Board), and Joseph Ranaldi (Executive Director of Operations for Seminole County Public Schools) discussing AAGO and the role they play. In the excerpt, Ms. Corbett stated that it appears from the research that she has done that AAGO is more of an association for apartment managers. She added that AAGO usually is going after maintenance fees and things like that that have to do with managing apartments, not developing apartments. Those entities would not have a direct impact by an impact fee increase. Mr. Kantor disagreed with the things depicted in the excerpt. He referred to a list of 24 developers that are members of AAGO. Mr. Kantor discussed the fact that since January 21, AAGO has had no communication from the School Board.
Mr. Kantor displayed and discussed the Fundamental Lack of Understanding of the Difference between Apartment Developers and Homebuilders. He talked about the Greater Orlando Builders Association (GOBA) and pointed out that GOBA does not represent AAGO. He suggested you could tell that because GOBA negotiated the homebuilding rate. Another video excerpt from the School Board meeting was played, which depicted Mr. Ranaldi talking about groups that were assembled to look at the impact fee study. With reference to the video excerpt, Mr. Kantor discussed how there was no recognition of what an apartment development is and who represents the apartment industry.
Mr. Kantor displayed the slide entitled “The School Board Resolution did not Provide for Vesting” and reviewed the bullet points. He played the third video excerpt from the School Board meeting which depicted School Board Chairman, Amy Lockhart, discussing the School Board’s resolution and how it did not provide for vesting because vesting was not taken into account in the County’s ordinance at the time. It was not until after the School Board adopted their resolution and presented it to the BCC that vesting came back much later into the conversation, that the idea of vesting needed to be taken up. In the video, Ms. Lockhart discussed the School Board’s recommendation, which was to stick with the recommendation of phasing of the implementation of the impact fees over the course of two years instead of getting engaged in the vesting discussion. The BCC took up the idea of vesting on their own. Ms. Lockhart talked about the BCC meeting and an argument made by one of the Commissioners that they did not want to do the phasing because the School Board needs the money for capacity now; so they don’t want to phase. She stated she is having a hard time understanding the logic of jumping from “the School Board needs the money now so we are not going to phase” to “now we are going to allow vesting for two years.”
At the conclusion of the video excerpt, Chairman Horan advised that he is looking at a resolution, a document that the School Board gave to the County during the original process with the proposed impact fee ordinance, and it has a vested rights provision in it. Mr. Kantor stated the School Board is confused. Chairman Horan stated the School Board suggested the phasing but said they needed the money now; so the BCC decided not to do the phasing. Mr. Kantor remarked that what the Board did was better and displayed the next slide. He reviewed the bullet points and pointed out in the School Board’s two-year schedule, they imposed 77.7% in Year 1 and the balance in Year 2 for a single-family home. The Seminole County Commission said they wanted the developers to pay 100% now. Mr. Kantor explained that he asked for a 30-day extension with respect to being able to file applications and was told no; the County does not want to extend the time by which the School Board would get funds. He added that the School Board does not understand that the BCC is fully supportive of what they are trying to do.
The fourth video excerpt of the School Board meeting was played, and it depicted Dr. Walt Griffin, Superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools, discussing the support they have for the impact fees from the land developers and every major builder in Central Florida. With regard to a two-year delay, Dr. Griffin stated he believes they are in the peak of growth right now; and at some point in time, they are going to come closer to building out and the financial impact is going to be devastating. Dr. Griffin indicated he has asked Mr. Ranaldi to put together what the financial impact could possibly be, and he will bring it first to the School Board and then to the County Commission on March 27. Dr. Griffin stated that they want our schools but they don’t want to pay for them; that is what it is coming down to.
In the video excerpt, Ms. Lockhart spoke about GOBA and how GOBA had no problems with the impact fees and the School Board’s process. The School Board then discussed AAGO. Ms. Lockhart suggested they hear from folks who actually represent apartment builders in Seminole County. At the conclusion of the video excerpt, Mr. Kantor indicated that Dr. Griffin stated that they talked to all of the developers, and Mr. Kantor disagreed with that. He stated that it is clear that Dr. Griffin is confused because GOBA does not represent the apartment industry.
Mr. Kantor displayed a chart representing the 2018 School Impact Fee Increase Implementation and compared the School Board’s recommendation to the BCC’s recommendation. He referred to the BCC plan column and pointed out a sliver, the red line, which represents the few projects that may or may not meet the County’s standard; that is all they are really talking about. Mr. Kantor commented that because the School Board does not understand, the PTA has written a letter to the Commissioners. Chairman Horan stated the Commissioners have seen the letter. Mr. Kantor advised that the PTA has totally wrong information; so their “hair is on fire.” He stated that people are not dealing with the facts. Mr. Kantor added that AAGO has responsibility too. He suggested that if people were to communicate, everyone might get some things answered.
Mr. Kantor stated that he does not think it is the School Board’s fault that they are confused. They are in the education business and know about education, but they don’t know about land development. He stated the Commissioners know a lot about land development; and other than Commissioner Henley, they don’t know as much about education. The Board has to rely on people and consultants to guide them. He stated he blames the consultants and not the School Board. Mr. Kantor reiterated that AAGO has some responsibility too and they were pulled into this by virtue of the fact that on January 23, the BCC adopted a code which AAGO thinks is wrong. As a result of that, this has gotten AAGO’s attention and they are not happy with the 400% increase in the rates. With respect to this particular hearing and this particular matter, Mr. Kantor requested that the Board agree with the recommendation of the County’s legal counsel and adopt the proposed change to the administrative code.
Since the Board wanted to hear from developers, Mr. Kantor indicated there are developers present today; and they can speak for themselves. He then referred to a list from the School Board that he saw earlier of projects that may apply for vesting and projects that have applied for vesting, and he advised that the School Board may say look at all of these projects. Mr. Kantor stressed that the list is irrelevant because the School Board does not make the distinction between projects that are vested under the concept of equitable estoppel and projects that are vested or not because of impairment of contract. Until that distinction is made, they don’t really know how impactful this might be. He added that it is highly unlikely this particular issue is that impactful to the community, but it is very impactful to a couple of developers who have invested a lot of money to get where they are. Mr. Kantor reiterated that he requests the Board support the recommendation of the County’s counsel.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Kantor that he agrees that the impairment of contract issue is resolved with what is before the Board today, with that language. Commissioner Carey noted that a lot of the apartment developers are members of GOBA and she knows some of them were present at some of the School Board meetings. She agreed with Mr. Kantor that they are not experts and do rely on consultants to guide them. She advised that if there is misinformation out there, communication is typically how they solve stuff, by getting everybody in a room and talking about it. It sounds like everybody is guilty at this point of communicating but the Board is hearing it now. Commissioner Carey stated they clearly understood what it was and understood that vesting was in the original ordinance and was in what the School Board sent. The Board agreed that vesting should be part of this. They are now trying to nail down how to do it so it is fair for everybody and not arbitrarily left up to staff to decide what being in the queue of the process means. She believes the Board, the policy makers, have to be the ones that say this is where you are at and this is when you are actually considered to be in the process to be considered for vesting.
Chairman Horan asked whether there was a representative of the School Board who would like to address the board. Kami Corbett, attorney for the School Board, clarified that the meeting of the School Board that they were watching took place the same day that Mr. Kantor made his presentation. She pointed out that in the clip she said “based on her research at this point of what they could find.” Ms. Corbett advised that Mr. Kantor conceded that what they could find at that point was on his website. She stated she just wanted to clarify that and did, as Ms. Lockhart said, reach out. Chairman Horan asked Ms. Corbett if she also contacted the Associated Builders and Contractors with regard to this issue. Ms. Corbett stated she did not personally. The Chairman asked whether the School Board did, and Mr. Ranaldi stated he did contact ABC and asked them to participate. He advised that he contacted AIA as well. ABC declined at that point and said they did not want to address the issue in regards to impact fees. With regard to AIA, they were unable to work time frames with their government affairs representative.
Ms. Corbett stated she believes the real issue is whether the interests of multifamily developers were considered, and that was something that they actively talked about when the issue of vesting was originally raised at the Mayors and Managers meeting. Chairman Horan asked Ms. Corbett if she agreed that vesting was, in fact, part of the document that she sent. Ms. Corbett replied that actually that provision is in there but the provision did not pertain to this increase; it pertained to past increases. Chairman Horan stated it was a past ordinance and time is unidirectional. The Chairman stated that vesting was an issue that was brought up by the School Board. Ms. Corbett advised that it was not brought up by the School Board and the School Board did not discuss the concept of amending vesting to future impact fee increases.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Corbett that the resolution that the County got from the School Board included the County's old ordinance redlined for what changes the School Board wanted to see. The Commissioner pointed out that the vesting provision was still in there. Ms. Corbett advised this is a conversation they did have with County staff; and actually, this very issue came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was clarified on the record that it would not vest future projects; that is why additional language changes were proposed by County staff to allow it to extend into the future to address that issue. Commissioner Carey stated the way she reads it, if the County adopted the ordinance that was sent over by the School Board, there would be vesting and it would be for the time that they adopted the ordinance, not some past time. That is how she reads it. Discussion ensued between Chairman Horan and Ms. Corbett as to whether Ms. Corbett thinks the language being proposed today is unfair. Ms. Corbett stated it is not her role as the School Board's attorney to make a determination as to whether something is fair or not fair. It is her role to advise them as to whether this would impact them.
Mr. Chipok explained that with Section 105.43, the vested right section, it was in the original ordinance. It was in the draft that they got back from the School Board. When the County adopts ordinances and adopted this ordinance, they basically took the entire chapter and threw it out and readopted it. So with the language in Section 105.43, this could be interpreted as an adoption of the impact fee ordinance. That is not the intent but it could be argued that way. With all of the attorneys in the room, he is sure someone would have argued it that way. In order to get over that particular hurtle, the language that was put in here (saying that it is applicable to an amendment to the chapter) clarifies that point. If it is an amendment to the chapter, they do not get to have a total removal from the impact fee process. If they do get a vesting certificate, they are only entitled to the impact fees that were in effect prior to the adoption of the new ordinance. It was language to clarify the vesting so it did not get out of control. Ms. Guillet pointed out that the new language is more limiting.
