January 9, 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, January 9, 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)

County Manager Nicole Guillet

Deputy County Attorney Lynn Porter-Carlton

Clerk of Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy (1:30)

Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer


Pastor Charles Higgins, Jr., Westview Baptist Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation. Commissioner Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.


The Business Spotlight video for Flowers Chemical Lab was presented.


Agenda Item #1-B 2018-0518

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve appropriate Resolution #2018-R-1 recognizing Christopher OConnor, Lance Corporal, United States Marine Corps, as Seminole Countys January 2018 Veteran of the Month.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Lance Corporal OConnor addressed the Board to express his appreciation.


Agenda Item #1 2018-0499

Edward Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, Lynx, addressed the Board and thanked them for allowing Lynx to present today. He stated the presentation surrounds projects that need to be moved forward within the community to help strengthen the economic vitality. Chairman Horan confirmed that the Board has had an opportunity to take a look at this study before todays presentation.

Myles OKeefe, Senior Planner, Lynx, addressed the Board and presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Study Update (received and filed). Mr. OKeefe discussed Study Area and Project Goals which include an enhanced transit experience, safe walking and bicycling environments, transportation improvements that are implementable and financially sustainable, and multimodal improvements that support community health. He reviewed the Schedule, Travel Patterns, and Infrastructure slides. Mr. OKeefe discussed the Alternatives Analysis and explained Level 1, Modes; Level 2, Alignments and Segments; and Level 3, Operating Scenarios, Stations, and Multimodal Access (Complete Streets). He concluded his presentation by stating he hopes to come back to the Board in a few months to share what the final results are of the study.

Commissioner Dallari commented the health aspect of transportation needs to be evaluated so he is glad Lynx is doing that. In regard to traffic patterns in the region, Commissioner Dallari asked if through traffic was going to be addressed. Mr. OKeefe replied they can take another look at the cell phone data and _+#1_see _+$1_what _+%1__%_Met_+&1_ro_+'1_P_+'1_lan_+(1_ is _+)1_able to filter through that, but MetroPlan has to be the ones that touch the data since they purchased it. He has begun to put together a model based off of the Lynx Origin Destination survey data to see how it compares on a regional level; and there are some points from _%_Lynx _%_Forward that show the throughput on the region that he_%_'d be happy to share. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to see that. He asked if they are evaluating whether a preemptive or an adaptive system is preferred with traffic timing. Mr. OKeefe responded FDOT has already installed several transit signal priority modules. Commissioner Dallari responded he knows they are around the Altamonte Mall area, but he is asking if they have looked at extending it down further south. Mr. OKeefe answered that is part of a potential recommendation.


Nicole Guillet, County Manager, stated the County has reached a decision point with respect to the purchase contract on the Rolling Hills property. She briefly discussed the history of the Rolling Hills contract. Ms. Guillet explained in February of last year, they received conditional approval of the transfer of the grant obligations from Jetta Point to Rolling Hills. There were nine conditions associated with that conditional approval, and the most significant was the requirement that the County does an environmental assessment and a remediation plan based on any of the findings of that assessment. The County sent the initial study to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and has been working with them since last spring to try to get a final approval on the remediation plan. FDEP has requested four times either additional information or additional testing. The most recent inquiry was in mid-December, and the County just sent their response to that inquiry last week.

Ms. Guillet opined they are in the final stretch of that environmental assessment and remediation planning; however, it has not been finalized and the County hasnt received a final blessing from FDEP on that. They dont know exactly what will be entailed with any remediation associated with the site. The Countys consultants that are helping with the project know that there will be some site remediation and ongoing monitoring, and their estimate right now is that the cost will be about $1.5 million. She stated that brings them to the situation that they are in today with respect to the contract. As they have been going through the environmental testing, theyve gotten several extensions of the due diligence period with the contract. The most recent due diligence period ended on November 30th. Under the terms of the contract, they are to close within 45 days of the end of the due diligence period, which would be January 14th.

Ms. Guillet explained the Board has the option to cancel the contract for environmental reasons anytime up until the closing date. They are in a situation where they know they have to do remediation, and they know the cost is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million. She reminded that the purchase price of the property is $3.95 million. The appraisal on the Jetta Point property is $3.75 million. The County thought they were almost at a wash with the two projects, but the remediation issue has added about $1.5 million in the estimate to the cost of the project and thats not in the budget. Staff needs direction from the Board as to what they want to do with the contract. They either need to notify the seller before January 14th that the County intends to cancel the contract for environmental reasons or they need to decide to go ahead with the closing with the understanding that there isnt a final number on the remediation. Ms. Guillet reiterated the County doesnt have final approval from Florida Communities Trust (FCT); however, she thinks if they get the remediation issue resolved, all of the other eight conditions are relatively simple conditions. She explained if the Board elects to move forward and the remediation is resolved with FDEP, the County will be locked in to buying the property and financing the remediation. She stated staff is looking for direction from the Board as to what they would like to do with respect to the status of the contract.

Commissioner Carey stated _"_without _01__01_final _02_approval _03__01__01__01__%__01_from _%_FCT to do the_01_ _02_exchange_01_ and _01_without _01_a _01_final _01__%_FD_01_E_01_P _03_approved _01_plan_01_, _%_she doesn't know how they could close even_01_ _01_if t_01_hey _02_wanted to. _01__%__01__01__01_She _01_opin_01__02_ed they couldn't _01_close _01_because _01_those _01_are _01_two _02_conditions _1"1_that they have to have;_1#1__1$1__1%1_ _1&1_other_1'1_wise, _1(1_they would end up with _%_Jetta _%_Point _%_Park still having a $1.7 million_%_ obligation and the _%_County having an obligation to build a park there. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet responded that's _"_correct. _1<1__%_She explained _"_there _1=1_is _1>1_a _1?3_contingency _1B1_in the _1C1_contract _1D1_that says if they _1E1_don't _1F1_have _1G1__%_F_1H1__1I1__1J1_TC approval, _1K1__1L1__1M1_they _1N1_don't _1O1_have _1P1_to go _1Q1_to _1R2_closing_1T1_. _1U1_However_1V1_, if _1W1_they _1X1_resolve _1Y1_the _1Z3_remediation _1]2_issue _1_1_with _1`1_F_1a1_D_1b1_E_1c1_P_1d1_, they _1e1_will _1f1_in _1g2_effect _1i1_have _1j2_approval _1l1_and _1m2_will _1o1_be _1p1_ob_1q3_ligated _1t1_to _1u1_move _1v1_forward_1w1__1x1_ with the closing. _1y1__1z1__%_There is a _1{1_general_1|2_ized _1~1_out _11_for _13_environment_11_al _11_reason_11__11_s.

Lynn _%_Porter-Carlton, Deputy _%_County _%_Attorney, s_11_tated _"_the contingency in the contract is requiring final approval from _%_FCT _11_and _11_all _11_writ_11_ten documents _1 1_that have to be executed by the _%_County and _11_F_11_C_11_T_11_. _12__#_Until _11_that _11_happens,_11_ the _%_County is not_11__11_ _11__12_obligated _11_to _11_close_11_. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet clarified they do _%_have an obligation to complete the process that they've started. _%_Ms. _%_Porter-Carlton agreed and assured they _%_are continuing the process, and the 45 days would begin to run once they obtain final approval from the _%_State. _%__%_Commissioner _%_Carey asked _%_if they don't terminate_%_ the contract based on the environmental issue and _%_FTC approves it, has the _%_County obligated itself to close. Ms. _%_Porter-Carlton_%_ answered yes and advised that is why_%_ staff is asking for direction from the _%_Board.

_11__%_Commissioner _%_Henley asked whether or not the _%_County has received assurance_%_ from the _%_State that the $1.7 million grant for _%_Jetta _%_Point could be used toward the purchase of _%_Rolling _%_Hills. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet replied _"_there's no cas_2]1_h. _%__%__%_ _%_The cash that the _%_County received was used to purchase _%_Jetta _%_Point. _%_To get that $1.7 million, they would need to sell _%_Jetta _%_Point and repay their _%_Natural _%_Lands fund for the other monies that were used. _%_She indicated _"_there seems to be some information circulating in the community that the _%_County is going to receive a $1.7 million grant in addition to the proceeds from selling _%_Jetta _%_Point, which is not the case. _%_The $_2]1_1.7 million is already tied up in _%_Jetta _%_Point. _#_So it is the $3.75 million, or whatever the ultimate sale price is for _%_Jetta _%_Point, versus the cost of _%_Rolling _%_Hills. _%_T_%_here's not an additional $1.7 million available for remediation. Commissioner Carey stated they are basically transferring the grant from Jetta Point to Rolling Hills and that is what made it kind of a wash.

Commissioner _%_Constantine confirmed with _%_Ms. _%_Guillet that $1.5 million is just an estimate_%_ and it may likely be more if _%_FDEP requires more. _%_Chairman _%_Horan noted _%_it's not that _%_FDEP could require less, it's just likely they won't;_2]1_ and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet agreed. _%_Co_2]1_mmissioner _%_Henley asked if the _%_County has had any interest regarding the potential purchase of _%_the _%_Jetta _%_Point property._%__2]1_ _%_Ms. _%_Guillet answered_%_ they haven't really put it out there, but she thinks there has been some generalized questions about it. _%_She noted she thinks the appraisal was a valid appraisal.

Commissioner Dallari asked for more information regarding the 45 days. Ms. Porter-Carlton explained u_41_nder_41_ the contra_41_ct, the feasibility_42_ period _41_ran for a certa_41_in pe_41_riod _41_of_4 2_ time. _%_The_41_ _%_Bo_41_ar_41_d extended th_41_at fou_41_r times_41_, and th_41_e last e_41_xten_41_si_41_on was to _%_No_41_vember 30_41_th. _%_The contract provides for a closing period of 45 days from the end of the feasibility period provided t_41_he con_41_tingency _41_of _41__%_State _41_a_41_pp_42_roval ha_41_s been _41_met_41_. S_2]1_taff's concer_42_n was_41_ that if _41_they d_41_idn't s_41_eek di_41_rection _41_fro_41__44_m th_41_e_%_ _%__41_B_41_oard prio_41_r to _41_the _41__%_Januar_41_y_41_ 14th date, _41_they di_41_dn't _41_wan_41_t i_41_t to be de_41_emed_41_ that _41_the contrac_41_t had expire_41_d. Commissioner Dallari stated they dont have approval from the State, so the 45 days hasnt started; and Ms. Porter-Carlton agreed. Ms. Guillet clarified they have conditional approval from FCT, but they dont have full approval. However, it appears that they are going to meet the conditions, so once the final condition is met and once FDEP signs off on the remediation, they will have final approval. Commissioner Dallari asked if thats when the 45 days would start, and Ms. Porter-Carlton answered yes. Commissioner Carey pointed out but then they are obligated to close. She added theoretically they could end up with a piece of property that has a $1.5 million to $2 million cleanup bill.

Commissioner Carey stated one of her big concerns is that the cleanup could be years down the road because theyre still monitoring it and they havent got the clean samples that FDEP set up in their agreement. She opined a lot of things can occur under the ground that they just arent aware of until they get into it, so its kind of an unknown risk, which is concerning. Commissioner Carey expressed they all went into this thinking they could sell Jetta Point Park to pay for the Rolling Hills project. She doesnt think anybody anticipated, including the seller, that there would be this kind of an environmental issue on the land. Commissioner Dallari asked exactly what those environmental issues are. Richard _%_Durr,_%_ _%_Greenways & _%_Natural _%_Lands _%_Division _%_Manager,_61_ addressed the _%_Board and stated the _61_specific contaminates are _61__61__61__62_arse_62_n_61_ic _61_and _61_dieldrin, or two chemicals that were part of fertilizers and pesticides. _#_These contaminates were present and used at some point on the golf course, and they have sort of their own life within the soil which is what triggered the additional testing that's been required at this point. _%_H_61_e added these are contaminates that have been continually tested and have been found to be harmful to the environment over time. _%_In the past, they were used in fertilizers that a g_61_olf cour_%_se may have used, and they have been_%__61_ found pretty much all over the state in a lot of golf courses that have had environmental testing done after they closed. The dieldrin and the arsenic are things that were almost predicted going into it;_61_ it was just a question of how much of it and that's what the issue has been.

Ms. _%_Guillet stated _"_the _%_State sets a standard_71__71__71_ for _72_all kinds of different _74_contaminates;_71_ and _71_in _71_this _71_case_72_, there_71_'s not _72_really _71_a standard for parks_71__71__71__72__71_. _#_They agreed to a blended standard, which is _71_low_71_er _71_than _71_what _71_would _71_be _72_acceptable _71_in _71_a commercial or industrial _71__71__71__71__71__71_site _71_but _71_higher than what_71__71__71_ _71_would _71_be _72_acceptable_71_ f_71_or a residential development. _%_She explained _"_because there is grant money involved, the _%_State is insisting that it is_%_ cleaned to a certain level. _#_That's where the cost _8P1_and _8Q2_all of the testing _8S1_comes in. Commissioner _%_Dallari voiced they aren't_%_ getting grant money. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet explained they aren't getting dollars but they are transferring the money that was used, so even though it is getting transferred to _%_Rolling _%_Hills,_%_ they still have to comply with their standards for cleanup.

Commissioner _%_Carey stated their_%_ due diligence ended in _%_November. _%__%_She asked if there was any l_82_anguage _81_in the contra_81_ct_81_ that_81_ says _82_if t_81_hey _81__81_do_81_n't close_81_ in t_81_he 4_82_5 days_81_, the_81_ sel_81_ler ha_81_s th_81_e r_81_ight to _82_termina_81_te the _81_cont_81_ract_81__9-1_. Ms. _%_Porter-Carlton answered no. _%_She_9.1__#_ explained _9/1_the_901_ seller did not request that at the time the contract was prepared. _%_And _"_because staff did not know how long the _%_State process would take to achieve the approval for transfer of _%_Jetta _%_Point, they put language in _%_the contract so that the _%_County had the ability to terminate if environmental contamination was found anytime up until closing. _%_The sellers did not ask for a similar provision allowing them to terminate. _%_Staff also put in the contingency language that until final approval was obtained by the _%_State, the _%_County was not obligated to close. Ms. Guillet noted staff did ask for another extension of the due diligence period and the seller declined.

Kit Bradshaw, 480 Raymond Avenue, addressed the Board and stated there are hundreds of Seminole County residents that support the efforts to have the former golf course be the foundation of the new county park. She noted you rarely regret the positive actions you take and always regret the opportunities that were lost.

John Omana, 484 South Pressview, addressed the Board and read a statement from his wife Michelle Omana into the record. She discussed how her neighborhood has changed for the worse since the closing of the golf course. She suggested ways to make up for the $1.5 million dollars including discussions with the seller and imposing an MSTU. Mr. Omana spoke for himself and stated the County Manager, the County Attorney, and the Board need to be applauded for thinking outside of the box on this issue. He asked the Board what they would like their legacy to be.