Chairman Horan asked, with regard to the universe of people, the universe of developments, the universe of applications, whether this language in any way, shape, or form increases the universe of applications that they are going to get for vesting. Mr. Chipok stated that it does not in his opinion. Commissioner Carey pointed out there are only a few more days for anyone to apply. Chairman Horan remarked that one way or another you have to have a contract before a particular date. Time is only unidirectional and the date won't change or morph into another year and they have not talked about stacking vesting rights for new impact fees three or four years down the road. The Chairman advised that the universe of applications does not change under this language. Ms. Corbett stated that in going back to the issue that the School Board has with this language, all of the discussions about vesting applications and the numbers only are addressing those in the unincorporated area. This language change would apply to the cities as well. She stressed that it doesn't change the time period of the application but it could change their interpretation so the School Board does believe that it could possibly lead to additional applications; therefore, the School Board does not support the amendment. Ms. Corbett expressed that they do appreciate staff's work on this and she appreciates all of Commissioner Carey's clarifications and discussion this morning about getting clarity on what the vesting does mean.
Ms. Corbett reported that the School Board had been requested to provide some numbers and explained they took the numbers from the vesting agreements from unincorporated and incorporated and have that to share with the Board for informational purposes. It is preliminary information and they are still evaluating it and there still may be some applications coming in. Ms. Corbett further explained that the list they shared was more based on information that was requested; it was not supposed to be persuasive one way or the other.
The Impact of Vesting ‑ Preliminary Analysis document (copy received and filed) was displayed. Chairman Horan explained that he and Superintendent Griffin had a discussion when they met last Tuesday or Wednesday, and it was said that the School Board wanted to get information to the Board with numbers and so forth. The Chairman talked about his request that the Board receive the information before Monday and pointed out that the Board is only getting it now. They have not had an opportunity to look at the information or analyze it at all. Ms. Corbett apologized and pointed out that it was spring break last week so many of their staff did have vacations and things planned. Chairman Horan stated he is just telling Ms. Corbett that the Board has not had an opportunity to look at it. Ms. Corbett advised the School Board is not asking the Board to rely on this; they are providing it as preliminary information. She stated they will have the information finalized and more fine‑tuned for April 10 because the application period will have closed.
Commissioner Carey stated this information will actually impact the discussion on April 10 more so than today. The only thing they are talking about today is the impairment of contract and the language change that addresses that. Chairman Horan stated there will be time to refine this information. Ms. Guillet indicated that County staff will certainly work with the School Board to refine the information. She stated they received it yesterday and she has not had a chance to look at it. She can see there are a couple of things that jump out at her where there are significantly more units listed. Ms. Guillet stated that her point in saying that is to tell the Board to not rely on these numbers, at least from the County's standpoint. She advised there will be some significant adjustments based on the data that the County has. Commissioner Carey pointed out that the School Board will have plenty of opportunity between now and the 10th to talk about these numbers and the impact, and she emphasized that the Board would like to see the information before the 10th.
Ms. Guillet explained the issue of timing and the duration of vesting will actually go to the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 4. There will be a public hearing before it comes to this Board. She emphasized that the County will want to have those numbers in advance of that for their use as well. Commissioner Carey added they want them well in advance of that. Chairman Horan indicated that it is March 27 and there is going to be a hearing on April 4 in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He suggested they try to get the numbers refined, concretized, and to the County, but not on April 3. Mr. Ranaldi reported they are basically the entity that is compiling the data between the other municipalities as well as County staff and they had actually had two submittals to the School Board as well. He added that part of the lateness was getting all of that information together. It has been free flowing as well as additional applications or requests for agreements have come forward.
Mr. Ranaldi began his review of the Impact of Vesting Preliminary Analysis document and explained they presently see that 25 developments are under consideration for the vesting. There are 3,938 units, which is a little bit over 1,300 students based on the generation rate that is within their study. Within the first year of vesting, what they did estimation‑wise in order to determine what the impact would be on the capital budget was to foresee that approximately 60% ‑‑ Chairman Horan interrupted Mr. Ranaldi and asked if he said “impact on their capital budget.” Mr. Ranaldi agreed he said “impact on their capital budget.” Chairman Horan asked how many school are in the five‑year capital improvement plan of the School Board to be constructed within the next five years. Mr. Ranaldi stated that within the next five years, they are talking about possibly two elementary schools and one middle school. Chairman Horan asked whether they are in the CIP. Mr. Ranaldi stated they are really out towards Years 7, 8, and 9 at this point right now because of funding considerations. Chairman Horan asked Mr. Ranaldi if, in their five‑year plan, they have no schools. Mr. Ranaldi stated they have an expansion of existing campuses such as what they are doing at Goldsboro and Midway right now where they are adding 315 student stations to a campus. He added at this point right now, they do not have the land to do a new elementary school or middle school with the exception of the Snow Hill property.
If they don't have any schools in their next five‑year capital improvement plan, Chairman Horan asked whether the School Board, when it gets these impact fees, is going to use the impact fees to increase capacity otherwise. Mr. Ranaldi suggested they keep in mind that the present five‑year plan was based on the 2008 fee rates. When they actually input the newer fee rates and go through and surpass the vesting period, they will have money and funds available to do the necessary capacity expansion that they need to at this point.
Mr. Ranaldi continued his review of the Impact of Vesting Preliminary Analysis document and stated that in regards to the one-year vesting, they evaluated that potentially out of the 3,900 units, possibly 60% of those will actually be constructed during that first year. Ms. Guillet indicated to Mr. Ranaldi that she is not challenging him but she wondered where he got the 60% absorption rate and what that is based on. Mr. Ranaldi stated it is looking back at the numbers they have had over the past three or four years with a little bit of a realization that with the vesting in place, there probably will be an acceleration of development as a result of that in order to get building permits and to get the projects moving as well. Ms. Guillet stated she is curious because the County is trying to get a handle on this internally as well. When projects are approved, she asked if he is seeing 60% of the projects developing in the first year and 60% of the units getting developed in the first year. Mr. Ranaldi responded no, that in actuality it is more in the neighborhood of about 40% and they added that 20% increase with the understanding that there is going to be an incentive to get those building permits in order to stay within the vesting. He stated they think it is more in that 40% range for traditional with the bump for the additional vesting motivation. With that, the impacted fee collection will be reduced by around $9.3 million by that 60% of the projects. Under the new impact fee, Chairman Horan asked how much are they projected to collect every year. Mr. Ranaldi responded that it was right around $9 million to $10 million and they are collecting around $4 million. Chairman Horan noted that Mr. Ranaldi is saying they are losing $9.3 million in the first year, but they are only collecting $9.3 million in the year. Mr. Ranaldi disagreed and advised they are really looking at the 40% versus the 60%; so they are going to be collecting the lower amount. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi if he is saying the delta between the two, in the 60% that he took, is $9.3 million, and Mr. Ranaldi replied yes, based on the new collection rates. Commissioner Carey asked what the total impact fee is on their anticipated growth, and Mr. Ranaldi answered that if it was all totaled out, at the present rate it would be around $28 million. Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Mr. Ranaldi that he should collect $28 million but he is saying he will be losing about $9.3 million.
Mr. Ranaldi explained they then began to evaluate Year 2. He advised they did think they would be actually constructing 100% of what they have on their chart (the full 3,900) over the next two years. Commissioner Carey requested that when Mr. Ranaldi sends his math to support the document being displayed, he send what he used to analyze the rates. In looking at 2,365 units and what the rate is, she does not know how he came up with $23 million. She indicated that she would like to see the math and reiterated her request for Mr. Ranaldi to send the math to support how he came up with the numbers. She added that this information is really more relevant to the next conversation, not to what is before the Board today.
Mr. Ranaldi concluded by saying that a $1 million loss in impact fees results in about 45 elementary student stations that they lose; for every million dollars, they lose about 45 student stations based on the present cost for student stations that they are under with the Department of Education. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi how much he gets per student station, and Mr. Ranaldi responded for an elementary classroom, right around $22,300. Mr. Ranaldi emphasized that that is why the impact fees are critical to the School Board because they can equate those to actual student stations and construction costs.
Lauren Johansson, 200 South Orange Avenue, addressed the Board and stated she is with the law firm of Baker & Hostetler. Ms. Johansson stated she is here today on behalf of two of the developers who are members of AAGO; namely, Wood Development and Alliance Reality. She is here today to support the Association’s arguments and is in support of the changes to the code provisions and hopes the Board will pass that today.
Polly DeLucia, President of the SCCPTA, addressed the Board and stated she lives in Sanford and has a daughter attending Seminole High School and has applied for her kindergartener to enter Idyllwilde Elementary this fall. Ms. DeLucia advised that she is speaking today in her role as president of the Seminole County Council Parent Teacher Association (SCCPTA) and then gave a brief description of SCCPTA. Ms. DeLucia stated that a key PTA advocacy position is that public schools should adequately fund public education. She explained that their schools deserve adequate operating funding and capital funding sufficient to meet the projected needs of Seminole County. Ms. DeLucia explained why they are asking their local leaders not to extend vesting rights for the County's new impact fee. She then gave an example of her brother and sister‑in‑law, who were told when buying their house that their children would attend nearby Lawton Elementary and instead her nephew was sent to kindergarten at Geneva Elementary because Lawton is at capacity. Ms. DeLucia described the challenges that presented and pointed out that her sister's family is not the only family in this situation.