Debbie Alvine, 1871 North Street, addressed the Board and discussed a traffic-calming plan for the Sanlando Springs and Rolling Hills area. She stated the issue is preserving the exclusive urban property for future enhancement, and this opportunity may never happen again.

Lisa Behr, 1111 Adams Street, addressed the Board and stated the Board has an opportunity to create a legacy for the community that exists today and the community that will come. She asked what the cost would be if there were homes developed and they had to bring in sewer, widen roads, add bicycle lanes and additional schools for all the families that would move in. She asked the Board to leave the golf course green space.

Bob Holston, 7575 Dr. Phillips Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated he is here as one of the principals of the Rolling Hills, LLC to answer any questions or clarify anything he can. Commissioner Carey suggested they go back to him after the public speaks. Mr. Holston replied he will stay in case he can be of any assistance.

Laura Perry, 717 Andrews Drive, addressed the Board and asked them to think about how they would like the county to look 30-plus years from now. She urged them to secure the land now and figure out the cleanup later.

Linda Copeland, 1680 Jefferson Street, addressed the Board and stated she is a 25-year realtor of the area and people ask for her opinion on the areas property values. She verified the property values are going up with the incentive that there is going to be a park. She has had residents tell her, if the golf course becomes developed, to put a for-sale sign in their yard. Commissioner Carey asked Ms. Copeland if she thinks it would help home values if a developer built like-size homes on like-size lots, and Ms. Copeland answered no. She explained it wouldnt for the fact that it would be just another subdivision. The beauty of the area is the large lots and open land. Commissioner Carey noted the other subdivisions that have closing golf courses in the county and asked if Ms. Copeland thinks it should become the business of the County Commission to save those golf courses; and Ms. Copeland answered no. She stated the open land and the uniqueness of Rolling Hills is what keeps property values up. Commissioner Dallari asked what the increase in home values would be if there was a park. Ms. Copeland replied that is a hard question, but she would say it would increase at least 10%.

Commissioner Carey asked if Ms. Copeland thinks people would be willing to pay an additional fee. She stated one of the things they have talked about is an MSTU for the residents around Rolling Hills to pay for the $1.5 million that the County did not anticipate. Ms. Copeland answered she believes people would be willing to do that just to keep the open land. Chairman Horan stated they are doing an analysis now with regard to what the cost per house would be, and it is going to be several hundred dollars a year. Ms. Copeland replied she doesnt think anyone would object to several hundred dollars a year because they are in a higher price range community so it wouldnt be a hardship on the residents. Commissioner Dallari asked what the price points of the area are. Ms. Copeland answered they vary from $250,000 up to $400,000. Commissioner Carey asked if they put $600,000 homes out there, would it help the value of the current neighborhood. Ms. Copeland responded she thinks they would have trouble selling a $600,000 house across from a house that is valued at $300,000.

Rob Craig, 1620 Barton Street, addressed the Board and pointed out the Floridas Natural Choice sign. He stated his family loves the community and are anxious to see the current vacated eyesore transferred into a park and preserved for generations to come. A park would protect the green space, protect the wildlife, and serve the countless residents.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:54 a.m., reconvening at 11:07 a.m.

Cheryl Adamkiewicz, 1655 Oak Valley Drive, addressed the Board and stated Rolling Hills needs to be a park. She reminded the Board that Rolling Hills had an MSTU in the past, so that could be a possibility. She doesnt think a lot of people would have an objection to something like that to preserve their way of life. She stated the Board owes it to the residents to do what they were elected to do, which is protect the residents.

John Edward Jones, 450 Andrews Drive, addressed the Board and thanked the Board for all of their efforts in this matter. He opined approving the contract and having the park would be a great legacy. He discussed taxes and home values.

Philip Taylor, 344 Nebraska Avenue, addressed the Board and stated if the land is protected, if its desirable, if its environmentally sensitive, if it contributes to the overall livability of Seminole County, he doesnt care if they buy a golf course in each district. He discussed arsenic and stated the fact of the matter is, they need to quit worrying about everything and buy the golf course.

Suzy Frazier, 572 Victor Avenue, addressed the Board and stated when its gone, its gone. She noted the estimated value is about $6 million. In Seminole County, things will continue to grow; so to her, the cost piece isnt an issue right now. Its a matter of vision and a matter of heart.

Andrew Jones, 450 Andrews Drive, addressed the Board and stated when he heard the County was thinking about doing a park, he decided to invest into his childhood home. He will be able to raise his two girls there and they will be able to ride bikes on the same streets that he rode on and walk a golf course, or hopefully a park, like he did when he was a kid. Mr. Jones stated its not a very wonderful financial decision; but if the Board votes no, they will have to seriously regulate the property because it looks terrible, is bringing down property value and it is not real safe. He discussed what he thinks will happen to the property if they dont approve the contract.

Vincent Kosmac, 1231 Arden Street, addressed the Board and asked if the FDEP negotiation would be a public record once its finalized. Ms. Guillet answered all of the environmental reports and everything theyve done associated with the project is public record. She advised Mr. Kosmac can contact Mr. Durr for those documents. Mr. Kosmac discussed the blended standard Ms. Guillet mentioned. He asked if that standard would be binding to any future sale, and Ms. Guillet responded that would be up to FDEP so she cannot answer his question. Commissioner Constantine discussed standards for development of homes.

Speaker Request Forms for Ms. Bradshaw, Mr. Omana, Ms. Alvine, Ms. Behr, Mr. Holston, Ms. Perry, Ms. Copeland, Mr. Craig, Ms. Adamkiewicz, Mr. John Jones, and Ms. Frazier were received and filed.

Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Horan stated there isnt a member of the Board who isnt in favor of converting the property into a park and doing exactly what theyve been trying to do, which is take a restricted property and transfer those restrictions to the Rolling Hills property so it can be preserved. He explained this is a very unique and very difficult transaction the County is trying to pull off. The concrete problem they have is that there isnt another extension in time from the owners; and without that further extension of time, the County is caught in the situation of having to make a decision as to whether theyre going to go forward with the contract or not. Chairman Horan stated they are looking at $1.5 million and possibly more within the headwinds of a $14 million hit to the General Fund budget because of the likely passage of the additional homestead exemption. He noted the possibility of an increase in Seminole Countys cost for SunRail.

Mr. Holston explained he saw the golf course as a dilapidated course. He found out the membership was less than 50 and needed millions of dollars worth of remediation to bring it back to what it was. He felt like he was saving Rolling Hills by building upper-scale homes, jogging trails and expanding the lakes. It was a vision of bringing housing stock up in the area; but there were two sides of the story, and he understands where the residents are coming from. He decided to work a deal with the County, but some of his partners are tired of extending with no money up front and no deposit on the contract. Mr. Holston stated the County has not been beholding to put a deposit up or any type of extension payments, so they get caught in this forever contract.

Mr. Holston stated he would be willing to extend the contract, but there has to be something to show good faith that the County is pushing this and they are working at it. Chairman Horan asked if there is a change among Mr. Holston and his partners that they would entertain an extension of the due-diligence period and continue to work with the County. Chairman Horan advised the only thing that generates the inquiry is that the seller has said they wouldnt offer another extension. Its not that the County isnt trying to move forward. He reminded that they are dealing with a governmental body and a unique transaction. Mr. Holston answered they are willing to work with the County as long as its a reasonable term.

Commissioner Carey stated she asked staff to look at an MSTU, and her report from staff was that it would take 90 days to 120 days to fast-track an MSTU creation process for Rolling Hills. There are approximately 200 residential parcels that abut the former golf course; and if only the ones that were assessed were those 200 properties, the assessment would be about $525 every year for over 20 years. She then asked staff if they could expand the parcels to Windsor and I-4 to SR 434 to North Street to the other side of the golf course. Staff told her they could easily increase it to 600 properties to 1,200 properties, but they would have to define what that special benefit is. It would need to be tiered; but if they could get about 600 properties, that $1.5 million allocation would be approximately $175 a year. Commissioner Carey advised in order to pass an MSTU, it takes 65% of the people that are impacted by it to support it; and if its not 65%, the County cant move forward with an MSTU.

Commissioner Carey explained the County entered into this because it was a unique opportunity for the County to unwind a deal at SR 417 and SR 434 that shouldnt be a park. But the only way they could do that was to offer something that the State would accept, so the two-for-one was the way that it turned out. There is a $6 million appraisal that was done by the County but it was done under the assumption that the environment was clean, so take $1.5 million off of that and they are about at the price that the County is offering to pay. She asked the seller to consider giving the Board the 120 days to establish the MSTU and let the citizens vote on it. She expressed every golf course in Florida is in trouble, and the Board cant be the answer to that. She reiterated this is a unique situation and thats the reason the Board went down this path. She believes there are lots of things they could discuss if they had the time.

Mr. Holston commented he has been doing this for 35 years and he has cleaned up a lot of things. He thinks $1.5 million is an exuberantly high estimate and he would predict it to be around a third of that or less. There are many different ways to go about mitigating that with soil mixing and things like that. He opined they received a sky-high price and the County should get at least two or three other bids. Chairman Horan stated thats why they need more time. Commissioner Carey stated the Boards decision has to be made on the facts that they have before them, which is an estimate of $1.5 million from the Countys consultants. She reiterated if the County concludes with FDEP, they are obligated to close based on the contract, so they have to be willing to take that risk or figure out how to generate that money. She stated thats just the money to get the property and is not considering the amount it would take to convert it to a park. She asked what the estimate is to build the park. Ms. Guillet answered they have $500,000 budgeted this year. Commissioner Carey noted its a phase project. Ms. Guillet added they made that commitment with Jetta Point, so it is the same commitment they would have had under the original terms so it has been considered as part of the wash.

Mr. Holston stated what he would be willing to do at this point would be a 30-day extension; and in that 30-day period, they will come up with what the terms are for the 100-day extension. Commissioner Constantine advised when he met with Mr. Holston and Mr. Carter, they wanted money down on the table that would be at risk, which he thinks would be a very bad precedent to start where the County is putting the citizens money at risk. He thinks the MSTU suggestion could be a good alternative. He urged Mr. Holston to stick to the agreement and opined it is the sellers responsibility to pay for the cleanup. Ms. Porter-Carlton advised the contract, as currently written, does not require the seller to clean it up. It could be renegotiated now that the environmental contamination is known. What does exist in the contract is the ability of the County to terminate it now that the environmental contamination has been revealed.

Chairman Horan stated the issue is whether the owner is willing to go forward and provide the County with sufficient time so they can go ahead and complete their due diligence and look at other options. If the owner is willing to do that under terms and conditions that the Board can accept, they would like to continue to work towards a consummation of the transaction. Mr. Holston advised the 100 days would be included in the 30 days. So they will extend it for 30 days; and within that 30-day period, they will get with the powers that be at the County and establish what everyone can live with to have a full extension out to 100 days. Ms. Guillet clarified the issue of the date of the 14th, which would go away, and the County would have 30 days to bring something to the Board to consider regarding a longer extension. Discussion ensued regarding the January 14th closing date. Mr. Holston stated the County is required to close when they get FDEP approval; so giving the County an extension extends the requirement to close beyond that date.

Commissioner Dallari stated he believes Mr. Holston is trying to help the County. He also believes he is trying to figure out what all the different requirements could be, and thats why hes asking for the first initial days so he can define how to move forward and if hes going to move forward. Mr. Holston agreed.

Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 11:18 a.m., reconvening at 11:27 a.m.

Commissioner Dallari asked Joe Abel, Leisure Services, if there are any documents or reports that show the increase in value of real estate surrounding a park. Mr. Abel answered there have been numerous reports, studies and analyses done on properties next door, abutting to or in proximity to a park. A 2005 study showed that properties abutting or directly adjacent to parks would have a value increase up to as much as 20% of the property value. Theyve done further studies to show an increase up to a ten-minute walk.

Ms. Guillet stated she thinks that the term that Mr. Holston is willing to offer is an extension of the feasibility period for 30 days from today during which time they will work together to establish some terms for a longer extension should that be necessary. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Holston that that is what he is willing to do.

Motion by Chairman Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to accept an extension of the feasibility period for 30 days from today during which time the County will work with the sellers to establish terms for a longer extension should it be necessary.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Dallari requested Mr. Holston provide County staff with the information he has to reduce the mitigation costs. Ms. Guillet commented they can talk about that. Chairman Horan added the extension will give them time to talk about a lot of things. Mr. Holston agreed.

Commissioner Dallari stated Commissioner Carey suggested an MSTU. He asked if they could direct staff to move forward with that and bring something to the Board. Ms. Guillet responded staff absolutely will. She stated they did talk about the possibility of using an MSTU to fund the cleanup costs, but staff will need help so they will be reaching out to neighborhood contacts. She hopes those contacts will be as engaged as they have been and help staff pursue that option.


Agenda Item #1-A 2018-0511

In regard to the European Union Water Management Study Tour presentation by Commissioner Constantine, Chairman Horan announced the item will be deferred to the afternoon session.