Ms. DeLucia commented that the school impact fee increase that is set to go into effect on April 10 is a step in the right direction. She pointed out their public schools need additional funds to build new student seats and the funds are needed now. She stated capital projects are multiyear undertakings; and with an additional 6,000 new students expected within five years, she believes work on these projects must begin today. Ms. DeLucia reported that Chairman Horan called her this weekend and encouraged SCCPTA to withdraw its opposition to extending vesting for the school impact fee and stated that the amount of money at stake is negligible. She emphasized that in the current capital funding situation their schools face, no single dollar should be overlooked. Ms. DeLucia reported that Chairman Horan pointed out to her that the school impact fees are insufficient to build even one elementary school. She then talked about how Seminole County Schools have been creative in addressing capacity issues and how past capital projects have increased capacity at existing schools.
Ms. DeLucia advised that Commissioner Horan also encouraged SCCPTA to address this issue of capital funding with Tallahassee saying that the problems in funding did not lie with the County. She noted that SCCPTA has been in contact with their state senator and state representative and their message is unwavering; fund their schools. They have advocated consistently against public funds going to private and charter schools. She explained that the Florida State Constitution, in
Article 9, requires that Florida's children be provided with a safe, secure, high‑quality system of free public schools. Funding of these schools does not rest solely at the state level and local government is equally accountable. Ms. DeLucia pointed out that the failure in Tallahassee to adequately provide capital funding for their schools does not negate the financial responsibilities of the County. Rather than pointing blame, county leaders should strive to meet their obligation to the county students and families.
Ms. DeLucia concluded by stating that SCCPTA is asking the Board of County Commissioners to not adopt the new language as it will extend vesting rights for the school impact fee. Allow the fees to go into effect with the language already in place. They understand that the increased school impact fee will have a financial impact on builders, but it is fair that new development bear some of the cost of new school capacity. Seminole County's excellent schools attract families to the communities; however, without increased capital funding, new student growth will adversely impact the public schools and hurt the current residents. She requested that the Board please consider the needs of the community's children.
Mark Ogier, 237 South Westmonte Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he is the past president of the AAGO and the current Developers Council Chair of AAGO. Mr. Ogier thanked the Board for their time in the previous meeting as well as today to hear this issue. He requested that the Board approve what is being presented by Mr. Kantor. Mr. Ogier pointed out that this specific issue has brought a lot of things to light for his organization and for the BCC as well as the School Board.
Mr. Ogier explained that multifamily is misunderstood and forgotten about. He indicated that they need to do a better job in their association to make sure it is not. They are approaching 40% of the housing in Seminole County. Their residents represent over 33% and their members represent 33,000 units in the county. As developers, they are the economic engine of the economy. Mr. Ogier explained how they create jobs and hire all of the tradesmen. There can be $20 million to $40 million worth of economic development yet they are still misunderstood. He thinks it is very clear that there is a difference between single‑family and multifamily. They need to remember to get that message out and they encourage the Board to remember that on each decision they are making.
Mr. Ogier stated they need to look at whether multifamily is being discriminated against and he talked about why he feels that it is. He added that the reason there are more apartments is because they have more people and 40% of those people need a place to live; they need to have a choice of housing. Multifamily rental housing represents a choice for residents. Mr. Ogier stated they believe that multifamily pays more than their proportioned share of impact fees but that is a discussion for a later date as they get more into the details of some of these school studies of new apartments and how many students they are actually generating.
Mr. Ogier stated they agree with the PTA that the schools need to be funded, but they think a lot of that direction is misguided towards the development community that drives the economic engine. The County pays for companies to come into the county to bring their employees and to bring that growth, but they want developers to house them. He stated they are not bringing the growth; they are just housing it. Impact fees are a dangerous road to go down on economic development issues because the School Board statistics are all based on development continuing. When the fees go to the rate that they are, the development jobs stop which not only affects the cost of housing (because you have less of it) but it also reduces the impact fees that are collected because the County is charging the developers out of the market. He emphasized that doesn't help anybody.
Lennon "Chip" Tatum, 1005 Albamonte Court, addressed the Board and stated he is the executive director of the Apartment Association of Greater Orlando. Mr. Tatum explained that AAGO is the largest apartment association in the Florida Apartments Association's network; and at present, they represent about 75% of the apartment market in Central Florida. He gave a brief description of AAGO and talked about the projections by the National Apartment Association and National Multifamily Housing Council that Central Florida will need about 130,000 additional apartment homes by 2030. Mr. Tatum stated they welcome future collaborations with the School Board and the Commission on development issues, and they realize they need to do a better job of putting themselves out there. Developers have been an important aspect of their associations for decades. He noted that their leadership appreciates the Commission's reconsideration of the administrative code and looks forward to a future conversation, including the ones on April 4 and April 10 about vesting. Mr. Tatum echoed Mr. Kantor's (AAGO's counsel) comments on this subject of the proposed changes.
Michael Mulhall's name was announced and it was determined that he was not in attendance. A Speaker Request Form and a Written Comment Form for him were received and filed.
Robert McDaniel, 1950 International Parkway, addressed the Board and stated his brother David is the principal of their company. They are not only developers locally but also have developed 700‑and‑some‑odd apartments in the last three or four years in Seminole County which contributed about $1.6 million in school impact fees to the County. Mr. McDaniel talked about his two sons who attend school in Seminole County. He explained that his company did not know anything about the impact fees being raised. They really rely on Mr. Ogier and the AAGO to provide them with any public information about any changes in governmental laws, rules, and impact fees. They get the information from Mr. Ogier and his group. Otherwise, they are not going to be tied in. He believes there has been a lot of miscommunication.
Mr. McDaniel stated the only thing that he is looking at now is the fact that it has gone from a certain number up to 400% for the apartment developers and that is a huge egregious increase. He stated he is not against paying impact fees and has two children in the school system. He is all about funding these schools and believes they are terrific schools. Mr. McDaniel thinks it was not fair to not have a voice when there are a lot of gentlemen that invest a lot of money into the county. They put a lot personal risk into their development. He talked about a gentleman from Wood Partners who is under contract now. Mr. McDaniel stated if that gentleman is not vested, he would be highly skeptical that he is going to contribute any money because that deal will probably not get done. It is probably a $1 million increase to the project and his investors will not be able to go forward. It needs to be addressed from the Apartment Association's angle. He reiterated that it is an egregious increase. Mr. McDaniel stated he just found out about this two weeks ago. He would have been at the School Board meeting. His brother, David, is meeting with Ms. Almond and Mr. McDaniel stated he would like to meet with Ms. Lockhart and the Board. He stated they have not been informed and he believes there is a lot of miscommunication. They would like some conversation. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. McDaniel if he can talk about the changes that are being proposed today. Mr. McDaniel stated he supports the amendment today.
Ms. Corbett stated that after hearing the discussion about the numbers, she is a little concerned with the schedule they are on and whether they will be able to do that. She stated they will try their best. She does not know if there is an immediate need to stay on that track for those meetings, if that has an impact. Chairman Horan stated they have been at this now for about two years, and they would expect that the School Board would have available data. Commissioner Carey asked what the deadline is for applications. Ms. Guillet replied it is the 2nd of April. Ms. Corbett stated that is the deadline for unincorporated. The agreements have up until the 9th or 10th to be approved, so in the cities they would have the additional time. Ms. Corbett emphasized that is not a big issue for the School Board. Mr. Chipok clarified that on April 4 before the Planning and Zoning Commission and April 10 before the BCC what has been advertised is merely a change on the vesting provision to move it from one year to two years. That is the only portion of the ordinance that is under reconsideration at this point.
Randy Morris, 323 West Trotters Drive, addressed the Board and stated they have just discussed with the Board about the Association participating. Mr. Morris stated the Association has severe issues with the School Board's numbers and thinks there is a credibility issue here. He requested that the Board give direction to staff to allow the Association to participate in this process since they know something about what is being developed out there a little bit more than most. Chairman Horan stated he does not think the BCC would reject or deny anybody who can give concrete, reliable information that they can take action on.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the item and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed. Written Comment Form was received from Michael Mulhall. No form was received from Randy Morris.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-44 amending Section 30.30 of the Seminole County Administrative Code, Educational System Impact Fee Vested Rights Process.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ms. Guillet indicated that Commissioner Carey brought up the issue giving staff some guidance under the equitable estoppel standard. If the Board wants staff to address that, she does not want to leave without talking about it. She suggested they can talk about it in the afternoon session. Commissioner Carey stated they can talk about it in the afternoon. She thinks they have to talk about it because right now they are using final engineering. If that is what the Board wants to say, to use final engineering, then they just need to say that is what it is. The Commissioner pointed out they don't really define what the permitting process is enough that it is clear. Ms. Guillet stated she will clarify and advised there is not a bright line. As guidance, they are using completion; that is a guideline for substantial investment, substantial involvement in the process, and substantial reliance on what was previously existing. There may be a circumstance where at a different stage it is more appropriate. Just so the Board knows, Ms. Guillet stated that has been staff's guidance with respect to the decisions they have been making.
Commissioner Constantine stated the overall view of this matter, as he can see, is that there was just a clear lack of communications. AAGO has already admitted they should have done a better job at getting involved. The School Board has to take some responsibility for that in not contacting them. He does not want any misunderstanding, and he does not want to leave here today thinking there is some sort of battle between the BCC and the School Board or that they don't care about children or education or anything else. Commissioner Constantine stated when the School Board brought together a phasing issue with GOBA, the Commissioners were the ones that took the bullet and said no, we are going to start right away with $9,000. He stated it was a clear misunderstanding.
Commissioner Constantine stated that in the Legislature, everyone knows AAGO is a very formidable organization that people work with all of the time, whether it be landlord/tenant or development issues. He does not want anyone to leave today, the PTA or anybody else, thinking that the Board is somehow anti‑school or anti‑School Board. There is a clear misunderstanding. It wasn't on the BCC's part. They are here to try and find the right answer and are not looking at harming any type of vesting. What they are trying to do is find the sweet spot so they are being fair and equitable to everyone. The Commissioner added that they are not looking at a large amount of money or opportunity for people to vest.