Ms. Guillet announced there is an addition to the County Attorneys Consent Agenda, Item #33A, which is an agreement for legal services for the Charter Review Commission. Commissioner Carey requested that Item #19 regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement with Unit Local 3254 be pulled for a separate discussion.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize and approve the following:

County Managers Office

Business Office

2. Approve travel and mileage reimbursement to Commissioner Lee Constantine for miscellaneous travel from October 11, 2017, through December 13, 2017. (2018-0491)

Addressing Division

3. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-2 renaming South U.S. Highway 441 to South Orange Blossom Trail. (2018-0460)

4. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-3 renaming SR 434 to Alafaya Trail. (2018-0457)

Telecommunications Division

5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Interlocal Agreements pertaining to Installation and Maintenance of 800 MHz P25 Radio Communications Equipment and Accessories between Seminole County and the City of Altamonte Springs, the City of Casselberry, the City of Lake Mary, the City of Longwood, the City of Oviedo, the Sanford Airport Authority, the City of Sanford, Seminole State College, and the City of Winter Springs. (2018-0500)

Office of Emergency Management

6. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the School Board of Seminole County and Seminole County for support of emergency shelters during disasters. (2018-0501)

7. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for American Sign Language Interpreting Services between Seminole County and Interpretek Orlando, Inc. (2018-0502)

Human Resources Division

8. Approve the benefit renewal and addendum correction for The Standard Insurance Company Employee Voluntary Short Term Disability (STD) plan; and authorize the County Manager to execute the renewal agreement. (2018-0493)


Community Services

Business Office

9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to the Medical System of Care Agreement Fiscal Year 2017-2018 between Seminole County and the Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc. which revises the insurance requirements. (2018-0483)

Community Assistance Division

10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to the ESG Subrecipient Agreement, Program Year 2016-2017, with Community Initiatives, Inc. - Rapid Re-Housing Program for Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds in the amount of $70,909 to be used for the provision of Rapid Re-Housing services, including rental assistance, utility payments and housing relocation services, to homeless families in Seminole County. (2018-0481)

11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program Rapid Re-Housing Agreement with Community Initiatives, Inc. for SHIP funds in the amount of $65,000 to be used for the provision of Rapid Re-Housing services, including rental assistance, utility payments and housing relocation services, to homeless households in Seminole County. (2018-0480)

Community Development Division

12. Approve the proposed technical revisions to Seminole Countys Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) Disaster Strategy for Fiscal Years 2016-2019; and approve the allocation of 2016-2017 State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funding to that strategy in order to provide services to Seminole County homeowners impacted by Hurricane Irma. (2018-0486)

13. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Snapshot/Report for the month of November, 2017, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61. (2018-0473)

14. Approve the execution of a Special Warranty Deed by the Orlando Regional Realtor Foundation, Inc. (ORRF), formerly known as Florida Real Estate Foundation, Inc. (FREF), to convey a property improved with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization program (NSP-1) funds located at 2814 Central Drive, Sanford, to Seminole County. (2018-0472)


Development Services

Planning & Development Division

15. Authorize the release of Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #2203223 in the amount of $7,383.50 for Walmart #535 Casa Verde Boulevard. (2018-0479)

16. Authorize the release of Performance Bond (Testing, Survey, and Roadway) #SU1146028 in the amount of $15,910.40 for the Steeple Chase Replat 2B subdivision. (2018-0467)


Environmental Services

Business Office

17. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Agreement for Termination of Conditional Utility Agreements for Water and Sewer Service with the Station at Alafaya, LLC as successor to the party under the original Agreement; Maxine R Dann, as Trustee of the Maxine R. Dann Trust. (2018-0478)

Solid Waste Management Division

18. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for RG Metal Recycling, Inc. effective from January 9, 2018, through September 30, 2018. (2018-0503)


Fire Department

Business Office

19. Pulled for a separate discussion by Commissioner Carey. (2018-0497)


Leisure Services

Parks & Recreation Division

20. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Facilities Use Agreement between Seminole County and Spring Break Sports Inc. for priority use of the Countys tennis courts. (2018-0489)


Public Works

Engineering Division

21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Mitigation Reservation and Purchase Agreement (MRPA) between Seminole County and Lake Jesup Woods in the amount of $101,500 for the mitigation units required to obtain a St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit for the SR 426 and CR 419 Widening Project from Pine Avenue to Avenue B, Phase 2. (2018-0495)

22. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Wetlands Mitigation Agreement and Sale of Mitigation Credits between Seminole County and LJF Acquisitions, LLC in the amount of $1,155,000 for a St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permit for the Five Points Connector Roadway and Regional Stormwater Pond Project. (2018-0498)

23. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute an Easement between Seminole County and Duke Energy for the purpose of providing power to a new fire station (Fire Station #29). (2018-0487)

24. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Mitigation Reservation and Purchase Agreement between Seminole County and Lake Jesup Woods in the amount of $1,000 for the mitigation units required to obtain and modify St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permits for the SR 426 and CR 419 Widening Project, Phase 2 and the impacted Oviedo Trailhead Park. (2018-0494)

25. Approve adoption of appropriate Resolution #2018-R-4 and authorize the Chairman to execute a County Deed conveying certain property interests (Parcel Number 108.3) for the SR 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way Project; FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0484)

26. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement between the Segebarth Family Revocable Trust and Seminole County in the amount of $2,600 for the Osceola Road Drainage Project. (2018-0485)

27. Approve adoption of appropriate Resolution #2018-R-5 and authorize the Chairman to execute a County Deed conveying certain property interests (Parcel Number 107.3) for the SR 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way Project; FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0475)

28. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Joint Infrastructure Agreement between Wyndham Preserve Property Homeowners Association, Inc. and Seminole County to facilitate the installation of a vinyl fence along the eastern side of Tract H/County drainage easement, which is adjacent to the westerly side of an unnamed county right-of-way. (2018-0468)


Resource Management

Budget & Fiscal Management

29. Approve submittal of an application to the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Cost-Share Grant requesting $25,000 for the Water Conservation Visualization Program Tool H20SAV; and authorize the County Manager to execute any documents associated with the grant application. (2018-0474)

30. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-6 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-009 to increase the budget for Fire Station #29 in the total amount of $346,954 by recognizing revenue of $165,000 through the Fire Impact Fee Fund and appropriating $181,954 from Fire Protection Fund reserves. (2018-0398)

31. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-7 implementing the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-022 through the Miscellaneous Grant Fund in the amount of $1,000,000 to recognize the revenue received from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice for design and construction of additional space at the Juvenile Detention Center. (2018-0492)

Purchasing & Contracts Division

32. Approve the Mutual Termination of RFP-1294-17, Master Construction Services Agreement for Community Services Affordable Housing Program Rehabilitation Projects, with Tyrell Enterprises LLC of 2660 Hilliard Court, Kissimmee; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Mutual Termination Agreement. (2018-0471)


County Attorneys Office

33. Approve the settlement with Sherry L. Johnson to accept $5,000 in full satisfaction of the code enforcement lien in Code Enforcement Board Case #10-136-CEB, releasing all property encumbered by this lien; and authorize the execution and recording of a satisfaction and release of this lien upon Sherry L. Johnsons timely payment within 30 days of the Boards approval, in return for Sherry L. Johnson dismissing Seminole County Circuit Court Case #2017-CA-001977-16-K with prejudice; and authorize the Chairman to execute the formal Settlement Agreement with Sherry L. Johnson documenting the terms of this settlement. (2018-0504)

33A. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement between Seminole County and Shuffield, Lowman & Wilson, P.A. for legal services to the Charter Review Commission (CRC). (2018-0526)


Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Consent Agenda Item #19 2018-0497

Bill Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, addressed the Board and stated he is empathic and understands the importance of the job of the Fire Department; but a three-and-a-half percent increase in salaries represents a $27 decrease for senior citizens living on social security. When you give something to someone, somebody else has to pay. The seniors are going to end up suffering somewhere down the line, and Mr. Hyde hopes the Board keeps that in mind when considering spending money and increasing salaries.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

Commissioner Carey stated the reason she pulled Item #19 in regard to the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement between Seminole County and Bargaining Unit Local 3254 for Battalion Chiefs/B-Unit is because it is very unusual for the Board to have a union contract on the Consent Agenda that the Board never had an executive session on. She explained her issue has to do with going back to October of 2016. When a union contract expires and they are out of contract, they continue to live on the last contract they had until such time as the Board gets to a new negotiated contract. She stated they had a me-too clause in their last contract so they received the three-and-a-half percent raise just like other County employees did in 2016 and in 2017. Commissioner Carey opined to go back to 2016 and do a three-year contract that will have to be renegotiated again next year is not necessarily in everybodys best interest. She is disappointed that the item came to the Board without them ever having the opportunity to discuss it in an executive session. She added historically in the county, union contracts have been negotiated through the bargaining unit representatives and the Board before it goes to the Board for a vote, and that didnt happen in this particular case.

Chairman Horan asked if there is an appetite for an executive session on this particular contract. Commissioner Henley responded he thinks it is important to have one. He agreed with Commissioner Carey and reiterated the Board has always met in an executive session on this type of item, so he was surprised when he saw it on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Carey noted going back to October of 2016 would have about a $65,000 financial impact on the County. She added the fact that the Board didnt get an opportunity to give input into the contract is really the issue she has.

Ms. Guillet stated executive sessions are usually called on behalf of the negotiator if they need direction with respect to the negotiation. In _n1_this _n1_case, staff_n1_ _n1_felt _n1_because _n1_there _n1_were _n1_very _n1_few _n2_substant_n1_ive _n3_issues _n2_in this change_n1__n1_, _n1_except _n1_w_n1_ith _n1_regard _n1_to _n2_wages, _n1_and _n1_because _n1_the_n1_ over_n1_all_n2_ addition_n1_al _n1_cost _n1_of the wage adjustment was under $100,000 (about $60,000 over the term of the agreement), t_n1_hey did not feel they needed additional direction from the _%_Board to negotiate a contract that they could bring forward and recommend to the _%_Board. She believes non-public meetings of the Board should be done sparingly; so if staff didnt feel they needed direction, they didnt see a reason to call one. Ms. Guillet apologized and stated staff is happy to have an executive session if the Board would like to have more discussion. She assured it wasnt that staff wanted to leave the Board out of the process, they just believed it was their job to negotiate the agreement and bring it to the Board.

Ms. Guillet explained staffs primary focus on the wages was to remain competitive with competing agencies in the region and addressing internal compression issues, and she thinks they did that in as fair a way as possible. I_%_t_o1_'s not unusua_o1_l fo_o1_r _o1__o1_the _%_County to_o1_ p_o1_ha_o1_se inc_o1_rease_o1_s or_o1_ to retroactively_o1_ do_o1_ increa_o2_ses, so_o1_ there _o2_wasn't_o1_ any_o7_thing i_o1_n t_o1_his c_o1_ontra_o1_ct _o1_tha_o1_t_o1__o1_ was_o2_ particular_o1__o1_ly unus_o1_ual _o1_from what_o3_ _o3_they have _o1_done_o1_ in_o1_ other_o1_ c_o1__o1_ontra_o1_cts. Commissioner Carey opined they could have addressed all of those issues of compression and salary adjustments from this point in time forward and end up with a three-year contract that they will not be talking about now until 2021. She stated polling of this Board and trying to figure out if staff has support or not is not the way that the Board had operated in the past and she values the opinion and discussion that they have had over the years on union contracts. She pointed out that _p 1_the _p1_onl_p1_y d_p1_ivi_p1_sion _p2_in the_p1_ _%_C_p1__p1_ou_p1_nty th_p1_at _p2_is union_p1_ is_p1_ th_p2_e firefighters union. _p1_ _p1__%_She do_p1_esn't see th_p1_at it_p1_'s a _p1_bene_p1_fi_p1_t _p1_or_p1__p1_ _p1_requirem_p1_ent t_p1_o g_p1_et t_p1_o a c_p1_ont_p2_ract wi_p1_th the_p2_ _%_B Uni_p1_t that goes _p1_b_p1_ack to _%_October of 2016. Chairman Horan confirmed with Commissioner Carey that she has a problem with the substance of the contract. Ms. Guillet stated with all due respect, they did not put the contract together by polling Board members. They did months of negotiation and put together the most fair contract for the County and the Battalion Chiefs. Commissioner _%_Carey replied they_%_ haven't had the opportunity as a _%_Board to discuss that because they haven't had an executive session for staff to share that with the _%_Board and take their input into the final agreement that is before them today. Ms. _%_Guillet _%__%_apologized and reiterated_%_ that from a staff standpoint, they didn't believe that there was anything in the contract that warranted a closed-door meeting. She_%_She suggested, if the Board desires, to table the item_%_ so they can have an executive session. She mentioned she would be happy to discuss either in this meeting or the executive session how staff landed on the percentages with respect to the wages.

Commissioner Carey reiterated her concern of the contract going back to October of 2016. She explained the reason they do the process that they do is so that they all have the benefit of understanding exactly where they are at, and the union negotiators are represented in those conversations that they are having. Chairman Horan asked why they went back to October of 2016. Jim Reynolds, Fire Department, addressed the Board and answered it is his understanding the compression issue that was created on the previous _%_A _%_Unit contract and the increases that were received there as a result of the management study that was done were not conveyed to the _%_B _%_Unit contract agreement as it moved forward. _%_This is kind of to get t_rp1_hat back in the right position and get them back to where they would have been had they also enjoyed the same increase _%_of the _%_A _%_Unit. Ms. _%_Guillet added _%_t_rp1_hey are a year-and-a-half behind bringing this contract forward for a variety of reasons. _%_They could talk with the bargaining unit about doing an 11% lump sum and not deal with anything year by year. _%_Commissioner _%_Dallari suggested if they are_%_ going to be discussing negotiation techniques and options, then it really should be an executive session.

Chairman _%_Horan _s1__%_a_s1_sked if there is enough concern about the_s1_ contract that the _%_Board would like to have an executive session, and _%_Commissioner _%_Dallari replied he _%_believes there_%_ are two commissioners that do. _%_Chairman _%_Horan _%_s_s1_tated there is no harm in scheduling an executive session because they are under the same contract. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey clarified_%_ _"_the last contract continues to rule and they have a "me-too" clause in that contract, and _%_Ms. _%_Guillet advised_%_ _"_there isn't a "me-too" clause. _%_Commissioner _%_Carey responded _%_they got the three-and-a-half in _%_October of 2016 because of the "me-too" clause, and they got the 3_s1_% in 2017_s1_ because of the "me-too" clause. _%_Ms. _%_Guillet a_s1_dvised they_%_ didn't get it in 2017. _%_Chairman _%_Horan stated obviously _%_there is a lot of information that needs to be conveyed which can probably be done in an executive session. He requested they schedule an executive session anytime they have a bargaining agreement in the future, and Commissioner Carey noted its been a matter of practice since she has been on the Board. Ms. Guillet replied they certainly will do that.

Commissioner _%_Constantine stated he doesn't have a problem at this point with the information that _%_he has received on what i_io1_s being requeste_io1_d; _tB1__u(1_but _u)1_in deference to the two _%_Commissioners that want the executive session, he thinks that would_%_ be the proper thing to do.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to have an executive session regarding the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement between Seminole County and Bargaining Unit Local 3254 for Battalion Chiefs/B-Unit.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Horan stated the item will be tabled until they have an executive session.


Clerk & Comptrollers Office

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the following:

34. Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated November 27, December 4, 11, and 18, 2017; and Payroll Approval Lists dated November 30 and December 14, 2017; and the BCC Official Minutes dated November 14 and December 12, 2017. (2018-0490)


Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.



The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptrollers Received and Filed:

1. Executive Order #2017-35 establishing a temporary No Wake Zone from the east side of Lake Monroe to the Volusia County Line in connection with Hurricane Irma.

2. Executive Orders #2017-36 and #2017-37 extending the declared local state of emergency due to Hurricane Irma.


3. Executive Order #2017-38 rescinding the temporary No Wake Zone from the east side of Lake Monroe to the Volusia County Line.


4. Executive Order #2017-39 extending the declared local state of emergency due to Hurricane Irma.


5. Executive Order #2017-40 rescinding the temporary No Wake Zone within the St. Johns River Waterway and Lake Jesup.


6. Executive Order #2017-41 extending the declared local state of emergency due to Hurricane Irma.


7. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2017-0464-CO-GU re: Joint Petition for approval of gas reliability infrastructure program (GRIP) cost recovery factors by various utility companies, Docket #20170190-GU, issued December 11, 2017.

8. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2017-0467-CO-GU re: Joint Petition for approval of revised swing service rider rates for the period January through December 2018, by various utility companies, Docket #20170191-GU, issued December 12, 2017.