Chairman Horan stated he is glad Commissioner Constantine made that statement and he thinks it is important. The Chairman stated he thinks the people who get involved in this get very emotional. He thinks the rhetoric has been a little too overheated, especially as it applied to the intentions and actions of this Board. Chairman Horan advised they are raising the impact fee quite substantially here. They understand the importance of their schools. Not only do they understand the importance of their schools but they care about their schools a lot. The Chairman remarked that for anyone to derive from any actions taken by this Board that they don't care about their school system and don't care about families and don't care about schools is just a palpable lie.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that it is a circle. It all goes together. She stated if they didn't have great schools and a great partnership with their community and their community partners, they wouldn't have all this economic development and wouldn't need the apartments; so it is a vicious cycle. Chairman Horan stated his point is that the rhetoric on this is way overheated and needs to calm so the Commissioners can go ahead and do their job and benefit this community the way they always have. He pointed out that is what needs to happen here and added that they are not going to be swayed by stridency and they are not going to be swayed by arguments that are appealing to people's emotions. They are going to be driven by what is in the best interest of the people of Seminole County and that is going to be based on good, hard, solid information that is correct.
COUNTY MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS
With regard to the work session that was scheduled for after the morning session, Ms. Guillet stated it will be held after the afternoon session on the April 10 meeting.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 1:00 p.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Terri Porter, who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOF OF PUBLICATIONS
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to authorize the filing of the proof of publications for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEE RESOLUTION AND 2ND
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LONGWOOD
Agenda Item #24 – PH-2018-0611
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a proposed Resolution amending Resolution #2003-R-142 pertaining to the time of payment of certain impact fees and water & sewer connection fees for the City of Longwood; and a Second Amendment to the Library System Impact Fee Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Longwood, received and filed.
Paul Chipok, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to advise this is just a follow-up and cleanup item. He noted at the last BCC meeting, they passed a Resolution allowing the City of Longwood to collect the School Impact Fees at the time of pre-power; previously, it was at the time of building permit. For the City of Longwood to be consistent and be able to collect all of their impact fees from the other types of impact fees that they have at pre-power, this Resolution accomplishes that; it amends the County’s Resolution to reflect that with the City of Longwood and also amends the Library Interlocal Agreement, specifically stating that it moves back the time of collection to pre-power.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #24, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-45, amending Resolution #2003-R-142 pertaining to the time of payment of certain impact fees and water & sewer connection fees for the City of Longwood; and a Second Amendment to the Library System Impact Fee Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Longwood, as described in the proof of publication.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
NUISANCE ABATEMENT RESOLUTION/
1851 Shadyhill Terrace
Agenda Item #25 – PH-2018-0567
Request to consider a Resolution issuing an Order to declare the existence of a public nuisance at 1851 Shadyhill Terrace, Winter Park; require corrective action by April 26, 2018 by the record property owners; and authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owners, received and filed.
Liz Parkhurst, Building Division, addressed the Board to review the background timeline as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She advised to date, no corrective action has been taken, and there continues to be a steady decline in the condition of the property. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide the record property owners the opportunity to state why the structure does not create a public nuisance and why the property should not be abated. She further advised that the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office served the Summons to Appear along with the Notice of Determination of Public Nuisance to Heather and John McCandless, the record property owners. She added that on March 9, Heather McCandless applied for a permit to rebuild the structure and the application package is currently under review by staff.
Ms. Parkhurst stated staff recommends that the Board issue an Order declaring the unoccupied structure a public nuisance and require corrective action be taken by April 26, 2018. In the event the record owners do not take the corrective action, it is further recommended that the Board direct staff to abate the public nuisance.
Commissioner Carey noted Ms. Parkhurst said the owner has applied for a new building permit. She stated if they haven’t even gotten their permit yet, there is no way it could be abated by April 26, and she asked if there is reason to believe that their permit will be issued. Ms. Parkhurst replied it could possibly be issued by April 26, but the concern staff had was the owners had applied previously in 2016, and when they asked for additional information to issue the permit, nothing was received and it was never issued. Commissioner Carey questioned whether they had submitted all the new information staff needs. Ms. Parkhurst responded it has just been sent out for review, so she does not yet know if there will be any corrections required on the plans.
Commissioner Dallari indicated that he met with the property owners today and would like to hear from them.
John McCandless, 3012 Kingfisher Point, addressed the Board stating he is the property owner at 1851 Shadyhill Terrace. He explained that during the permit application process, the building code had changed, and so they had to revise the documents to provide energy calculations and trust documents. All of that was submitted to the County for permitting on February 21; they are just waiting for the comments to come back. Since they purchased it, they have landscaped and done lawn care. They were contacted a few times by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department, and every time something has been wrong, they went over and cleaned up the brush and materials and then followed back up with the Sheriff’s Department.
Commissioner Carey asked if they owned the house when it got in this disrepair, and Mr. McCandless replied they did not. Also, she wanted to know if he was the person that made application in 2016, and he stated that his wife did. (Speaker Request Form was received and filed from Mr. McCandless.)
Commissioner Dallari expressed he would like to give the property owners an opportunity to get their permit so they can address the comments from staff to see if they can actually pull a permit.
Cynthia Flores, 1802 Shadyhill Terrace, addressed the Board to say she is a homeowner in the subdivision where the subject property is located. She has lived there almost four years. She stated she has talked to other homeowners and this property has been sitting in its current condition for almost five years now. Their concern is that no effort was made for all this time. She opined the property is a public nuisance and a danger to their children. She disagrees about the maintenance on the property because for years there were overgrown trees, no landscaping, and teenagers would hang out on the property. She does not represent the HOA officially but they would really like to see some action taken to keep this moving along so that the house is rebuilt. (Speaker Request Form was not received.)
Commissioner Dallari asked when the property was obtained, and Mr. McCandless advised he purchased the property on June 30, 2014, a few months short of four years. Chairman Horan wondered what they intend to do with it. Mr. McCandless explained they are going to renovate the house and rent it as an investment property.
Commissioner Carey pointed out that the Property Record Card included in the agenda backup indicates that the last Warranty Deed was issued on May 1, 2013, and questioned whether that was issued to Mr. McCandless. He replied that it was not, and staff confirmed their records indicate that also. Commissioner Carey stated she would like some clarification on that. Chairman Horan said the immediate question is did somebody not record a deed. Commissioner Dallari opined it is important to know who owns the property and time of title would be just as important, but there are two issues here. One is that the property needs to be secured.
Commissioner Dallari asked Paul Watson, Building Division, whether there is any blatant reason that he believes they could not get their permit within 30 days. Mr. Watson addressed the Board to reply there is nothing he is aware of.
Commissioner Dallari questioned whether the property is secured. Mr. Watson responded it is not at this time; the tresses that were on the ground in the picture (included in the agenda memorandum) have been put up on scaffolding on the inside now and are tied, but that isn’t to say that they can’t fall down or a kid could not get hurt in there playing. Commissioner Dallari expressed he would like to have the property secured from a safety standpoint and he thinks that since they are in the building permit process, he would like to give them some time to actually get a permit. He added that 30 days is more than ample to get a permit, in his opinion, and asked if Mr. Watson saw an issue with that. Mr. Watson stated he did not as along as Mr. McCandless has all the proper engineering.
Chairman Horan questioned what the appropriate action would be. County Attorney Bryant Applegate advised the Board could hold off on their final decision to give the applicant time to get the permit and secure the property.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to April 24, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider a Resolution issuing an Order to declare the existence of a public nuisance at 1851 Shadyhill Terrace, Winter Park; and the property owners must totally secure the property immediately; Heather and John McCandless, property owners.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to a continuance of Item #25, and public input was closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
NUISANCE ABATEMENT RESOLUTION/
2028 Alexander Avenue
Agenda Item #26 – PH-2018-0568
Request to consider a Resolution issuing an Order to declare the existence of a Public Nuisance at 2028 Alexander Avenue, Sanford; require corrective action by April 26, 2018; and authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owners, William and Carrie Hartsfield.
Ms. Parkhurst reviewed the background timeline as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She advised to date, no corrective action has been taken, and there continues to be a steady decline in the condition of the property. She reiterated the purpose of these public hearings. She noted that on February 6, 2018, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office served the Summons to Appear along with the Notice of Determination of Public Nuisance to William and Carrie Hartsfield, the record property owners.
Ms. Parkhurst stated staff recommends that the Board issue an Order declaring the unoccupied structure a public nuisance and require corrective action be taken by April 26, 2018. In the event the record owners do not take the corrective action, it is further recommended that the Board direct staff to abate the public nuisance.
Commissioner Carey asked whether staff had heard from Mr. and Mrs. Hartsfield after the Sheriff served the summons. Ms. Parkhurst replied they have not. It was determined that the property owners were not in attendance.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #26, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-46 issuing an Order to declare the existence of a public nuisance at 2028 Alexander Avenue, Sanford; require correction action by April 26, 2018; and authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owners, William and Carrie Hartsfield.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CELERY AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE
Archie and Debbie Smith
Agenda Item #27 – PH-2018-0572
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1, Page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and E. SR 415, Sanford, received and filed.
Angi Kealhofer, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to advise that staff is requesting a continuance of the item to the April 10th meeting.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the continuance of Item #27, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to continue to April 10, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1, Page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and E. SR 415, Sanford, as described in the proof of publication; Archie and Debbie Smith, Applicants.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
STARWOOD DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/
PEC Surveying and Mapping
Agenda Item #28 – PH-2018-0400
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a portion of a public right-of-way known as Starwood Drive, being the south 653.95 feet of Starwood Drive right-of-way, lying in Section 31, Township 21 south, Range 31 east of Seminole County, Florida, PEC Surveying and Mapping, received and filed.