9. Letter dated November 20, 2017 from Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, to Chairman Horan, Board of County Commissioners, re: Direction requested in connection with possible 2018 BCC Salary Adjustments.


10. Performance Bond #54-219221 (Roads, Streets, Drainage) in the amount of $43,817.40; 2320 Beardall Avenue, Damus Utilities.


11. Cash Maintenance Bond (Water and Sewer Improvements) in the amount of $4,890 and Maintenance & Escrow Agreement; Lakeside Fellowship United Methodist Church.


12. Maintenance Bond (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $5,300; 5401 Pen Avenue, Pen Avenue Partners LLC.


13. Maintenance Bond #SUR0035937 (Private Road Maintenance) in the amount of $83,281.43, for the project known as Retreat at Oregon; M/I Homes of Orlando LLC.


14. Maintenance Bond #SUR0035936 (Right-of-Way Utilization) in the amount of $11,817.88, for the project known as Retreat at Oregon; M/I Homes of Orlando LLC.


15. Cash Maintenance Bond (Water and Sewer Improvements) in the amount of $2,150 and Maintenance & Escrow Agreement, for the project known as Terracina at Lake Forest outparcel (AutoZone and CareNow).


16. Fully executed Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (FDOT), for SR 434 at CR 427 intersection improvements, as approved by the BCC on 3/28/17.


17. Conditional Utility Agreement for potable water and sewer service with POP HQ, for the project known as Providence One.


18. Conditional Utility Agreement for potable and reclaimed water and sewer service with Delaney Land Company LLC, for the project known as Old Lockwood Fawn Run Subdivision.


19. Bill of Sale accepting the off-site potable water and sewer system within the project known as Lakeside Fellowship United Methodist Church.

20. Conditional Utility Agreement for potable water and sewer service with Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., for the project known as Hawks Crest Phase 2.


21. Conditional Utility Agreement for potable water and sewer service with Meritage Homes of Florida, Inc., for the project known as Hawks Crest Phase 3.


22. Bill of Sale accepting the potable water system within the project known as 5401 Pen Avenue; Pen Avenue Partners, LLC.


23. Developers Commitment Agreement #17-20500016, Old Lockwood Fawn Run PD; Harris, Fraser, Nelson, Lomas.


24. Developers Commitment Agreement #17-20500027, Chateaux at Markham PD; Chateaux of Markham, LLC.


25. Developers Commitment Agreement and Development Order #17-20500039, Addendum #3 to the Hawthorne Glen PD; Concept Development, Inc.


26. Development Order #17-27500028, Alcoholic Beverage License for Pablanos Mexican Grill, Inc.; Ahmad Khanjahanbakhsh.


27. Approval Development Orders #17-30000106, 302 Tammy Drive, Shelton Fulsang; and #17-30000100, 2582 Amaya Terrace; Mary Boyce Life Est. (Lori A. Sabino).


28. Approval Development Orders #17-30000093, 487 Marla Avenue, Glenn Clunan; #17-30000096, 3440 Dawn Court, J.H.W. Properties Eustis I LLC; #17-30000094, 1800 Lincoln Avenue, Marvin Mackeyroy; #17-30000099, 2331 Center Street, Kimmieshawn Watson; #17-30000092, 370 E. 5th Street, Roxie and John Marshall; #17-30000101, 3401 Bowman Drive, David and Kara Palley; and #17-30000088, 484 Brightview Drive, Erica and Jason Sanford.


29. Tourist Tax Funding Agreements with Nations Baseball of Greater Orlando, Inc. for the 2017 Winter Bat Freeze; USSSA Central Florida Fast Pitch, LLC for the 2017 Central Florida State Championship; Central Florida Sports Commission for the 2017 Tottenham Hotspur American Trophy Southeast Youth Soccer Tournament; Suncoast Athletics Sports Group, Inc. for the Florida State All-Star Games; Elite Clubs National League for the Boys ECNL Florida, and the Girls ECNL Florida & Referee Seminar; and Athletx, LLC for the Baseball Youth All American Games Winter.


30. Pet Rescue Cooperative Service Agreement with Furetti Ferrets.

31. Parks Contracts for Services with Kaitlynn Groves, Tim Marzullo, Steven Robles, Teresa Thomson, Edwin Frank Pena, and Christopher Finney.


32. Amendment #1 to Work Order #27 to PS-0009-15 with Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc.


33. Amendment #4 to Work Order #1 to PS-0009-15 with Pegasus Engineering, Inc.


34. Work Orders 29, 30 & 31 to PS-0009-15 with Pegasus Engineering, Inc.


35. Work Orders 20 & 21 to RFP-0336-15 with Site Secure, LLC, a Miller Electric Company.


36. Amendment #2 to Work Order #3 to RFP-0532-15 with Connect Consulting, Inc.


37. Work Order #6 to RFP-0532-15 with Connect Consulting, Inc.


38. Closeout to Work Order #18 to CC-0559-15 with Central Florida Environmental Corp.


39. Work Order #20 to CC-0559-15 with Southland Construction, Inc.


40. Work Order #1 to PS-0939-16 with Tierra, Inc.


41. Closeout to CC-1002-16 with Killebrew, Inc.


42. Closeout to CC-1337-17 with Dager Construction, Inc.


43. CC-1430-17, Construction Services Agreement with MCG Services, LLC.


44. PS-1473-17, (2) Master Services Agreements with S2L, Inc. (Primary) and HSA Golden, Inc. (Secondary), as approved by the BCC on 11/14/17.


45. PS-1474-17, (2) Master Services Agreements with S2L, Inc. (Primary) and Sterns, Conrad and Schmidt d/b/a SCS Engineers (Secondary), as approved by the BCC on 11/14/17.


46. Amendment #7 to Work Order #108 to PS-5120-02 with Atkins North America, Inc.


47. Amendment #2 to Work Order #3 to PS-8005-12 with CDM Smith, Inc.


48. Work Order #58 to PS-8047-12 with Ardaman & Associates, Inc.


49. Work Order #22 to PS-8146-12 with Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.


50. Amendment #2 to Work Order #2 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.


51. Amendment #3 to Work Order #34 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.


52. Work Order #41 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.


53. Closeout to Work Order #25 to CC-9192-13 with Corinthian Builders, Inc.


54. Work Order #35 to CC-9192-13 with M&J Enterprises International, Inc.


55. Work Order #24 to PS-9738-14 with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.


56. Amendment #1 to Work Order #2 to PS-9983-15 with Infrastructure Engineers, Inc.


57. Amendment #4 to RFP-601340-12 with Serco, Inc.


58. Amendment #2 to IFB-601730-13 with Anixter, Inc.


59. Amendment #11 to RFP-601745-13 with Apex Pest Control, Inc.


60. RFP-602875-17, Master Services Agreement with Paymentus Corporation; as awarded by the BCC on 10/24/17.


61. RFP-602896-17, Fleet Maintenance and Management Agreement with First Vehicle Services, Inc.; as authorized by the BCC on 8/8/17.


62. RFP-602962-17, Term Contract with Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.


63. RFP-602971-17, Term Contract with Cold Air Distributors Warehouse of Florida, Inc.


64. RFP-602985-17, Term Contract with Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.


65. RFP-603003-17, Term Contract with CJs Sales and Service of Ocala, Inc. d/b/a CJs Power System.


66. Bids as follows:


IFB-602958-17 from Interstate Batteries of Mid Florida Coast; Trojan Battery Sales, LLC; Bennett Auto Supply, Inc.; Royal Battery Distributors; OReilly Automotive Stores, Inc. d/b/a OReilly Auto Parts;


RFP-602985-17 from Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.;


IFB-602963-17 from Flying Window Tinters;


RFP-602909-17 from Chandler Asset Management, Inc.; First Southwest Asset Management, LLC; PFM Asset Management, LLC; Public Trust Advisors, LLC;


RFP-602962-17 from Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.;


RFP-603003-17 from CJs Power System; Genset Services, Inc.; Alternative Power Solutions, Inc.; and


PS-1473-17 from HSA Golden, Inc.; S2L, Inc.



Agenda Item #35 2018-0466

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve a Special Event Permit for the Wekiva Paint Out and Spring Fling on March 5th April 3rd, 2018, located at 10001014 Miami Springs Drive, Longwood, subject to staffs recommended conditions of approval; Mary Sue Weinaug, Applicant.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 12:09 p.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer, who were present at the Opening Session, and with the Clerk of the Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy.


Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.





(Continued from December 12, 2017)


Agenda Item #36 2017-0043

Continuation of a public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees, Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing notice that the revised Educational Impact Fee rates established by this Ordinance shall be effective 90 days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing for severability, and providing an effective date, as described in the proof of publication.

Paul Chipok, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to present the request; and he noted that in the Agenda Memorandum package is the December 1 draft of the ordinance, which for the most part from the discussions over the last several months is the consensus draft. He advised there are still a few outstanding issues. In development of that ordinance in accordance with Section 105.50 of the existing impact fee ordinance, this County Commission has delegated the School Board as the advisory committee to go forth, do studies, and present recommendations.

Dr. Walt Griffin, Superintendent of the Seminole County Public Schools, addressed the Board and advised that one important part of growth in the community is having enough seats and classrooms for students who are moving into Seminole County. Dr. Griffin pointed out that school capacity is an ongoing challenge and an important component of working together as a community. He believes as a School Board and as the Superintendent, they have worked really well together with the Board to do what can be done to maximize use of existing facilities. He talked about the two major rezonings that have been done since he became the Superintendent in 2012.

Superintendent Griffin reported that they have 115 portables in Seminole County and they are used primarily as a reaction to annual growth. He talked about the challenge and difficulty in moving these older portables and emphasized they have a need for permanent capacity for the growth that they are seeing. Seminole County is a Choice district and has retained Choice status for their community and for their families. That is a win-win because where there is capacity available, they create capacity transfers for families that might be interested in attending those schools. It is an opportunity where there are higher populations to transfer some of those students, at the parents will, to the schools of their choice. Using Longwood Elementary School as an example, Superintendent Griffin explained why he believes the School Board has been really good fiscal agents for the county. He pointed out that they are now at the point where they do not have the funding and the capital dollars that are needed to address the growth that is coming to Seminole County.

Dr. Griffin stated they have worked with many people and are especially thankful for the relationship and the partnership they have had in working with GOBA (Greater Orlando Builders Association) because they believe builders will be the most impacted by the increase in fees. He began the Seminole County Public Schools Board of County Commissioners Education System Impact Fees PowerPoint presentation (copy received and filed) and School Board Resolutions was displayed. Superintendent Griffin explained that after the work with GOBA, a recommendation was brought to the School Board that included the following recommendations as part of their Resolution: The first recommendation was that they collect the impact fees at Certificate of Occupancy. The next recommendation was that the new fees be phased in over two years. He noted this was very important to the builders so they weren't hit with the fees all at once. A third recommendation, which came from the joint work session, was for a tiering of fees for multifamily units depending on the size of the units. The last recommendation was for there to be a study update every three years to take a look at impact fees. The School Board's resolution did not contemplate vesting rights. Superintendent Griffin then requested that School Board Chairman Amy Lockhart address the process.

Amy Lockhart, Chairman of the School Board, addressed the Board to thank them and the members of the community who have worked so collaboratively over the course of the last almost 18 months. Ms. Lockhart stated it is important that the Board realizes that when the School Board, as a group collectively, first started discussing the topic of entering into a discussion about impact fees, they said this was going to be something that they did collaboratively and something where they were going to be going above and beyond what the County's ordinance required. Ms. Lockhart pointed out that the County's ordinance sets the School Board as the initial recommending body that would recommend to the BCC where the School Board believes impact fees should be set. She displayed Where are We in the Process and explained that the School Board commissioned a study (which is also outlined in the ordinance). The study was performed by Tindale Oliver.

Ms. Lockhart stated that they then put together a Citizens Advisory Group and reported that every city in the county as well as the County appointed members to the group. There were members from the schools and members from the general community. That group met five times over the course of 16 months, looked at the Tindale Oliver study, and then came to the School Board with recommendations. Ms. Lockhart added that the group included members from the Greater Orlando Builders Association, the Orlando Realtors Association, and members of the Seminole County Regional Chamber of Commerce. They reached out to the private business associates of Seminole and to the many stakeholders in the community as well as meeting with each of the Commissioners to better understand the Commissioners concerns since it is, in fact, the Countys ordinance that they are making a recommendation on. Ms. Lockhart stated that the School Board took all of those recommendations into consideration as they developed their resolutions.

Ms. Lockhart explained that during the course of the Citizens Advisory Group, the representative from the County (Jay Zembower) recommended that the School Board hire an independent third party to review the Tindale Oliver study. This was an additional step, not required by the ordinance, that they felt they needed to ensure everyone was comfortable with the numbers being used and the methodology. She added that after that review, there were a couple of minor tweaks and changes; but overall, the study was found to be on target. She then discussed the meeting with the Greater Orlando Builders' Association and advised that GOBA asked about the Tindale Oliver study and wondered how they know that those numbers are right. The Greater Orlando Builders' Association hired yet another third‑party consultant to look at the study, to look at the numbers and the methodology. After that, everyone reconvened and kept talking.

Ms. Lockhart advised that the School Board then convened as the Seminole County Educational System Advisory Committee and reviewed the final recommendations and adopted two resolutions. The first resolution pertained to the increase of the impact fees and selected changes in the Land Development Code that they are here discussing in Chapter 105, and the second resolution pertained to modifications to the alternative impact fee process. They also talked about looking at the process every three years because the last time this matter was discussed by the BCC was eleven years ago. Ms. Lockhart explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) also took up this topic and made a recommendation to the BCC. She noted they are now here at the County Commission, where the Commissioners are reviewing the recommendations from the School Board acting in an advisory capacity and the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Lockhart emphasized that she believes the School Board has done their due diligence and done it in a very collaborative way. They are very appreciative of the relationships they have been able to build through this process. They are here to answer any questions that the Board may have and to be supportive of the process as the Commissioners make a decision.

Joe Ranaldi, Executive Director of Operations for the School Board, addressed the Board to continue the presentation. Mr. Ranaldi displayed the Proposed Language and read that language into the record. With regard to the "timing of payment of the fee to be not earlier than Request for Final Inspection, Mr. Ranaldi explained that that proposed language came about when they met with the building officials at the municipalities, who felt at that point they would be able to actually monitor whether the fees had been paid and take action if the fees had not been paid.

Mr. Ranaldi reviewed the eight bullet points on the Education Impact Fee Update Critical Factors slide. He displayed the Pre K‑12 Enrollment Growth 2007‑2020 chart which depicts the actual enrollment numbers and the projected enrollment numbers. The red line on the chart is the growth that the Department of Education has recognized, which is based on infant growth rate and not the growth within the community. The blue line depicts the program capacity that they presently have within the district. Mr. Ranaldi compared the numbers on the chart and pointed out that as he goes through the SCALDs (School Capacity Availability Letter of Determination) that have been approved at this point and the SIAs (School Impact Analysis), they can see how they are significantly chipping away at that available capacity.

With regard to how it is spread across the district, Mr. Ranaldi reviewed the "CSA Remaining Permanent Capacity with Developer Reservations Included" chart and pointed out that overall, they have capacity across the district in small pockets as opposed to one pocket that would allow immediate rezoning. He next displayed the "Pre K‑12 Enrollment Growth" chart and talked about the growth that they anticipate in the upcoming years. He explained that the chart is the outline of their SCALDs, which are the reservations they provide to developers as they are working through their final site plan approval. He reiterated that this chart represents the actual reservations they have in place. The chart shows there are 3,578 additional students coming in; and at that point, they have actually exhausted the 2,300‑student program capacity they presently have in place.

With regard to where the growth is coming from, Mr. Ranaldi displayed the "Residential Housing Growth (Housing Projects with SCALD Reservations under Construction or Moving Forward)" map and noted that the SCALDs are fairly evenly distributed throughout the county. This is a critical issue when they start to look at the SIAs, which are associated with their rezonings. He displayed and discussed the "Expected Additional Students from Approved Developments Rezoned and Moving Forward" chart. He explained they have got another 3,500 additional units where they have already executed School Impact Analyses. That equates to a little bit under 1,000 students at this point. Mr. Ranaldi displayed the "Residential Housing Growth (Housing Projects Rezoned and Moving Forward)" map and pointed out the majority of this growth is happening on the northern side of the county.

Mr. Ranaldi displayed the "Education Impact Fee Proposed Rates" chart and compared the initial recommendation that was made by Tindale Oliver and the proposed two‑phase approach. The proposed Phase 2 would happen in January 2019 and bring the single‑family home impact fee to $9,000 per unit. With regard to the multifamily level, they are recommending tiering, which is a new process that a lot of counties are looking at. This is a process that they believe will help with the alternative impact fees. He then reviewed the "Education Impact Fee Rate Comparison" chart. Mr. Ranaldi stated that this is the end of the technical and growth part of the presentation.

Kami Corbett, attorney with the firm of Foley & Lardner, addressed the Board and stated that Foley & Lardner serves as outside counsel to the School Board. The "Proposed Language" slide was displayed. Ms. Corbett stated she wants to reiterate the request from the School Board, which is that the BCC move forward and adopt the Draft December 1, 2017 version of the ordinance with the request to strike Section 105.43 in its entirety. She explained that that clarifies what the School Board's intent was; they did not intend to continue forward any vesting rights. The vesting rights provision that is in the existing ordinance related back to the original adoption of the ordinance. With regard to this issue, Ms. Corbett advised that they met with each of the cities, either in person or on the phone, to discuss the cities' varying positions on this. They felt like the notice that has already been provided with respect to what the impact fee is going to be was announced back in October. The 90‑day statutory effective date of the new rate and the phasing in of the impact fees provide sufficient provisions for the increase in the impact fee. Ms. Corbett stated that from a legal perspective, there is no right to be vested from an increase in an impact fee; so that is why they don't think the vesting rights section should continue forward. Ms. Corbett offered to answer any questions that the Commissioners might have. When asked by Chairman Horan if her recommendation and the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to the vest clause is the same, Ms. Corbett stated they were.

Commissioner Carey stated that one of the comments that she has heard from some of the other folks that she has been talking to is the concern about collection at CO, that if you have pulled a permit and you have met all of the requirements of the Florida State Building Code, they really wouldn't have the authority to hold up issuing a CO because the fee hadn't been paid. She asked if anyone else had heard that and if they have, have they addressed that or talked about it. Mr. Ranaldi advised they met with each of the municipalities and in some of the municipalities they actually talked with the building officials. Their concern was that the language that exists in the Florida Building Code does not allow them to withhold a CO based on the nonpayment of a fee. He stated that is why, in talking with the municipalities, they have shifted it to the point of no earlier than the request for final inspection. At that point if all of the boxes have not been checked and one of those boxes was the payment of the educational impact fee, they felt that would be the proper point in time where they could withhold doing the final inspection as opposed to withholding the CO.

Commissioner Carey stated that prepower is usually one of those things that you have to have prior to getting a final inspection so a request for final inspection versus the CO is prepower. She thinks the way their resolution is written right now, the December draft, it is saying that they will come back with another resolution to determine at what point they will be paid. Currently it is at building permit. The October recommendation from the School Board was for it to be at CO. They are modifying that now to a request for it to be at final inspection. Commissioner Carey stated she is still a little confused on what the best date is and she wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Ms. Corbett stated she wanted to clarify that if you are going to currently get a building permit in Seminole County, you are at prepower. The language in the ordinance does propose that the County comes back with a resolution to establish it, as they have been talking about, at final inspection because that is the consensus with the cities. The cities felt that final inspection was a demarcation that they could point to and say yes, we can do that. She believes they contemplated further discussion with the impact fee coordinators with each of the cities to try to talk about that issue and what the timing should be. She added that the commitment in the October resolution was that they would advocate that it be deferred.

Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Chipok if the County's agreement with the cities right now is that they collect the fees at prepower and if they adopt this ordinance and the collection date is prepower, is there a need to go back to the interlocal agreements with the cities or would the interlocal agreements continue to stand as is. Mr. Chipok stated for the school impact fees, which is the issue before the Board, in the ordinance as it exists today it says they collect at building permit; that is the existing text. Commissioner Carey pointed out that all other impact fees are collected at prepower. Mr. Chipok stated there is a resolution from 2002 that says the County collects at prepower and that the cities will collect at building permit. That is the text of the resolution that a prior Board has passed and that is still what the building department utilizes.

Commissioner Carey stated if the County is collecting the fee directly, they are collecting it at prepower; but if they are within a municipality, the municipality is collecting at the time of building permit. Mr. Chipok clarified that is correct for all other impact fees; but for school impact fees, because of the text in the existing ordinance, the County and the municipalities all collect at building permit. The interlocal agreements they have specific with each city regarding collection of impact fees is at building permit. Commissioner Carey stated that even when the prior Board did the 2002 modification on when the County collects fees, the County never went back and changed anything in the interlocal agreements so their interlocal agreements are probably going to have to be dealt with no matter what they do. Ms. Guillet added unless they decide to stay at building permit. She stated that is one of the issues and she knows that the School Board has worked very closely with the cities to try to resolve that. They have had some limited direct discussions with them. They may have to redo interlocal agreements with all of them if the time of collection is changed, which is not an issue, and they can certainly do that.

Ms. Guillet stated that the concern that she has heard from some of the cities is they collect every other impact fee for the County at building permit and now this would change to a different point in time. There are 90 days before they start to collect the new impact fee if the Board chooses to pass the ordinance. They can look at working with the cities to figure out the best way for all of the impact fees to be collected so they do not need to bifurcate collecting some at building permit and some at prepower or whatever the point is. Ms. Guillet recommended that they leave the language the way it is if the Board chooses to move forward with the ordinance with that period between building permit and CO so they can have an opportunity to sit down with the cities and include the School Board in that discussion to try and resolve the time of collection for not just the school impact fees. She suggested they try and get some consistency with that. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Chipok that if the Board sets the time of collection by resolution (as is contemplated in the December 1 draft) and if they need to come back and change it at some point because they see it is not working, all they have to do is adopt a new resolution versus adopting a whole new ordinance. Ms. Guillet remarked that it is a benefit to the County and a benefit to the School Board to have the cities collecting the impact fees so they certainly want to work with them on the interlocal agreements to make sure there is a system that everyone is comfortable with.

Commissioner Dallari thanked the School Board and stated he thinks they put a lot of hard work into this. He stated he does have some questions regarding the square footage. The Commissioner asked why they did square footage on multifamily rather than bedrooms. Mr. Ranaldi stated the primary concern if they went to the number of bedrooms was that a fairly large unit could have a bedroom and a den with a closet and would be categorized at impact fee collection as a one‑bedroom but in actuality there was the flexibility to turn it into a two‑bedroom as well. One of the things they did was actually look at the student generation rates on the one‑bedroom units as opposed to the student generations when they broke it down by square footage. They saw a closer delineation when they worked on the square footage side, and they felt that was a metric that would be consistent with that unit for the life of the unit as opposed to the number of bedrooms.

Commissioner Dallari asked whether the three categories of square footage would equate to a one‑bedroom, a two‑bedroom, and three‑bedroom. Mr. Ranaldi replied no, not at all, that it could possibly be a one‑ or two‑bedroom. He added that especially in the middle section, there could be three‑bedroom units in the 800‑square‑foot to 1,000‑square‑foot tier as well. They looked at it based on student generation based on the square footage of the unit. They found that was a better metric than the actual number of bedrooms. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi if he looked at what exists out there now and where the students are coming from; and he replied that when they ran the student generations, those were the percentages that came from the existing.

Commissioner Dallari stated he asked staff to run the numbers yesterday and a one‑bedroom averages 720 square feet, a two‑bedroom is 1,052 square feet, and a three‑bedroom is 1,275 square feet. He added that basically everything that Mr. Ranaldi has is either going to equate to a one‑bedroom or a three‑bedroom. The middle tier doesn't really exist and is really an anomaly. Commissioner Dallari stated the issue that he has is if you are looking at 1,000 square feet for a multifamily and you are looking at a house, a house is $9,000 and anything above 1,000 square feet in multifamily is $8,700. Commissioner Dallari advised that to him, the numbers don't make sense. Mr. Ranaldi stated what they will be seeing in the middle tier, in the second tier, are the larger one‑bedroom units that will be one bedroom with a den and a closet; that will fall into that middle sector. Commissioner Dallari questioned whether they could define a den as a bedroom. Mr. Ranaldi pointed out that a developer would have the option to identify it either as a den, an office, or a study as opposed to a bedroom if they looked to use the bedroom as the metric. He added that it was a recommendation from their consultant that they really drop back and take a look at the square footage. He agreed that Commissioner Dallari was right, that in the upper tier they are going to see a combination of two-bedroom units and three-bedroom units; but those are really the units that produce the most students when it comes to the actual student generation, the upper tier. Commissioner Dallari remarked that anything above a one‑bedroom, they are paying an exorbitant amount of money. Mr. Ranaldi reiterated that they did not equate it to bedrooms but rather they equated it to square footage.

Commissioner Henley stated if they find out that it is being used differently, he understands they have the authority to make a correction at that time. Mr. Ranaldi replied that he does not believe the ability to go back after the fact and collect additional fees is in the ordinance presently. Commissioner Dallari explained that the reason he is asking about the square footage is because he believes the way that Mr. Ranaldi is doing it is promoting smaller units and more density.

Mr. Ranaldi stated what they are promoting is what they saw when the alternative impact fees came through because a lot of those cited the fact they had the smaller units. They are trying to accommodate those alternative impact fee products; and rather than going through the process, they have already built in to the process that they are going to experience a reduction of the impact fee. Commissioner Dallari stated the way that he looks at this is that a builder is going to want to get his square footage per unit down as small as possible. He believes you are not going to see the bigger apartments anymore. The Commissioner questioned whether Mr. Ranaldi had done an evaluation of that. Mr. Ranaldi replied that he really does not know if the educational impact fee will be determining what the market will bear because it is such a small percentage of overall unit cost that they are developing.

Commissioner Carey advised that the last time they had a conversation about impact fees was about multifamily housing and the debate about fee simple ownership versus apartment rental and that apartments had a bigger impact than the fee simple. She pointed out that it did not turn out to be that way but multifamily in general had a bigger impact. The issue that she hears from multifamily developers is that a lot of these studios and urban flats and the type of stuff that is being built today in some of the more urban areas have to pay the same as any other multifamily or townhouse. Commissioner Carey stated she believes addressing this with square footage is how they accommodate that.

Commissioner Dallari stated he was under the impression that the square footage needs to be somewhat interchangeable but that you cannot switch from bedrooms to square footage, that there was some kind of a legal issue. The Commissioner asked Mr. Chipok to talk about that. Mr. Chipok explained that the study as presented by Tindale Oliver and presented by the School Board in Appendix D goes into a lot of detail. They made their presumption and the study is based on the presumption of square footage. In the charts in Appendix D, it does equate the number of square feet to the average number of bedrooms. Commissioner Dallari stated that is not what he was just told.

Mr. Chipok displayed Table 2 (Student Generation Rates) of Appendix D, which is on page 741 of the agenda book, and explained that the School Board and Tindale Oliver have broken down the square footage as seen in the ordinance and then broken it down by the average number of bedrooms; so 850 square feet would be an average of 1.47 bedrooms, the middle tier would be an average of 1.69 bedrooms, and over 1,001 would be an average of 1.91 bedrooms. They have also generated the student generation rates based on those numbers. Mr. Chipok stated while there is not a direct correlation of the square footage to a bedroom and they are not tiering it at one‑bedroom, two‑bedroom, or three-bedroom, the School Board tiered it at square footage. They equated the average number of bedrooms and the student generation rate regardless of number of bedrooms based on the number of students generated from a unit of that size or within that size range. That is the methodology that they used.

Mr. Ranaldi agreed with Mr. Chipok's description and pointed out that that is exactly the way they worked with Tindale Oliver and the Citizens Advisory Group while they were discussing whether to go with the number of bedrooms or square footage. They felt that the square footage was a more accurate metric because they wouldn't have a unit with 1.4 bedrooms or 2.6 bedrooms. It was based on the size; and they were able to statistically show those different categories, the three categories, and that there was a differential for the actual student generation based on size rather than the number of bedrooms. Mr. Chipok stated if Commissioner Dallari's question is whether those three square‑footage tiers can be converted into one bedroom, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms, since the study is not based on the number of bedrooms, the answer would be no.

Commissioner Dallari asked what this does to the affordable housing issue that they have and the cost of affordable housing. The Commissioner wondered if anyone has any information or reports on that. Commissioner Carey stated she believes in the ordinance the Board has the ability to deal directly with the affordable housing issue. They have not ever done that but the language still remains. Commissioner Dallari clarified that his question is if these impact fees are raised to these numbers, what will that do to the affordable housing market here in Seminole County. Chairman Horan stated he actually asked Mr. Chipok that question the other day. The question that he posed was is there a legal issue with charging no fee for 850 square feet or less; and the answer was if the Board wants to do affordable housing, it has to be done separately, apart from the impact fee. Mr. Chipok explained that the underlying premise of impact fees is that everybody has to pay a fair share. If you are going to give a discount to an affordable housing project, the amount of impact fee as assigned by the ordinance to a unit of that type based on its size or usage (if it is a single‑family home or one of the tiered multifamilies), still needs to be paid. If you are giving a break to the individual developer or unit owner, that money has to come from somewhere. Commissioner Dallari explained that that is not the question he asked; the question he asked is what does it do to the affordable housing person who is paying his rent every month. Mr. Chipok stated he has not done that analysis and does not have an answer. He suggested the School Board might have an answer. Chairman Horan stated the simple answer to the question is if you are in an 850‑square‑foot or less unit, instead of now paying $2,100, you will be paying $3,800; obviously your apartment is going to be more expensive.