Joy Giles, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to advise that staff is requesting a continuance of the item to the April 24th meeting.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to a continuance of Item #28, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue to April 24, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a portion of a public right-of-way known as Starwood Drive, being the south 653.95 feet of Starwood Drive right-of-way, lying in Section 31, Township 21 south, Range 31 east of Seminole County, Florida, as described in the proof of publication; PEC Surveying and Mapping, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
HOWELL BRANCH BROAD – LOT 37 REZONE ORDINANCE/
Robert and Michelle Mallard
Agenda Item #29 – PH-2018-0009
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Rezone from R-3A (Multiple-Family Dwelling) to R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling) on approximately 3.5 acres, located on the east corner of Howell Branch Road and Bear Gully Road, Robert and Michelle Mallard, received and filed.
Danalee Petyk, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the item. She stated the Applicant’s request for a Rezone is in order to develop the subject property with one single-family dwelling in compliance with the R1-A zoning district, with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. She reviewed the background included in the agenda backup and advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval, and staff is also recommending approval of the Rezone.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #29, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt Ordinance #2018-9 enacting a Rezone from R-3A (Multiple-Family Dwelling) to R-1A (Single-Family Dwelling) for a single-family dwelling on approximately 3.5 acres, located on the east corner of Howell Branch Road and Bear Gully Road (Z2018-03), as described in the proof of publication; Robert and Michelle Mallard, Applicants.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
TOWNPARK COMMONS PD MAJOR AMENDMENT & REZONE
Piedmont TownPark Land, LLC
Agenda Item #30 – PH-2018-0604
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for 18.92 acres located on the north side of Colonial Center Parkway, approximately 1/8 mile west of Arbor Park Lane, Piedmont TownPark Land LLC, received and filed.
Kathy Hammel, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to explain this item is to modify access points of the TownPark Commons, also known as Piedmont. This PD was approved in 2015 for a mixed-use development. It consists of 1.2 million square feet of office, hotel and retail uses. The proposed modification consists of removing the access point to the south which connects the 600 building located in Colonial TownPark and adding an access point directly onto International Parkway to connect to the Allure on the Parkway, which is located on the west side of International Parkway. She advised the access point will be signalized. It will also create an access point to the north onto SR 417. The proposed modification to the access points will provide safer connectivity onto International Parkway and to the Allure on the Parkway development.
Ms. Hammel stated staff recommends approval of the Addendum to the TownPark Commons PD. She noted it was approved on March 7th by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Dallari confirmed with Ms. Hammel that the access from the north to SR 417 will be on the on-ramp, so when SR 417 gets continued to the Wekiva Parkway, it will still be just the on-ramp. Commissioner Carey clarified that it is the ramp that exists today.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #30, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2018-10 enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Addendum #1 to Development Order and Master Development Plan, for 18.92 acres located on the north side of Colonial Center Parkway, approximately 1/8 mile west of Arbor Park Lane (Z2017-42), as described in the proof of publication; Piedmont TownPark Land LLC, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CAMERON HEIGHTS PD (VILLAGES A AND J)
SSFLU MAP AMENDMENT & REZONE/D.R. Horton
Agenda Item #31 – PH-2018-0008
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (SSFLU) from Industrial to Planned Development for approximately 1.36 acres, and a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) and M-1 (Industrial) to PD (Planned Development) for approximately 58.91 acres located on the south side of Celery Avenue, north of SR 46, D.R. Horton, received and filed.
Matt Davidson, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to state the Applicant’s request is in order to develop Villages A and J of the Cameron Heights PD as a single-family residential subdivision. He detailed the proposals for both villages as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. He added the overall Cameron Heights PD was approved in 2005.
Mr. Davidson noted the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval, and staff recommends adoption of the ordinances.
Commissioner Carey stated to clarify for the record, this is a quite large, 280-acre land development. She questioned if the two additions and what is being contemplated are consistent with what has already been approved around that. Mr. Davidson answered yes, it is consistent with the land use and what is being built out there.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #31, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance #2018-11 enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (SSFLU) from Industrial to Planned Development for approximately 1.36 acres; and Ordinance #2018-12 enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) and M-1 (Industrial) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Addendum #1 to Development Order and Master Development Plan, for approximately 58.91 acres located on the south side of Celery Avenue, north of SR 46 (Z2017-059), as described in the proof of publication; D.R. Horton, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
ALTA SEMINOLE LSLUA MAP AMENDMENT
& REZONE/WP South Acquisitions, LLC
Agenda Item #32 – PH-2018-0008
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (LSFLU) from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development; and a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a 243 multifamily, residential-unit apartment complex, on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of W. SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, WP South Acquisitions LLC, received and filed.
Mr. Davidson advised staff is requesting a continuance on behalf of the Applicant to the April 10th meeting.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to a continuance of Item #32, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to April 10, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment (LSFLU) from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development; and a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a 243 multifamily, residential-unit apartment complex, on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of W. SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road (Z2017-047, 2017-FLUM-LS.01), as described in the proof of publication; WP South Acquisitions LLC, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT
Cash Flow Analysis & Investment Recommendation
Agenda Item #32A – PH-2018-0649
Nicole Guillet, County Manager, reminded this is a follow-up to a discussion they had at a commission meeting in January with respect to financial policies and investments; the Board had asked for additional information on cash flow.
Edward Bass, Resource Management Director, addressed the Board to present the item and request Board direction. He stated on January 23, Tom Tight with Public Trust Advisors came and made a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Bass noted Mr. Tight was looking at the November 2016 Investment Report, and it showed their lowest month’s cash balance of about $370 million. Mr. Tight recommended a 60/40 split saying that the target core portfolio should be about $250 million with about $100 million to $120 million of that $370 million (the 40%) to be cash available for operations. Mr. Bass said the Board had asked staff to come back with a cash flow analysis and a capital improvement plan. He noted that every year, they have to give a cash flow analysis to the Clerk’s Office, which is part of the requirements of the Administrative Code.
The Cash Flow Forecast chart was displayed. Mr. Bass stated it is a forecast of all funds broken out by Governmental Funds, Water and Sewer Funds, and Solid Waste Funds. He noted there are some smaller funds out there too, very small that they keep track of, but they kind of roll a lot of those up into the Governmental Funds because there are so many little ones. He explained to do the projection, they take the last three historical years that they have. So, they took three actual years, and then they took two projected years, keeping in mind what might be coming in the future as well. The slide shows they have an overall cash flow of about $28 million to the positive when looking at all of the funds.
Commissioner Carey repeated Mr. Bass’ statement that they look back three years, actual, and look forward two years on the CIP. Because it is not in their CIP, she asked if there was any anticipation for what might be spent at Five Points for infrastructure and some phasing of getting some building built out there. Mr. Bass replied that is not in these numbers because they have not put anything in for that in their five-year projection. He noted this cash flow forecast is based on projections before they build the 2019 project; this is just as of 2018 because that is all they have. They are currently working through the 2019 budget, and if some of those issues that come up based on capital needs and based on decisions that they make for future funding will affect this cash flow model, they will do this model again at the end of that when they prepare the 2019 budget. And then they will determine if that core amount is a good amount.
Commissioner Carey said that based on the direction of the Board, they have revisited the master plan and they’ve had these discussions. They need to think about that before they tie up a bunch of money into some kind of restricted investment or otherwise they could end up having to do some creative financing. She just wants to make sure before they make a decision on a recommendation of how much to put into a longer term asset, whether it be one, three, or five years, that they make sure they have looked at the analysis of how much they may spend over the next few years at Five Points.
Ms. Guillet addressed Mr. Bass stating when he gets to the recommendations, there is some wiggle room there so they will talk about that. Mr. Bass showed the Governmental Funds chart and line graph. He indicated, as Mr. Tight talked about in his presentation, they can see the high points are in the first quarter, which is when the majority of the ad valorem revenues come in. So, a big chunk of their revenue comes in the first quarter, but a lot of their bigger expenditures come in the fourth quarter.
The Solid Waste Fund chart and bar graph was displayed. Mr. Bass expressed this one is kind of opposite; revenues are coming in kind of evenly through the quarter through the Solid Waste department. At the end of the year when they do internal charges and they have final adjustments that they have to make for finance or whatever, they have bigger expenditure adjustments in the last quarter.
The Water and Sewer Funds slide was shown. Mr. Bass explained this is a full accrual fund and said the revenues and expenditures go right in line with each other. They collect the water bills and pay the expenses, so it is pretty even depending on where maybe debt service payments are or if they have any final payments in the last quarter of the year.
Mr. Bass stated they then looked at the Five-Year CIP Plan. The Five-Year CIP by Element Summary chart was displayed. He noted they have about $189 million projected in CIP funding. A big portion of the $189 million is going to be funded as they move through those years, 2018 through 2021. The sales tax revenue will fund some of these projects, and water and sewer rates come in, so there is some capital money that goes to these projects.
Mr. Bass stated the Clerk is just about ready to issue the CAFR and they will update these numbers when they get the CAFR and will let the Board know if there are any major changes or major swings. They don’t anticipate many because they kind of know what they brought in and what they’ve spent. He said the question comes down to, is the $100 million or $120 million or 40% of that target core amount enough. He noted these numbers do not include storms or unexpected events, so of that $100 million that would be available, they would be able to draw upon that if they had an emergency or some kind of unexpected event. He mentioned the last storm was about $30 million; Commissioner Carey stated the total from the hurricanes in 2004 was closer to $60 million. Mr. Bass advised that staff believes the $120 million is a good place to be, but when they build the budget, this could change.
Commissioner Carey stated the discussion is whether they want to take a certain percentage of their cash available and put it into a longer term investment bank. She said before she is interested in making that decision, she would like to know how much they anticipate spending at Five Points and what their options are. She added they have an RFP that they should have a response to pretty soon. She does not want to keep putting money into the old courthouse. In 2006, they first commissioned the master plan with the intent of not continuing to spend money on these old facilities, and that stalled because of the economy. Now she thinks it is time for the Board to look at that and move it forward, and before they tie up a bunch of money and then have to go borrow against their own funds, she would like to have some kind of idea on that. Ms. Guillet stated she thinks it will be a number of months before they have an idea on that because while the window for proposals is closing, public-private partnership proposals can be very complicated. Until they know what they have volume-wise and everything else, she cannot give an estimate on the time frame, but they are a number of months out before the Board will make any kind of decision on that.
Commissioner Carey indicated in thinking about the discussions that they’ve had, they would potentially look at building something for the State Attorneys and Public Defenders so that group could move out and they could put the courts back together. Ms. Guillet advised they have some initial estimates on cost for the entire complex and she thinks they are in the neighborhood of $200 million, which is why she thinks there may be some phasing of the project. She added they might get a great alternative approach through this public-private partnership solicitation. So anything at this point in time with respect to debt service or actual investment or cost would be an absolute guess because this Board could go in any number of directions with that project if it decided actually to even proceed with it. Commissioner Carey remarked she would like to see what the estimates are for the entire project and then they can look at how it might be phased, but if they do decide to take a percentage of the funds and put them into an investment vehicle, she thinks they should keep it short until they know exactly what they are doing at Five Points. Chairman Horan stated Public Trust Advisors was talking about one, three and five-year vehicles. Mr. Bass clarified that Mr. Tight talked about a one-to-three year and a one-to-five year, and they are laddered out so that in year one of the three, there was a bigger portion of those funds in the earlier years than in the later years, so as year one gets here, they could get some of that money out if they had to.
Ms. Guillet stated she thinks what she hears Commissioner Carey saying is that she wants to maintain some flexibility until they have a better fix on what they might be doing with Five Points. Chairman Horan questioned how that laddering would work in a practical example. For example, if you needed $50 million diving into the $250 million that they are supposed to be investing, how soon could they get ahold of that through the laddering process? Commissioner Dallari and Mr. Bass advised it would be a year.
Commissioner Carey asked if they could take the information that Ms. Guillet has and then break out a couple of things and then come up with some estimates. And then take the recommendation and say here is a way to do it so that if your timeline for this development is “X”, the money would be available based on how you are going to recommend that it be invested. Mr. Bass indicated they can do that and said they need to break out what their reserve balance from the $250 million is. Commissioner Carey noted the storm cycles have gotten a lot more frequent. She would just say $30 million is probably not enough, $60 million is probably a little more than what they need for just a rainy day fund, maybe it should be somewhere in the middle. A discussion was had in regard to the various hurricanes and reimbursement from FEMA.
Chairman Horan stated he thinks what they want to do is make sure they are conservative enough in their direction to the Clerk to make sure that they have the liquidity in a worst case scenario. So with regard to the professional advice that they have been given, he asked what Mr. Bass’ recommendation would be. Mr. Bass advised based on the CIP they currently have and on the analysis they’ve done, the $100 million to $120 million is sufficient for the next fiscal year. Commissioner Carey added that is not counting storms or Five Points. Mr. Bass said they are including about $30 million in that $120 million in case they were to have another storm, so that leaves them about $90 million if they look at it that way. Commissioner Carey addressed Ms. Guillet stating she knows they brought this back to the Board because they asked for additional information, but she, for one, would like to at least have those numbers imputed for Five Points before they make a decision to kind of see where they are, or they can just take $50 million out of the number. Ms. Guillet pointed out it would certainly leave a big enough cushion for Five Points if that is what the Board wants to do. She added if they decided they weren’t going to need that much money for Five Points, they could always give direction to invest even further, but she said she can’t imagine this Board would invest more than $50 million a year. Commissioner Carey agreed stating they would build it out over four or five years. Ms. Guillet said she thinks then, that that number is probably more than sufficient.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Horan, Mr. Bass explained it would be $200 million in the long-term that Mr. Tight calls his 1 to 3 and 1 to 5, and then the $170 million in cash. Chairman Horan stated the suggestion he would make is that they go ahead and follow the recommendation that was just suggested. Commissioner Carey confirmed it is $170 million in cash and for the rest, look at investments. She asked that they just try to keep some of that short-term and Ms. Guillet replied they would.
Motion by Chairman Horan to give the Clerk direction to invest the funds consistent with the recommendation of $170 million in liquidity and the remainder in the longer term, consistent with the recommendations of Public Trust Advisors.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey stated for clarification and since they have the Clerk here, if they are going to be investing the funds, she would like the Clerk’s Office to be talking and communicating with their financial advisor. Clerk Maloy stated for the record, they invited Public Trust to come, but they did not show up for the meeting with his investment committee. He noted Public Trust advised they were instructed not to talk with the Clerk’s Office. Chairman Horan stated that the Board is directing the Clerk to go ahead and contact Public Trust Advisors.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like to give a shout out to the people in the Rolling Hills community for the way they have gone about trying to educate the people regarding the MSBU; they were knocking on doors as late as this weekend. He noted they have met the criteria to go forward with the MSBU.
Commissioner Carey indicated there were some trees in people’s yards that were damaged during the hurricane and they’ve been removed, but they’ve put all the debris in the county right-of-way along Markham Woods Road. She questioned whether they could have their crews go out and address that or have Code Enforcement go address it, but they just need to not let it sit there indefinitely.
Commissioner Carey reported there is a sinkhole on Long Pond which opened up a little bit more last night. She understands from her update this morning that it continues to have activity. She wants to make sure the County does a reverse call to the communities along there and that they have Public Works come up with some plan to make sure that they keep access open. For a lot of those subdivisions on the north side of Long Pond, that is their only way out. Ms. Guillet advised they have had folks out there all day and they are also dealing with some utility issues related to that as well.
Commissioner Carey said they have the Choice Neighborhood Initiative Transformation Plan Fair going on in the form of a Town Hall meeting and it is scheduled for March 29. This is the Goldsboro Academy Manor transformation plan. Also, on Saturday, March 31, the Central Florida Expressway Authority will be opening Section 2B, which will open the 429 all the way out to SR 46. There is a run associated with this and the money is being given to an environmental group, so there is a small fee for that. In addition on April 23, they will be having the Central Florida Golden Eagle dinner for Seminole County honoring Dr. Hitt. She added that all the money stays in Seminole County for scouting.
Commissioner Carey submitted her ex parte communications in connection with the public hearings into the record (received and filed).
Commissioner Dallari stated he has had conversations over the past week with the County Manager and County Attorney regarding the rural boundary and rural area designation, which were established by the voters in Seminole County in 2004. He read from Section 5.2 of the Charter stating it provides authority for the Board to remove property from the rural area and amend the rural boundary by ordinance whenever, in the opinion of the Board, such change is necessary. He noted that recently there have been attempts by the Legislature to interfere with their home rule authority by considering two proposals: to attempt to exempt areas within proximity to universities or, in the alternative, to require periodic referendums. Neither of those attempts passed. He is sure there will be more proposals because he has heard of various people talking about potentially putting forth proposals for consideration at legislative sessions next year. This coupled with the activity in Orange County regarding their development standards within the rural areas and development inquiries over time that staff has received, he believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of Seminole County for this Board to direct staff to quantify the existing future land use policies and the land development regulations applicable to and impacting the rural area and the rural boundary, to examine existing conditions along the rural boundary in the urban and rural areas, and to provide recommendations for consideration to analyze by this Board if and when future changes are proposed.
Commissioner Dallari stated in order to do this, he thinks it is appropriate to allow staff the appropriate time to accomplish all of this. He said he is asking this Board to direct staff to prepare a moratorium ordinance for approximately nine months (270 days) for consideration by this Board for a limited acceptance and review of the application for developments in the rural boundary, future land use amendments in the rural area, and any changes in the land development regulations which would require density or intensity of property in the rural area. He requested that it be advertised for a public hearing for the April 10 meeting for action by this Board. He wants to make sure the public and this Board can have input and he wants to make sure the dialogue is started now.
Chairman Horan questioned whether the Commissioner wanted to make that in the form of a motion and then summarized the motion below.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to put on the April 10 calendar, consideration of a moratorium on land uses and development in the rural area, as discussed.
Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari opined it is important to have dialogue and talk about some of the issues that are pertaining to the eastern part of Seminole County. There are more and more residents asking questions about it as well as developers asking questions about it. He added in order for staff to be up to speed and to make sure that the Board understands all the impacts as described here, they should basically take a timeout approach. He noted that is why he declared the things he just declared in that succinct order and he is asking the Board to take action to advertise.
Commissioner Carey explained the reason she will not support the motion is because they already have rules in place for the rural boundary that protect the rural boundary. And, it is the people’s right to be able to make an application, and it is this Board’s right to decide, the majority of it, if they want to support the request or not if they are outside of the rules of the rural boundary. She opined that a moratorium, to her, is just kicking the can down the road. Commissioner Dallari disagreed stating he does not believe it is kicking the can down the road; he believes it is allowing staff to look at the land use and priorities of the development in that area and how it addresses the rural boundary area. Commissioner Carey reminded she suggested they look at it in 2006 when they got the report about transitional zoning and nobody wanted to talk about transitional zoning. She stated they have in place a policy about the rural boundary, so there is no transition, there is nothing, and so unless they are going to talk about how they are going to fix this imaginary line in the sand that nobody ever contemplated any transition to get to, which is a bigger discussion, she does not think they need a moratorium to do that.
Commissioner Henley stated he believes the referendum that passed has set that up and is sufficient as long as this Board respects it, plus the fact that the landowner right now has a right to build 1 to 5 or 1 to 10, and declaring a moratorium that might prevent somebody who has a legal right under the referendum that passed to come in and request a building permit concerns him. Commissioner Dallari expressed he respects Commissioner Henley’s opinion, and people do have the right to develop their property in that area per the existing Land Development Code. He said this would not prohibit someone to develop in the rural area; this is talking about the actual rural boundary. Commissioner Carey said her point is they are protected right now and they could have this discussion any time about transition without putting a moratorium in place. Mr. Applegate confirmed that Commissioner Carey’s point is correct.