Commissioner Dallari stated he understands that but stressed that someone should do the economic analysis regarding how much, on an average, those rents will go up. He emphasized they are having a problem now with affordable housing and people not being able to afford to live here on the affordable housing end. Commissioner Carey stated that it is obvious that an increase in impact fees is going to raise the cost of living and buying a new home in the county. She stated that impact fees have to have a legal rational nexus of impact. When you build a new home, it does have an impact; and it has an impact not only to the schools but to the roads and all of the other things, which is why they have impact fees for all kinds of things throughout the county. Commissioner Carey stated she does not have an issue with the impact fee increase. She is not one who has voted for impact fee increases in the past when they cant be explained to make sense to her. People come to Seminole County because it is a great place to live, work, and play and because they have great schools. If they are going to continue to provide capacity and continue to see development, somebody has to pay for that. Commissioner Dallari stated he disagrees.

Commissioner Carey stated in her opinion, the fair way to do that is through impact fees. On the affordable housing issue, the current ordinance as well as the new one has language about affordable housing but the law says that everybody has to pay the same exact amount of the impact fee. She added that the Board has never chosen to waive impact fees by supplanting them with General Fund dollars, which is what they would have to do for any affordable housing project. She believes the issue they have with affordable housing is the cost of the dirt and has nothing to do with the cost of development because it costs the same amount of money to build a house (bricks and mortar) here as it does in Orange County. She believes it is land costs that drive the cost in Seminole County and make it more difficult to find tracts to do affordable housing on.

Chairman Horan stated they are fortunate that they are in an affluent community; but by the same token, they all know what happens when the price of real estate and the price of a home gets too high for two normal working-class people to afford it and that has a bearing on the quality of life too. Commissioner Carey stated that a house that is already built and being resold isn't being hit with this impact fee. This is only for new construction. They have already paid the impact fee for all of the homes that are here today but they don't have the capacity to build more schools for what is coming.

Commissioner Dallari pointed out that once the impact fees are raised, it fixes an imposed increase on the price of all homes because of the comps. Commissioner Henley agreed that it will influence and edge up the existing housing because of the value. Commissioner Dallari stated it is on the new home, but the person who is buying the new home is paying it, not the developer. Commissioner Carey replied that when you are doing comps, you take into consideration the new home versus the old home and the years difference and all of that kind of stuff. Chairman Horan stated he believes what Commissioner Dallari is getting at is where is the balance point at the smaller-unit end when they start impacting the ability of people to afford homes who have the most problem affording homes with the impact fees. Even though the differential (the $1,700 or $2,000 or whatever it is) is spread out over the lifetime of the house, it is still built into the initial price of the house.

Chairman Horan asked Mr. Ranaldi if he has a projection as to where they are going to be in 2020 in terms of collections, impact fees, and capital dollars and whether this is going to be sufficient to go ahead and meet the capital needs and the five‑year capital improvement plan. Mr. Ranaldi stated he thinks it will be one leg of the stool. He added that for the past 10 years since the last increase, on average they have collected approximately $3.3 million. They are estimating that if there is no significant impact relative to any vesting and if they stay with the two phases that they are talking about, they are looking at somewhere around $7 million. Mr. Ranaldi pointed out that he obviously cannot build a school for $3 million. He is looking at an elementary school for $28 million, a middle in the mid‑40s, and over $70 million for a high school. With the funding that they are presently receiving for impact, they are using that to pay back their COPs (Certificate of Participation), which were dedicated to projects that increased capacity. At Chairman Horan's request, Mr. Ranaldi explained how a COP is used. He reiterated that he believes they will be somewhere in the $7 million to $7.5 million range on average looking out 10 years from this point right now.

To clarify for the public, Chairman Horan stated that when the public is saying the School Board is trying to get enough money together in impact fees or other resources so they can go ahead and pay for a school, really they are basically just trying to pay the leveraged costs and they just want to make sure there are enough capital dollars to pay the debt service. Mr. Ranaldi stated it is also to add capacity to the district, and that all translates to actual capacity and actual seats for students as well. Chairman Horan pointed out if they are going to increase capacity, they are not going to pay cash. Mr. Ranaldi agreed and added they would not be able to do it with a single year's worth of impact fee collections even if it goes up to the $7 million to $7.5 million that they are estimating. Chairman Horan reiterated he thinks that is important for the public to understand.

Commissioner Carey pointed out that as one of the other requirements in the impact fee ordinance (the current one and either of the proposed ones), the School Board has to report annually what they have done in the prior year with the funds that they received. She advised they get regular reports about what is going on and talked about some of the things that were done in her district. She agreed that one year of impact fees is not going to provide the capacity that is needed. Unfortunately, impact fees cannot be used for renovations and other things. They have a lot of issues with roofs and HVACs and those types of things over the life of a school. Chairman Horan and Mr. Ranaldi talked about how State funding is based on anticipated growth.

Chairman Horan asked Mr. Ranaldi if he is comfortable that the proposed levels will be adequate. Mr. Ranaldi responded that they will be as one leg of a stool. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ranaldi how he plans on making up the shortfall since his report says $13,000 and he is coming in at $9,000, which is a $4,000 delta. Mr. Ranaldi explained that they do have a number of capacity projects in the sales tax. In addition to that, they are doing similar additions like they are doing at ILC where they are not required to buy land but can do a two‑story addition that will gain them another 300 students on campus. Strategically thinking, that is the other leg of the stool. The legs are the impact fees, how the sales tax is going to work, and what the State allows them to actually do with the millage that they receive, which is very restrictive.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ranaldi if he agrees that if this is approved, he would not have any problem with removing concurrency then because he would have all of the capacity that he would need then; he would not need to do a SCALD letter any more. Mr. Ranaldi replied they would need to take a look at it holistically. Through the impact fees they have actually taken a significant chunk, but they need to look at what the overall process is going to be for the SCALD and how they are going to put together the service areas and things like that to make sure that they don't get behind the eight ball. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ranaldi if he wouldnt do that at the same time. Mr. Ranaldi stated they felt this was really the best foundation step to do it. Once they have established that, then they can start working toward the changes that are desired with the interlocal agreement.

Commissioner Henley referred to the existing school sites and asked how many of the sites would have room to build some additional classrooms or student stations. Mr. Ranaldi stated they would probably have room at maybe about 50%. Commissioner Henley stated he does not know how many existing sites they may have already that they plan to build on. Mr. Ranaldi advised that at this point, they have 67 existing sites. They do have one 30‑acre site off Snow Hill Road, the Yankee Lake parcel, the Rosenwald parcel, and one other 30‑acre parcel as well. Those have been land banked at this point. Commissioner Henley asked whether Mr. Ranaldi cannot increase the student stations at each of the schools because there is not room to add classrooms. Mr. Ranaldi stated there are a lot of issues. Because they are a Choice district, they do have a lot of vehicle queuing on‑site because the parents are either driving or picking up. Commissioner Carey stated she thought Mr. Ranaldi said he had the capacity to go to two stories in some of the schools. Mr. Ranaldi stated they are looking at two stories and noted that Millennium is three stories. They will be doing a two‑story at Lake Brantley as well. They are looking to go up in order to address the lack of land as well.

Commissioner Henley asked whether they have looked at the possibility of buying two or three homes that may be located next to the school site in order to build classrooms rather than going out and building a whole new school with administrative suites and the need to staff them. They duplicate a lot of facilities that are not student stations and add transportation to bus the students out to the new school. Mr. Ranaldi explained that a good scenario is that they have a number of elementary schools that are over 1,000. When they hit that number regarding the core facilities like the dining, the children start dining at 8:30 or 9:00. He pointed out that they don't only have to do the classroom but they have to take a close look at what is happening with the core facilities as well. He added that it is all dynamic.

Jeff Schnellmann, 1235 North Orange Avenue, addressed the Board and stated he is the immediate past president of the Greater Orlando Builders' Association, which they refer to as GOBA. Mr. Schnellmann explained that philosophically, his association is opposed to impact fees and have been for years. They believe that a broader-based funding system is the appropriate way to do it; however, they are a practical group and impact fees are here and likely here to stay. Mr. Schnellmann advised that sometime in third quarter of 2017, they were approached by the School Board representatives to look at the impact fees. The School Board representatives shared the study that Tindale Oliver did, and it proposed an extraordinary increase in impact fees. He stated they went through a process with the School Board where they discussed the issues. GOBA commissioned an alternate study, which he has shared with Commissioner Constantine, and they negotiated and discussed middle ground. GOBA is always concerned with the impact on the market of impact fee increases.

Mr. Schnellmann pointed out what they have before them is a 40% increase followed by another 40% increase the following year. That will impact buyers. As one of the Commissioners stated earlier, the developer pays them and then the buyer pays them assuming the market will bear it. If the market will not bear it, then somebody loses money and licks their wounds and probably doesn't do it again. He reiterated that it has impact on the marketplace and added that like Chairman Horan stated, a rising tide lifts all boats. When prices go up on new homes, values go up on existing homes so existing homeowners kind of like it when impact fees go up. Mr. Schnellmann added that having said that they hate impact fees and are always opposed to them, GOBA supports this resolution because they think it is fair, it was done openly, and he applauds the School Board and Ms. Lockhart in particular for coming to GOBA to discuss this.

Commissioner Carey referred to a conversation she had with Mr. Schnellmann yesterday and pointed out that at that time he indicated that he supported the ordinance that was adopted by the School Board in October, which does not have the vesting in it and has the time of collection at CO. She asked him if that was correct and he responded that it was. He added that they have had several discussions back and forth regarding the timing issue; and naturally, he would like it at CO. The issue that he thought most of the building officials came up with was that at request for final inspection would suit them. The difference between that and certificate of occupancy is negligible, so GOBA is not opposed to that. While prepower is a little further in advance, if it is a burden or hardship on the cities and the County, GOBA won't fight that. Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Schnellmann if GOBA would support the recommendation that the School Board has in the December draft to eliminate Section 105.43, which is the vesting, and to make it at time of final inspection; and he indicated that they would.

Richard Jerman, 1640 Eagle Nest Circle, addressed the Board and stated he is a residential real estate developer so he is quite familiar with the market. Mr. Jerman stated he is also a member of the County's Planning and Zoning Commission but noted that he is not here speaking as a member of that commission, only as a citizen of the county. He remarked that the School Board, by their own admission, is behind the eight ball a little bit on their funding, and yet in his opinion they have not done their fiduciary duty of maintaining the financial integrity of the system. They have gone over about ten years without ever raising the impact fees. He referred to the Education Impact Fee Rate Comparison slide and asked the Board to focus on the adjacent counties' impact fees. He noted that the impact fee for Osceola is $10,187 with another increase currently being proposed. Orange County is currently at $8,784 and Lake County is at $9,324. Seminole County is at $5,000. Mr. Jerman pointed out that Seminole County is at virtually 40% below everyone else and yet they are the county with the A-rated school system.

Mr. Jerman advised that the School Board commissioned their own study and their consultant came up with an increase to $12,322; and now the School Board is proposing a $7,000 increase in the first step and then $9,000 in the second step. He talked about the differential and noted that even with impact fees of $7,000 and $9,000, Seminole County is between 25% and 30% behind everybody else. Mr. Jerman pointed out that GOBA lobbied the School Board and everybody listened and everybody said business will decline and this is going to be trouble for us. He suggested they look at many of the production builders, which are GOBA's members, and at the houses that they build, which are some of the same models in two or three counties. He pointed out that in Seminole County, the houses are 5% to 10% higher in either price or margin as compared to Orange County; and that is because Seminole County is an A-rated school system. People want this quality of life and they will pay for it. Mr. Jerman suggested they are going to "miss the boat" here and the "horse is going to be out of the barn." There are not that many big projects that will generate school impact fees over the next number of years.

Mr. Jerman stressed that he hopes the Board will consider the two recommendations of the P&Z Commission. The first recommendation was to take the impact fees immediately to $9,000. He next talked about when the fee should be paid and wondered if the fee is paid at final inspection, who would be policing that. He pointed out that all of the other fees are paid at permit and suggested it is just a cash flow item. If it takes a builder four or five months generally to build a production house, then they would be paying the school impact fees four or five months earlier. It gets the School Board their money earlier and also polices it properly. He reiterated that he hopes the Commission will consider what the P&Z Commission recommended, which was $9,000 now and payment at building permit.

Commissioner Carey noted that Mr. Jerman stated there were two changes that he was recommending but at the P&Z meeting, there were three. One of the recommendations was to strike the vesting rights section. Mr. Jerman replied that he believes that was taken care of and was struck. Commissioner Carey advised it is still in the December 1 ordinance that they are considering. The School Board is recommending that it be struck. She just wanted to clarify for the record that that was the action of P&Z and that Mr. Jerman was the motion maker. Mr. Jerman stated he believes the two important ones were the immediate jump to the $9,000 and the time of collection, which was different from what the School Board proposed in their ordinance.

Commissioner Dallari clarified with Mr. Jerman that he is a developer and not a builder. Mr. Jerman added that if builders don't buy lots, it impacts his business. Commissioner Dallari pointed out that the market in Seminole County is going towards apartments more than single‑family homes. They can see that in the agenda items that are coming in front of the Board. The Commissioner suggested that if you look at the national trend for housing, the younger population wants to be more in apartments than they want to be in single‑family homes. Some of his concern is that there are some differences when it comes to doing square footage for apartments as well as a lump fee for just one single‑family home. When they talk about affordable housing, that is another issue. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Jerman if he had any input on that issue. Mr. Jerman replied there is a pretty good size difference between an apartment unit in terms of its assessment of impact fees versus a single‑family home. It is about a 35% or 40% difference. He stated he happens to like the bedroom program versus square footage, and he thinks they can rewrite the ordinance to make affordable housing and adjust all impact fees to fit affordable housing when necessary, both schools and roads. He agreed with Commissioner Dallari that the ordinance doesn't exactly address affordable housing, which is a problem. He stated it is easy to adjust the ordinance to say if it is truly affordable housing, then this is the impact fee.

Commissioner Carey stated it is her understanding that they cannot single out an impact fee for affordable housing; it has to be the same as all other impact fees. She added that the Board has the right to waive impact fees for affordable housing if they so choose but they would have to pay it from another pot of money; and she asked Mr. Chipok to address the legality of the matter. Mr. Chipok agreed that Commissioner Carey stated it correctly. He explained that under the law of impact fees, the impact fees have to be uniform to the various types of units and product that is out there. So if the Board is going to remove the impact fee burden from a project because they deem it to be affordable housing, they will be required to make it up from the General Fund with the thought being that if they are removing the impact fee burden from affordable housing, they are undermining the uniformity of the impact fees as applied across the board. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Chipok that the County couldn't add a column for affordable housing projects and make them a percentage less. Mr. Chipok indicated they would need a "big pot of money" to support it. Ms. Guillet stated that they did have a fund at one point. She pointed out that it hasn't been used in the time that she has been with the County but there was a fund to underwrite impact fees for affordable housing when the market was very high. Mr. Chipok cautioned that that probably should be done on a case-by-case basis. With regard to setting aside some money and knowing they have a shortfall for affordable housing projects, Commissioner Carey stated she thinks in their budgeting process they ought to look at this idea. They did that back in 2004, 2005 and 2006 when the market was very good and they had excess revenue.