Commissioner Constantine stated he thinks it is important that they sit down and discuss issues in an open dialogue. They do know that what happened in the Legislature is not going to be an isolated incident; it will persist. He thinks that Commissioner Dallari is just looking at taking a deep breath and looking at what the future holds. He would like to have action accordingly such as what they discussed at the last meeting where they approach Oviedo, Winter Springs and Orange County. He thinks they should look at the big picture and really start looking at the long-term implications in that area; however, he thinks they should also include the Black Hammock side of this, not just the east Orange County side of it. He explained he is saying maybe no to a moratorium but thinks it is extremely important to discuss where they go from here as far as a strategy, and that is why he supported the motion. Commissioner Dallari remarked if they are going to have a strategy conversation, they have to basically have a timeout, and that is what this would do. Commissioner Carey reiterated that it is protected right now, today, and if they want to change the rules today, they have to come before this body and get approval to do that. She is not going to support putting a moratorium in place to have a discussion because she thinks they can have the discussion without it.
Chairman Horan stated there is no doubt that what they are trying to do in Seminole County is to direct development to those areas where they already have services in place, where they get the most bang for the buck in terms of tax base, in terms of utilizing what facilities and what infrastructure they already have in place, and that they protect an area that is already special because it has got so many different things that are already natural features. He opined you can barely put a Sustany or a “Grow” project into the rural area because you can’t put together enough land. He noted he recently asked the Property Appraiser to put together a list of all of the major property owners in the rural area that own more than a couple hundred acres of land in one tract, and it is actually seven or eight property owners. He believes it is well past time to discuss these things, but he thinks that if they put a moratorium on, all they are doing is giving ammunition to somebody to file a lawsuit. He will not be supporting the motion, but he certainly supports the idea that this get going. He thinks they should discuss a rural character plan, purchase of development rights, and they should put all the options on the table to preserve the eastern rural areas.
Districts 1 and 3 voted AYE.
Commissioners Horan, Henley, and Carey voted NAY.
Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to see this on a future agenda item. Commissioner Carey said she thinks it is a great idea and that this Board is the only one out of 7 counties and 68 cities that actually adopted the “How Shall We Grow?” into their Comprehensive Land Plan to apply those principles. She opined until something actually gets built on the land in the rural boundary, that pressure will always be there. It is unfortunate when this was put into place that there was not vision of how to truly protect it through some transition up to the line or at least make the line some roads. Commissioner Dallari suggested they set the agenda item and a work session to expedite this.
Ms. Guillet commented they are seeing increasing pressure to develop in the rural boundary; they have seen three in the last couple of months. Staff is trying to organize a timeline of how all this came to be. The first discussions of the rural area started in the late 80s, early 90s. There are two rural boundary lines, the Charter line and the Comprehensive Plan line. Staff will put together a fact sheet and a timeline as to what the history has been of the rural boundary area as well as what the different elements are of both the Comprehensive Plan and Charter rural boundary lines. She noted they will get that to the Board sooner rather than later and they will incorporate that into some options. Commissioner Carey asked that they include the Geneva bubble and the history of that as well.
Commissioner Constantine stated that “How Shall We Grow?” is now 10 years old, and because it is 10 years old, the MPO and the Regional Planning Council, through the initiative of Mr. Barley, are starting to talk about looking at a next generation. Commissioner Henley questioned if there had been a report from the committee that was established in regard to protection of the green areas. Commissioner Constantine replied that Mr. Barley brought it up at the last MPO meeting and stated he would like to start the process. All the representatives concurred that was a good idea, and Mr. Barley has already made the initiative on the Regional Planning Council so they can coordinate and start working together. Nothing is down on paper yet.
Chairman Horan reported he did complete the letters to their legislators thanking them for their assistance and also to the Florida Association of Counties and specific people on FAC. He said the Seminole Action Board is continuing some due diligence on alternatives that they have to participate in the Continuum of Care. He believes they are going to receive those recommendations either at the first or second meeting in April. Commissioner Dallari asked the Chairman to send the commissioners a list of who the thank you letters were sent to so they can make sure they covered them all. Chairman Horan said he would do that.
Commissioner Carey stated there are a couple of bills that are still out there, one being about some things at the airport. So, she has asked the Assistant County Manager to keep up with those and when they do bill signing, to circulate that every few days to just notify them of what they are. She noted she wants to keep up with some of those outstanding issues so they can report back to the other agencies that they serve on.
Chairman Horan advised he was given some information by Diane Crews, President and CEO of the Orlando Sanford International Airport, about the overlapping noise bubbles. Commissioner Carey explained they are called noise contours and they actually have a noise committee that meets out there and that is required by law. One of the things they are looking at is called a hush house, it has three sides and the plane would actually pull into that and run up the engine for those early morning flights, and it is supposed to eliminate the noise. She reminded they address the noise at the airport in their Joint Planning Agreement with the City of Sanford. With the input of the airport, Larry Dale at the time, it states any residential development in a certain area around the airport would have to have a noise avigation easement over the property and notification given to the people before they purchase or before they rent that this is an area where there is loud noise.
Chairman Horan indicated the issue Ms. Crews actually brought up to him from two legislative sessions ago is in accordance with some federal guidelines, they are required to amend a certain Florida Statute which extends the area, and it also has provisions regarding zoning that local governments cannot have in those areas. What is alarming about it is there are certain portions of the noise zone that come into Seminole County relating to OIA. Commissioner Carey advised that Planning and Development staff have looked at that, and the County doesn’t really have any residential areas that are impacted by it. Chairman Horan expressed that Ms. Crews seemed to be concerned about it and asked if they are aware of what effect that may have on them. Commissioner Carey replied, yes they have looked at it, and Ms. Guillet stated they are “on it.” Commissioner Carey mentioned there is a bill out there that they are waiting to have signed that has to do with trespassing at the airport, and that is one of the ones she has asked Ms. Lung to closely monitor.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Notice of Public Hearings for the City of Lake Mary. Planning & Zoning Board and City Commission to consider a request for Conditional Uses and a Site Plan with a Landscape Variance and Developer’s Agreement for the Orlando Health Freestanding Emergency Department and Medical Pavilion to be located at the corner of Rinehart Road and Manderley Run/Siemens entrance. The item will be heard on March 27, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. and April 19, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.
2. Letter dated January 24, 2018, from Cynthia Porter, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Chairman Horan re: Reappointment of Commissioner Patrick Austin to represent the City as a Voting Member and reappointment of Bob Turk, Director of Economic Development, as Staff Representative on the 17-92 RPA.
3. Letter dated January 24, 2018, from Cynthia Porter, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Chairman Horan re: Mayor Triplett and Norton Bonaparte, Jr. will represent the City on the Mayor and Managers Council. Mayor Triplett will continue to serve on the Tourism Development Council and Commissioner Patty Mahany will continue to serve as his alternate. Mayor Triplett will continue to serve as representative on Envision Seminole and Commissioner Velma Williams will continue to serve as his alternate.
4. Copy of a letter dated February 13, 2017, from Nicole Guillet, Seminole County Manager, to Norton Bonaparte, Jr., City Manager, City of Sanford re: City Commission Resolution #18-037, Zoning in Process Resolution.
5. Letter dated February 21, 2018, from the City of Casselberry, Planning Division, to Adjacent Property Owner re: LPA 10-05: Future Land Use Map Change of Parcels located along Red Bug Lake Road and ZB-18-01: Zoning and Rezoning of Parcels located along Red Bug Lake Road.
6. Letter dated February 23, 2018, from Greenway Health, to Chairman Horan re: Closing of its facility at 3210 Lake Emma Road, Lake Mary, on April 27, 2018.
7. Letter dated March 5, 2018, from Traci Houchin, Acting City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Seminole County BOCC re: Annexation of 10.5 acres between Green Swallow Way and Pine Way, and between Sipes Avenue and Loon Lane.
8. Letter dated March 5, 2018, from O. H. Eaton, Jr., to Chairman Horan re: Clerk of the Court.
9. Letter dated March 5, 2018, from Traci Houchin, Acting City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Seminole County BOCC re: Annexation of 0.22 acres between Sarita Street and Barcliffe Street, and between Grenada Avenue and Hartwell Avenue.
10. Letter dated March 6, 2018, from Angela Apperson, City Clerk, City of Altamonte Springs, to Chairman Horan re: Annexation of property at 1440 E. Altamonte Drive.
11. Letter dated March 8, 2018, from James Stansbury, Chief, Bureau of Community Planning and Growth, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re: Completed review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DEO Amendment #17-2ESR).
12. Copy of a letter dated March 19, 2018, from Pat Patterson, Member of Volusia County Council, to Commissioner Dallari re: Central Florida Commuter Rail System, Phase II (Corrected).
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
Todd Powell, 225 Temple Avenue, addressed the Board to request a rehearing of his case; he had been before the Board of Commissioners in 2005 to request a waiver of a lien. They reduced the lien to the administrative costs of $1,205.12 if paid within 60 days. Unfortunately, he was not able to make the payment and the amount was reverted back to $11,325. He said he was diagnosed with Stage 4 throat cancer in 2012 and in January, was diagnosed with liver cancer. He recently had one surgery on February 9th and is scheduled for another surgery on Thursday. He is currently undergoing treatment and has paperwork to show if need be.
Commissioner Carey asked that staff get with him to help him through the process. Chairman Horan asked Mr. Applegate to walk Mr. Powell through the procedures of lien reduction and lien waiver. Commissioner Dallari suggested they ask the County Attorney to expedite this. Commissioner Carey noted that after the County Attorney has an opportunity to review this, if there is a financial hardship involved here and there is an application fee, they should consider that as part of the process too. Mr. Applegate indicated he will make it a priority. Mr. Powell stated he appreciated the Board’s help.
Sita Chari, 1911 North Street, addressed the Board to show pictures of her backyard that was flooded during the hurricane (received and filed). She noted they were taken a few days ago and show the damage that occurred.
Dr. Nallan Chari, 1911 North Street, addressed the Board to say he disagrees with the views of the Deputy County Manager who emailed him yesterday in regard to his tort claim in connection with the damage to his backyard. He read his statement into the record (received and filed) and submitted two organizational charts and a quote from the Ethics Center (received and filed). Dr. Chari added that he has been coming to the meetings for 20 years and he talked to the County people and they just have lip sympathy and nothing else. He came to the November meeting and Commissioner Carey had a lot of questions about his situation and asked staff to provide the input for improving the situation, and he hasn’t heard a thing from the County officials who are looking into this. He said he is frustrated and this is not a pleasure for him to come and talk about all this.
Commissioner Carey questioned if he has a tort claim against the County and wanted to know if someone in the legal department is reviewing that. She stated a lot of her questions before had to do with whether FDOT had any responsibility in this or was there something going on with the breach that had something to do with this. Mr. Applegate responded that Legal has worked with Bill Telkamp, Risk Management, on the issue, but if it is a tort claim, the process is that they file a Notice of Claim and if it is not satisfied in six months, they have a right to sue. His understanding is that staff has looked at the issue and determined that the County is not at fault over the flooding. Chairman Horan noted there was a letter sent from Mr. Telkamp to Dr. and Mrs. Chari.
Commissioner Constantine advised that when the whole process arose, Mr. Telkamp reviewed it and sent a letter saying the claim was denied. He advised that Dr. Chari continued to call, so he had suggested they look at it again because they did not discuss the original easement in the claim. So, he asked staff to look at it again.
Bruce McMenemy, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board to advise that Jean Jreij (Public Works), Bill Telkamp (Risk Management), Edward Bass (Resource Management), and he met and reviewed all the documents. It was Mr. Jreij’s opinion that there was no inordinate amount of drainage; the easement does what it was designed for. It goes back to 1969 and was in place well before there was any dwelling on the property. Dr. Chari bought the property in 1992. The easement was in place; FDOT’s easement for their pond was in place. He noted it is unfortunate that there was damage to his property, but it was probably a consequence of the dwelling being where it is.
Commissioner Carey stated as she recalls from the pictures, the damage was to the playground and to a storage building. She asked if a permit was issued from the County for the storage building. Mr. McMenemy advised he could not say definitively; they have not identified one. Commissioner Carey stated then they have more homework to do because if, in her opinion, they issued a permit for him to put a storage building in an easement, which she cannot imagine they would have done that, but if they did, then maybe they have some obligation for the damage that was done, because the County should have never permitted any structure to be built in an easement. Ms. Guillet remarked that a lot of people’s backyards and storage units flooded during the storm and the County is not liable for that. Commissioner Carey reiterated that nothing should have been built in the easement. She added they cannot predict where the water is going to go; it will go to the lowest point.
Dr. Chari talked about a pipe being placed there and said it doesn’t address the damage caused to his property. He has asked the County Engineer before to show him other properties that are in this situation because this is a very peculiar situation. He asked them to show him a property where the County has an easement and a right, basically, to kill the property because that is what is happening. He spent his money to raise his backyard so this doesn’t happen. He said that you cannot think the pond is an ocean and that you can’t keep on putting the water in forever with no consideration for the property owner. He asked what the conditions were in 1969 in which the County was allowed for essential purposes to have an easement on this property. He opined the developer doesn’t care because he will do whatever it takes to get the permit and build a building and get out from there, which is exactly what he did. He then talked about ethical and moral consideration for the property owner and that is what is bothering him. Most of the pond is on his property, so if the County has to build a stormwater retention pond, it takes a lot of money to meet all the guidelines. He said that here he is on his property helping the County to save money on building a stormwater retention pond and in this retention pond, all the water, without any cleaning, gets into this, with all the pollutants, with all the kinds of things from the streets, and there’s not even a safety cleaning aspect attached to this. Dr. Chari added if you look at any of the other ponds in the County, they always had some way that all these pollutants were removed before the water gets into them. And then Seminole County prides itself on maintaining beautiful ponds and all that. This is exactly contrary to what is happening in that little pond and that has really been bothering him for the past 20 years. He is not talking about this storm. There were storms before and there was water in his backyard, but not like this. He is trying to ask the Commissioners to not put all the burden of the stormwater on his back and then say hey, too bad, there is an easement, go and suffer. That makes no ethical or moral or any kind of a sense. There has to be some kind of relief where the County has to do something and not say hey, we can make this individual person suffer just because there is an easement, which it doesn’t really say what happens to the water after it gets into that. He noted he is very frustrated and does not know if they want him to stay on the property or just leave it. He remarked that he had even said he wanted to give the pond to the County for maintenance, but they did not want it. They could build a stormwater retention pond by dredging it and building a seawall so the other properties are not affected. If they don’t want to do that, they should buy his property and expand the pond so that the other people will not be affected. This is in the interest of the whole community. He said he can’t take it anymore.
Commissioner Dallari asked whose pond it is and Ms. Guillet replied it is a private pond with an easement over it. Mr. McMenemy added it is not a pond, it is an easement. Ms. Guillet opined it is just a depression. Mr. Jreij stated the County has an easement for maintenance; the County maintains the pipe but not the pond itself. Commissioner Dallari asked if it was a pond or a depression. Mr. Jreij stated it is a stormwater pond and that it does take all of the area. The pond functions like it is supposed to. He advised they do not pump from FDOT to that pond; they pump from that pond to FDOT. Commissioner Dallari asked again who owns the pond and Mr. Jreij replied that Dr. Chari does and the County has an easement over it for maintenance of the pipe only.
Commissioner Dallari questioned who is putting water into the pond and Mr. Jreij replied all of that area; it is a basin and they built there in the 80s. Commissioner Henley stated it comes out of the Victoria Park development. Commissioner Dallari asked whether the water comes from the roads. Mr. Jreij responded that is does and also from the yards and basins.
Chairman Horan stated this is an easement granted many years ago. It is not like there is a pond there. What has happened is the water has created the pond. And, in fact, relief from this pond is actually provided by another pond that the County pumps out of, as he understands it. Mr. Jreij noted there is another development to the east and the west half belongs to Dr. Chari. The east side belongs to the development. Chairman Horan noted they are not doing anything that they are not legally entitled to do and they are not legally obligated to maintain the pond or to maintain Dr. Chari’s property. They just have an easement over it. He added Dr. Chari has a right to file a claim and confirmed that a Notice of Claim had not been filed. Commissioner Henley pointed out the part that belongs to Victoria Park is about 40 to 50 feet higher than Dr. Chari’s property.
Commissioner Carey recounted that one time in her district, they had an unintended consequence of a drainage issue. Sheet flows in a certain direction; something gets built or they elevate the road or raise the height of the road, and sometimes it has an impact that they didn’t really intend for it to have. She added that in 1969 every road in Rolling Hills was a dirt road. So as things have changed out there maybe the conditions have changed and she thinks they have a responsibility to just revisit it from an engineering standpoint. She noted the other option for Dr. Chari is to file a lawsuit and let a third party decide because obviously they cannot all agree. Mr. Jreij expressed the storm they had was a huge storm with a lot of water and also, none of the houses were flooded in that area. The pond functioned as it was supposed to. The yards will flood when you have a situation like that.
Chairman Horan stated when he talked to Dr. Chari about two years ago and reviewed all of his documents, it was obvious to him that the easement was granted because it was intended to be a retention area. Then the new developments came in and when Dr. Chari bought the property, the retention was not being filled at that time. But it is apparent that the easement was granted because there was sheet flow coming onto the property. He added that Dr. Chari bought the property subject to the easement; he believes it was on the title work. The bottom line is there is no doubt given the easement that that particular area on his property was intended to be a drainage area.
Ms. Guillet advised they have looked at it a lot over the last several years but it certainly couldn’t hurt to take another look at it just to determine once and for all whether or not there is anything that the County needs to do. Commissioner Constantine indicated that is exactly what he asked Mr. McMenemy and staff to do. He understands that they are frustrated; they see him and his wife here almost every meeting. He has no problem looking at it again because he just thinks they need to get a definitive answer so Dr. Chari can do whatever else is necessary if the answer is not what he wants to hear.
Mr. McMenemy opined their answer to the claim is completely accurate and was the answer that they should have given. They do not have any obligation based upon the claim that was put in front of them; however, he just spoke with Mr. Jreij and they will be glad to go out to the property and meet with Dr. Chari to come up with a list of potential options that the Board could look at if they want to and determine collectively what they think the best approach would be, if anything. Commissioner Dallari said he would like to see which areas are contributing to the water going into that area.
Ms. Guillet expressed she does not want anyone on the Board to think that they haven’t looked at this since 1969. They have looked at this a lot, especially in the last few years because they have had a lot of questions about it. Every time an issue is raised, they have gone out to look at it. Commissioner Carey reiterated when they got the easement in 1969, it was for the conditions that existed in 1969. It wasn’t intended to necessarily be a retention pond for Victoria Park, for the paved roads that now have curb and gutter, and all of those kinds of things. Maybe it isn’t being used the way it was originally intended and that is all she is asking them to look at. Mr. McMenemy stated they will get together with Dr. Chari after the meeting and set something up.
Commissioner Constantine pointed out they also have commitment from the County Manager that when and if they get control of Rolling Hills, they would look at it in that context too. Commissioner Carey asked if there is an outfall structure for the pond. Commissioner Dallari replied no and that is the problem. Commissioner Henley and the Chairman commented that it is not a pond, which is the problem.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m., this same date.