Commissioner Constantine stated the he believes that the County Manager was requested a while ago to come up with strategies on affordable housing. He suggested they might want to look at that on a case-by-case basis as one of the strategies that they talk about in affordable housing. Ms. Guillet stated they are working actually on a regional effort to do that and get some consistency across the region. She added that regulatory barriers are one of the items they are looking at, including fees. Chairman Horan stated that is one of the planks that the Florida Association of Counties passed, removing regulatory barriers so they can do those kinds of things.

Tom Sullivan, 301 East Pine Street, addressed the Board and stated he is with GrayRobinson. Mr. Sullivan complimented the County's staff and the School Board's staff regarding the process in which the ordinance has been established. He stated he is here today on behalf of Emerson International in connection with their Sanctuary apartment project in Altamonte Springs. Emerson has owned this particular property for a number of years and they have been engaged in the entitlement and permitting process for the last two years or so. Mr. Sullivan added that at this particular point, they have preliminary plan approval and have submitted for but not obtained final plat engineering and building permits for the project. They are probably a year away from having those approvals in place.

Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the impact fee rate in the first phase in the December 1st draft of the ordinance would represent approximately a $1 million increase for the project, which is why it is a significant issue for them because the project was financed and the pro‑forma was done at the existing rate. Section 105.43 of the December 1st version of the ordinance, before the P&Z Commission made their changes to it, provided for vesting for certain projects through a certain process which essentially involved an agreement with either the County or whatever municipality the property was located in. That version would work for them because they are really getting squeezed by just a few months. Mr. Sullivan suggested that if that vesting provision would stay in and perhaps be for a year duration, that would solve their particular problem. He is not sure whether the Board would entertain that type of a solution to this, but they would appreciate the Board's consideration.

Mr. Sullivan also suggested as an alternative potential solution that if the one‑year suggestion would be too broadly written, they could narrow it perhaps by identifying projects that have a current preliminary plan approval and ones that have not expired. He believes that would cover folks like Emerson who have been actively pursuing projects and trying to get them underway.

Regarding square footage, Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Sullivan if Emerson would rethink their layouts to try to get more in less space. Mr. Sullivan replied the increase on that basis incentivizes a smaller unit but he could not tell him today that they would revamp their development program. He pointed out there is a clear financial incentive to have as few of the larger units as possible. At the same time to be fair, he thinks there is a little bit of a trend in the marketplace towards smaller units anyway. If someone is on the fence and thinks a smaller unit might sell in the marketplace, they will do a smaller unit. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Sullivan if he is saying that the industry is going towards more rental properties than fee simple projects. Mr. Sullivan responded that there is a trend in that now. He added that with some of the millennials or younger folks, that is kind of more appealing for different lifestyle reasons. There are different trends that may be at cross hairs with each other.

Commissioner Carey pointed out that in talking with staff yesterday, she felt two years was too long on the vesting issue considering you have 90 days before the ordinance takes effect and 60 days for the statement to be in effect. She suggested that if they did it for a year, that really would give somebody almost a year and a half to get through the process. She believes Mr. Sullivan's suggestion of a year for the vesting would probably be something reasonable. She could support doing it for a year. Discussion ensued with regard to whether or not developers or apartment builders would build the smaller units based on impact fees.

Commissioner Carey advised that the alternative to having the scaling of impact fees is to have a flat fee. If there is a studio apartment, the odds are there will not be a bunch of kids in it. She stated that is the reason she thought the scaling was a pretty good idea. From the multifamily developers that she has talked to, they thought it was a good idea as well. The market has changed and what gets built today has changed. The Commissioner suggested that an urban project like the one at Uptown Altamonte would have loved a tiered process during that development rather than a flat fee. She reiterated that if they are not going to accept the tiered process, they will need to come up with a flat fee for the multifamily. From her discussions with a few of the bigger multifamily developers in the region, they like the tiered approach. Mr. Sullivan commented that the square footage versus the bedrooms is kind of an interesting question as to which way to go. He added that he has typically seen it with the number of bedrooms. Commissioner Carey stated she likes the fact that the School Board actually looked at what really is happening in the square footage of an apartment, whether it be a one‑bedroom or a two‑bedroom.

Tara Tedrow, with the law firm of Lowndes Drosdick, addressed the Board and stated her firm represents a variety of clients in the senior living market and specifically one in Seminole County, Legacy Pointe Continuing Care Retirement Community. Ms. Tedrow stated she is here today to support the specific provision in Section 105.41 that exempts senior living and age‑restricted communities from paying impact fees. They appreciate the time the County Attorney has taken to talk to them about that provision since it is improper to collect impact fees on age‑restricted communities. Despite the outcome with some of the other provisions in question today, she would encourage the Board to at least incorporate that specific exemption into an ordinance moving forward.

Vivien Monaco, with the law firm of Burr & Forman, addressed the Board and stated she is here on behalf of GOBA as the chair of the legal committee and a member and past chair of the government affairs committee. Ms. Monaco explained that she is here today to talk about vesting for projects that have preexisting contracts as of today and specifically the Federal and Florida constitutional prohibition against the impairment of the obligation of contracts. She expounded that if there are contracts in existence today that this increase in the school impact fees would impair financially, particularly so that when the contract was entered into there was a specific expectation of a return on the investment and because of this increase that would be diminished or in fact in some cases make a project untenable, that is actually a violation of this prohibition. Ms. Monaco referred to a 2006 case specific to impact fees, Lee County v. Brown (copy received and filed), and reported that she has given a copy of the case to Mr. Chipok. She explained that the Home Builders Association brought it to the attention of Orange County back in 2006; and Orange County, at that time, was going through some increases in impact fees and did add to some of their impact fee ordinances a provision for these preexisting contracts.

Ms. Monaco suggested the following provision: This ordinance is not intended to impair the obligation of any contract in existence as of January 9, 2018. Should the increase in the Educational System Impact Fees create such an impairment, the increased impact fee shall not be imposed on the property that is the subject of the contract in existence as of January 9, 2018, but instead such property shall be subject to the impact fee in effect as of January 8, 2018. (A copy of the language was received and filed.) She added that that language would leave it up to the Countys staff to determine the process and how that would work.

Commissioner Carey asked if a home builder has entered into a contract, would they have started construction within 90 days. Ms. Monaco offered an example of a production home builder in a fairly large subdivision. Someone goes out to the subdivision on Saturday and likes a model but would like the model on another lot. The home builder says we can do that but we are not going to start constructing in that area until May. A contract is signed for $400,000; and under that contract, that home builder would have a certain amount of profit built into that contract. When the impact fees are adopted, even with the phasing in and with the 90 days from the effective date as required under the statute, that increase is going to reduce that profit margin under that existing contract. In Florida, there are two lines of cases; and if the impairment of a contract is a financial impairment, then it is per se a violation of that constitutional provision of impairment of contract.

Commissioner Carey asked the attorney to speak to the Lee County case and wondered if the attorneys had looked at the proposed language that Ms. Monaco is proposing to see if that is something that they would recommend or not. Mr. Chipok explained that it is going back to the vested rights provision, Section 105.43. He stated that if they are looking at options and if they are removing the section completely, then the issue of impairment of contracts would be out of the County's hands and would be in the Court's hands. If there is the vested rights provision, as they have it now, there would be that flexibility to enter into an agreement and the factors that Ms. Monaco has listed would be considerations as to whether an agreement would be appropriate or not on a case-by-case basis. If the Board wants, Ms. Monaco's language would be very specific in that; and whether they add that to Section 105.43 or just remove that section but put this language in in its place is another option. Mr. Chipok noted that the language says "this ordinance is not intended to impair any obligation of a contract in existence as of January 9, so prospectively, this provision has no effect.

Commissioner Carey stated if they had the vesting in the ordinance for a year or two, then they would fall under that category and could come and get an exemption because of their contract status on a case‑by‑case basis. Mr. Chipok agreed that on a case‑by‑case basis that would be the reason they would be approved under the provision and an agreement would be entered into. For that, they would have to complete it within the time period of the length of time that is set forth in the ordinance. He pointed out that right now it is two years.

Ms. Corbett addressed the comments with respect to the Lee County case and stated that she believes what Ms. Monaco said about the case is partially accurate but also probably not quite completely accurate in terms of the level of impairment that is required to be unconstitutional. She stated they just wanted to make sure the Board knew that on the record, that they dont agree with Ms. Monacos position.

With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Carey stated she thinks it is always difficult when they talk about taxes and fees and impact fees and all of those types of things. She believes the community has been known for working together; and to see the building community come together with the School Board and County staff and all of the other people and community organizations that were involved and come to an agreement of a compromise is great. Once again they have shown that when you put a bunch of smart people in the room to work out a problem, they can come up with a solution that everyone can live with. Commissioner Carey stated she understands everybody's concerns regarding vesting and not vesting. She can support some vesting but not two years. She could support 12 months. Between the 90 days of the ordinance, the 60 days to satisfy the effectiveness, and the one‑year vesting, she believes it gives any developer that is in the process plenty of time to get through that process.

Commissioner Carey stated the only unresolved issue would be time of collection, which she understands based on the December draft that they are looking at right now would be determined in the next 90 days by resolution. So there is still time to talk about that with some of the effected parties to see what really is best. She would really like to see them go back and talk to the cities as well once again about that. As she said before, she is not a proponent of taxes and those types of fees and is more a supporter of user fees. The Commissioner thinks growth and development has to pay for itself and believes impact fees are a way for that to happen.

Commissioner Dallari stated he supported the last impact fee go‑around, which was in 2006/2007, wholeheartedly. Right after they did that, the economy went down. He stated he has some reservations on some of this when it comes to multifamily and the square footage. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to get some more financial economic research or input and would love to have a work session with the BCC and the School Board to better understand the nexus of this square footage, because he truly believes if they adopt these square footages, they will be promoting smaller units and more density.

Commissioner Carey asked Commissioner Dallari if he would like to entertain taking the square footage in the middle and make it a flat rate. Commissioner Dallari responded that he doesn't know. He does not want to legislate from the dais. Commissioner Carey pointed out they had a workshop about the study, and they have been working on this for 18 months. Commissioner Dallari advised that he understands that but he thinks it is important for them to get this right and he thinks it is important for them to understand how this will affect the affordable housing folks. He advised that if they want his support, he wants more information. Commissioner Carey stated she would like to put the affordable housing discussion to bed once and for all. They cannot make a separate fee for affordable housing. Commissioner Dallari replied that he understands that and added that is not what he was asking for. He is asking how this will affect the folks that are actually on the lower end of the pay scale trying to get in to some of these apartments, and he just wants to see some information.

Commissioner Constantine stated he thinks growth should pay for itself and believes that impact fees and user fees are growth fees that pay for themselves. He questioned why it took so long, 11 years, to be brought forth. They have looked at increases in ad valorem and increases in other things; and the fact of the matter is there was a tool already in place for the last three or four years (especially since there has been such a growth spurt) that should at least have been considered as they were going through this. He commended the School Board for the update of every three years because he thinks they should be looking at it every three years. He believes they do that with the building code; they look at it to upgrade it. Looking at this every three years keeps it fresh and gives those that are in the home building business a real opportunity to see what is there and what is not there and how they can work through this.

Commissioner Constantine talked about Seminole County's fee being lower when compared to Orange County, Osceola County and Lake County and explained why he does not believe the impact fee being requested today is out of line. He stated he understands why the home builders would like the idea of phasing, but he does not see why they should do that. He pointed out that even with the $9,000 fee, they would still be lower than everyone around them in a community where everyone is expecting A-rated schools and expecting to be paying higher because of that. Commissioner Constantine discussed the tiering and why he thinks it is the right method. He does believe they should have some sort of vesting and does not see any reason to change the collection of fees at permitting.

Commissioner Carey stated she agrees with Commissioner Constantine regarding tiering and would support the tiering because it was a recommendation of GOBA and the other community folks that worked so long and hard on this. She stated this is a County Commission ordinance; and if the Board had wanted to bring forth impact fee increases, they could have directed them to do that long ago. The economy was bad and the Board did not do it. She noted they have worked as such great partners with the School Board and she thinks that everybody was kind of in agreement that the timing wasn't right to be raising fees.

Chairman Horan stated that he can do one- or two-year vesting, the 2018 and 2019 tiers or just 2019, and he believes the amounts are right. He pointed out that they are trying to fund the capacity in the schools in as reasonable a way as they can given the mechanisms and structures that they have under the law that the Legislature has given them.

Commissioner Henley stated he is not impressed from the standpoint that they should be changing their fees because somebody else is charging more. To him, that is not the basis for which they should be doing business. All of those counties that have been named have been far below Seminole County from an educational standpoint and quality standpoint since the '60s. He advised that goes to show him that the quality of education is not determined by the facilities but by the quality of the teachers that are in the classroom, and they certainly don't pay them what they deserve because they have kept Seminole County at the top for years and years. Commissioner Henley stated he can support a change.

Motion by Commissioner Carey to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees, Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing notice that the revised Educational Impact Fee rates established by this Ordinance shall be effective 90 days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing for severability, and providing an effective date with the following changes to the December 1 draft: 1) Vesting will be for 12 months; and 2) the determination of a collection date will come back to the Board within 90 days by resolution.

Ms. Guillet stated she is not sure the second change is a necessary revision. She thinks the ordinance already calls for establishing that by resolution. Commissioner Carey stated that the ordinance does but because they talked about it so many different ways she is stating it in her motion so everyone knows that is how it will come back.

Motion died for lack of a second.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey as to whether his issue is the collection of fees, Commissioner Constantine stated he understands that decision will be done later. He thinks that Commissioner Dallari had concerns about the tiering. Commissioner Dallari stated he does not have a number for the square footage. He thinks when they start doing square footage as shown in the presentation, they are promoting a denser community. That is his biggest issue. When asked by Commissioner Carey what his solution would be, he stated he does not have a solution and is only stating why he cannot support the ordinance; he is just identifying what the problem is. A brief discussion was had regarding a flat fee. Chairman Horan asked Commissioner Dallari if his hope is that a workshop would give him further clarity. Commissioner Dallari stated he is trying to figure out where to be and it is hard to do without actually running numbers. He added that he believes the school system is great and he commends them.

Commissioner Carey asked whether right now in their adopted ordinance the multifamily and the townhomes pay the same rate. Ms. Porter‑Carlton stated they pay different amounts and there is not a tiered system based on size. Ms. Guillet stated that in the existing ordinance there is a $350 difference between townhomes and multifamily. Commissioner Dallari pointed out that someone could have three‑bedroom in multifamily, which he is assuming is over 1,000 square feet, and they would be paying almost $8,700 but a three‑bedroom townhouse would be paying $5,000.

Commissioner Carey stated that right now the current rates are $350 apart. She asked Commissioner Dallari if they took the proposed rates and made the difference between multifamily and townhomes $350 as it is now whether that would satisfy his issue. Commissioner Dallari responded it is hard for him to tell her what would satisfy his issue without having people run numbers. Ms. Guillet advised against arbitrarily fixing on a number from the dais that varies from the numbers in the study. Mr. Chipok advised that the numbers that are in the ordinance and the recommended rates are based on the analysis done by the School Board through the Tindale Oliver study, which is based on types of units, the student generation rates from those types of units, and the cost of a student station. He added there is a formula that has been arrived at for those numbers. If the Board wants to look at these numbers, that type of formula should be applied in a detailed manner so they have a supportable ordinance based on the study.

Commissioner Dallari stated that he realizes that but he is looking at a townhouse that could be any amount of bedrooms. Mr. Chipok stated that in the study they did look at breaking down single‑family homes into tiering, but the difference between the over and under was so small that it made sense in the single‑family tier to just keep it as a single rate because the difference between over 2,500 and under 2,500 square feet was roughly the same. He suggested that if they want to discuss numbers, it really should be done probably at a workshop in his opinion so they have a supportable basis for the numbers.

Commissioner Dallari stated he is looking at apartments that have been built in Seminole County; and there are on average one‑bedroom apartments of 722 square feet, two‑bedroom apartments of 1,052 square feet, and three‑bedroom apartments of 1,275 square feet. He reiterated that was on average and was across several cities. Commissioner Carey wondered if they could take that average and make that the three tiers. Commissioner Dallari stated they potentially could but someone has to run numbers as to what works because he does not know.

Commissioner Carey stated she honestly doesn't have an issue with what is proposed, either taking a flat fee or taking what is proposed. She mentioned that Commissioner Constantine had the report from the other folks with the multifamily and wondered what it shows. Commissioner Constantine stated they did it based on a flat fee for townhomes, condos, duplexes, multifamilies apartments, and mobile homes. He stated the recalculated prices were $4,791 for townhomes, $6,751 for multifamilies, and $4,519 for mobile homes.

Commissioner Carey stated this has been looked at a lot of different ways, and she has read the report several times. She stated she does not have an issue moving forward; but if Commissioner Dallari does, she needs to know what the rest of the Board thinks. She suggested someone else put a motion out and see where it goes. Mr. Chipok reminded everyone that the process and genesis of what is before the Board today started out where they were getting a lot of requests for alternative impact fee studies. The basis of those alternative impact fee studies was coming from multifamily projects. Those multifamily projects were claiming that the flat rate did not apply to them because of various deviations in the types of units that they were having as opposed to what the flat rate was. By the School Board going to the tiered analysis, they have broken it down in an attempt to alleviate the need for these alternative studies in that if a project truly does have less large units, they would be paying less impact fees.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Chipok if anybody has verified those numbers for the apartment units to make sure that what the apartment builder stated was happening was actually taking place. Ms. Guillet stated they review it at building permit. Commissioner Dallari stated he is not talking about at building permit. He stated that apartments keep track of how many kids are coming from each apartment. Ms. Guillet acknowledged that the Commissioner is talking about student generation. Mr. Ranaldi reported that, with using ESRI (GIS mapping program), they are able to identify by address the number of students that are generated for that specific address or that specific apartment or condo as well. He advised that they validate that. Commissioner Dallari asked if the numbers were correct if someone was saying there were "x" amount of students coming from an apartment building. Mr. Ranaldi stated the school is actually cross-referencing with the student data base and their address. If a student comes from that address, they will know it. Commissioner Dallari stated that is not his question. His question is if a developer came in and wanted to build an apartment complex and they look at how many bedrooms are in that apartment complex (because right now it is by bedrooms) and it says there are 100 students coming out of that apartment complex, does the School Board go back and validate that truly there are 100 students coming from it. Mr. Ranaldi stated they trend, especially with the alternative impact fees, and watch as they get occupied how many students are coming on board. Some are over and some are under.

Commissioner Constantine stated since they are stuck at this point, he thinks the only other thing they can do is go to a work session. As he said earlier, he is okay with tiering. He does understand where Commissioner Dallari is coming from but he does believe that the School Board has a handle on those numbers. Commissioner Constantine stated he did want to clarify that he was not critical of the School Board per se other than he thinks it should have been done three or four years ago and not necessarily eleven years ago. He added that he is okay with the vesting at where they are right now. He stated he agrees with the P&Z Commission and does not see the need for the phasing in. The fact of the matter is that is what the costs are; and even at that point, it is $3,000 less than what the School Board's consultants indicated.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance #2018-01 amending Chapter 105, Educational System Impact Fees, Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing notice that the revised Educational Impact Fee rates established by this Ordinance shall be effective 90 days from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, providing for severability, and providing an effective date, as described in the proof of publication, with the following changes to the December 1, 2017 Draft Version: 1) at Section 105.21(b), the rates established immediately shall be as listed for 2019 and there will be no phasing in of the rates; and 2) at Section 105.43, Vested Rights, the time utilizing a vested rights agreement shall be changed to one year, not the two years as listed in the Draft.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Dallari voted NAY.

Commissioner Henley stated he believes Commissioner Dallari had a very good point and Commissioner Constantine agreed with Commissioner Henley. Commissioner Constantine stated he would like to see more numbers on this to make sure that Commissioner Dallaris concern can be addressed and answered. They can always change an ordinance. Commissioner Carey pointed out that the monitoring is part of the ordinance and the School Board has to report to the Board annually as to what the actuals are.


Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 3:43 p.m., reconvening it at 3:48 p.m.


Scott Rott, 218 Spanish Oak Trail, addressed the Board to compliment them. Mr. Rott referred to the recent proposal by the Tax Collector and thanked the Board for doing their due diligence, for their oversight, and for the continuance of responsibly managing the taxpayer dollars.

Speaker Request Form for Mr. Rott was not received.


Ex parte communication for Commissioner Dallari and Commissioner Henley was received and filed.


STOR 4 DAYZ REZONE/Seminole Land Holdings, LLC


Agenda Item #37 2017-0050

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to M-1 (Industrial) on approximately 8.76 acres, located on the west side of East Lake Mary Boulevard, approximately one-quarter mile south of East SR 46, Seminole Land Holdings, LLC, received and filed.

Joy Giles, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum and pointed out that the Applicant is requesting a rezone for a self-storage facility. The site is surrounded by Industrial Future Land Use and the Orlando Sanford International Airport is located west of the subject site. The M-1 zoning classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the adjacent airport operations. Ms. Giles advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff also is recommending approval of the request.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2018-02 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to M-1 (Industrial) on approximately 8.76 acres, located on the west side of East Lake Mary Boulevard, approximately one-quarter mile south of East SR 46, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole Land Holdings, LLC.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.



Agenda Item #38 2017-0049

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) on 4.61 acres, located on the east side of Walker Road, north of James Drive, Julian Coto, received and filed.

Joy Giles, Planning and Development Division, presented the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Ms. Giles stated the subject property has a Medium Density Residential Future Land Use designation, which allows a maximum density of ten units per net buildable acre. Access will be from Walker Road and utilities will be provided by Seminole County. Ms. Giles talked about the surrounding developments and noted that the requested R-1A zoning classification is compatible with the trend of development and less intense than the surrounding developments in the area. Ms. Giles advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff is recommending approval.

Commissioner Dallari stated that he knows that everyone reads the agenda packets but he would like Ms. Giles to read into the record the portion of the Agenda Report regarding transportation so it is perfectly clear. Ms. Giles read the following from page 2 of the Staff Report: Access is proposed from Walker Road. Walker Road is classified as a local road and does not have right-of-way improvements programmed in the County 5-Year Capital Improvement Program. Walker Road does not meet County standards for right-of-way width and paving and will be required to be improved to meet County standards. Commissioner Dallari advised that he wanted to ensure that everyone was aware of that information.

With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance #2018-03 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1A (Single Family Dwelling) on 4.61 acres, located on the east side of Walker Road, north of James Drive, as described in the proof of publication, Julian Coto.

Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari stated he believes it is important that they talk about some of the shortcomings and transportation is a shortcoming, which he is sure they will overcome.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


District 3

Commissioner Constantine reported that he attended the annual Seminole County Tourism luncheon and represented the Chairman in giving out the awards. He believes staff did a great job on that. He mentioned that he will be going up to Tallahassee for the Florida Regional Planning Council this week.


Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint G.K. Sharman to the Library Advisory Board and Michael Fratrik to the Contractor Examiner Board (Pool Contractor); and to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-08 in appreciation to Elizabeth Murphrey for her service on the Library Advisory Board.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Commissioner Constantine congratulated Michael Ertel, Supervisor of Elections, and his office for winning two awards, an international award for reaching out to first-time voters and a national award for design and functionality of the website. He also congratulated Michelle Ertel, who was just selected as the new chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

District 5

Commissioner Carey advised that she received a call from Pam Nabors at CareerSource Central Florida regarding some of the appointments. Melanie Cornell is going to be tendering her resignation at the end of the month. In talking about who would be a good representative from the community, one of the names that came up was David Sprinkle from Veritas Recruiting. Dr. Sarnovsky has retired from Seminole State College and Dr. McGee has recommended Dr. John Gyllin to be his replacement.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to appoint David Sprinkle to replace Ms. Cornell (who is resigning at the end of the month) and also to a four-year term that will start on July 1, 2018 and to appoint Dr. John Gyllin to fulfill the unexpired term of Dr. Sarnovsky to the CareerSource Central Florida Board of Directors.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-09 in appreciation to Melanie Cornell and appropriate Resolution #2018-R-10 in appreciation to Dr. Joseph Sarnovsky for their service at CareerSource Central Florida.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to reappoint Paul Osborn to the Sanford CRA.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Commissioner Carey announced some of the events happening in Sanford in recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

District 1

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to reappoint Michael Caraway to the Seminole County Port Authority for a four-year term beginning January 2018 and to appoint Steve Searcy to the Horseshoe Lake MSBU Liaison Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Motion by Chairman Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to reappoint Bill Young to the Contractor Examiners Board (well contractor) for a one-year term beginning January 1, 2018.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Chairman Horan requested motions for the following appointments:

Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to reappoint Mark Reyes to the Fred R. Wilson Memorial Board of Trustees of the Law Library.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to reappoint Margie Wells to the Library Advisory Board for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2018.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to reappoint Mayor Jeff Triplett to the Tourism Development Council for a four-year term.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


Chairman Horan discussed the final numbers for the year from the hoteliers and advised they hit a record 78% average occupancy and the average daily rate is up to $110 a night.

Commissioner Carey advised that Red McCullough, a long-term resident of the community who was involved with Tourist Development and keeping the occupancy records, passed away on Sunday. Commissioner Constantine announced the date and time of Mr. McCulloughs funeral service.


Chairman Horan distributed the BCC Liaison Appointments list for 2018 (copy received and filed) and noted he made no changes to any of the liaison appointments.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the BCC Liaison Appointments list.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.


The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:

1.    Letter dated November 6, 2017 from Petrina Tuttle Herring, Bureau Chief with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to Chairman Horan re: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG-Desk) Monitoring finding one of the agencys operating procedures out of compliance with state or federal requirements.


2.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Michael Lomax, President and CEO of United Negro College Fund, to Board of County Commissioners re: appreciation for a generous gift of $5,000 made on April 7, 2017.


3.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Michael Lomax, President and CEO of United Negro College Fund, to Board of County Commissioners re: appreciation for a generous gift of $5,000 made on March 28, 2016.


4.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Michael Lomax, President and CEO of United Negro College Fund, to Board of County Commissioners re: appreciation for a generous gift of $50,000 made on April 3, 2015.


5.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Matthew Criswell re: reappointment to the Seminole County Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee.


6.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Bob Hunter re: appointment to the Seminole County Animal Control Board.


7.    Letter dated December 12, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Stephen Keller, Executive Senior Attorney, Florida Department of Revenue, Office of General Counsel, re: Purchase and Sale Agreement and Escrow Instruction by and between Joel Greenberg, Seminole County Tax Collector, as Seller, and Boyd State Winter Springs, LLC, as Buyer, dated December 4, 2017.


8.    Letter dated December 14, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Mayor Buddy Dyer, Chairman of the Central Florida Expressway Authority, re: Wekiva Parkway Protection Act/County Road 435 Interchange.


9.    Letter dated December 14, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Mike Hattaway re: reappointment to the Seminole County Board of Adjustment.


10.    Letter dated December 14, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Dena Chaudoin re: reappointment to the Seminole County Historical Commission.


11. Letter dated December 14, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Bryan Wilson re: reappointment to the Seminole County Animal Control Board.


12. Letter dated December 14, 2017 from Chairman Horan to Heather Smith re: appreciation for her service on the Seminole County Animal Control Board.


13. Letter dated December 15, 2017 from Angela Apperson, City Clerk of Altamonte Springs, and Notice of Public Hearing for January 16, 2018 to Chairman Horan re: Voluntary annexation of properties contiguous to Altamonte Springs; 1420 E. Altamonte Drive.


14. Letter dated December 19, 2017 from Petrina Tuttle Herring, Bureau Chief with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to Chairman Horan re: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG Subaward) Monitoring finding the agency is now in compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement, as well as state and federal requirements.


15.    City of Sanford Notice of Public Hearing for January 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the City Commission Chambers located at City Hall to consider amending a Development Agreement for 215 E. Seminole Boulevard, Sanford.


16.    City of Sanford Notice of Public Hearing for January 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the City Commission Chambers located at City Hall to consider a PD Rezone at 1010 W. Lake Mary Boulevard, Sanford.


17.    Letter received December 26, 2017 from Petrina Tuttle Herring, Bureau Chief with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, to Chairman Horan re: Contract #2017-JAGC-SEMI-4-F9-068.


18.    Letter dated December 28, 2017 from Traci Houchin, Deputy City Clerk of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice of Public Hearings for January 8, 2018 and January 22, 2018 (both hearings at 7:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers located at City Hall) to consider annexation request for 1.40 acres between Narcissus Avenue and West 1st Street and between Creek Road and Monroe Road; Ordinance #4433.


19.    Copy of a letter dated December 28, 2017 to Nicole Guillet, County Manager, from Grant Maloy, Seminole County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, re: complimenting the excellent staff at Facilities Management.


20.    Letter dated December 29, 2017, from James Stansbury, Bureau of Community Planning and Growth, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re: completed review of Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Amendment #17-2ESR.



There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m., this same date.