BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Present:
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.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The
Business Spotlight video for Flowers Chemical Lab was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1-B – 2018-0518
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by
Commissioner Dallari, to approve appropriate Resolution #2018-R-1 recognizing
Christopher O’Connor, Lance Corporal, United States Marine Corps, as Seminole
County’s January 2018 Veteran of the Month.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Lance Corporal O’Connor 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 today’s presentation.
Myles O’Keefe, Senior Planner, Lynx,
addressed the Board and presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled “SR 436
Transit Corridor Study – Study Update” (received and filed). Mr. O’Keefe 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.
O’Keefe 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. O’Keefe replied they can
take another look at the cell phone data and see what
Met ro P lan is 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. O’Keefe 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.
O’Keefe answered that is part of a potential recommendation.
COUNTY
MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS
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
hasn’t received a final blessing from FDEP on that. They don’t know exactly what will be entailed
with any remediation associated with the site.
The County’s 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, they’ve 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 that’s
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 isn’t a final number on the remediation. Ms. Guillet reiterated the County doesn’t
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 final approval _0Ö3__0Ù1__0Ú1__0Û1__%__0Ü1_from FCT to do the exchange
and without a final FD E P approved
plan_0ê1_, she
doesn't know how they could close even
if t_0ì1_hey wanted
to. She opin ed
they couldn't close because _0ù1_those are
two _0ü2_conditions that they have to have; other wise, 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. She explained there _1=1_is a
contingency in the contract that
says if they don't have F TC
approval, they don't have to
go to closing . However , if they
resolve the remediation issue
with F D E P , they will
in _1g2_effect have
approval and will be
ob_1q3_ligated to
move forward with the closing. There
is a general ized out for
environment al reason s.
Lynn Porter-Carlton, Deputy County Attorney, s tated
the contingency in the
contract is requiring final approval from FCT and all writ ten
documents that have to
be executed by the County and
F C T .
Until that happens,
the County is not obligated to close .
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.
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 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
$ 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; and Ms. Guillet agreed. Co mmissioner Henley
asked if the County has had
any interest regarding the potential purchase of the Jetta
Point property. 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 nder the contra ct,
the feasibility period ran for a certa in pe riod of time. The Bo ar d extended th at fou r times ,
and th e last e xten si on
was to No vember 30_41_th. The contract provides for a closing
period of 45 days from the end of the feasibility period provided t he con tingency of
State a pp roval
ha s been met . S taff's concer n was that if they
d idn't s eek di rection fro m th_4Æ1_e
B_4È1_oard prio r to the Januar_4Ì1_y
14th date, they di dn't wan t
i t to be de emed that the
contrac t had expire d. Commissioner Dallari stated they don’t have
approval from the State, so the 45 days hasn’t started; and Ms. Porter-Carlton
agreed. Ms. Guillet clarified they have
conditional approval from FCT, but they don’t 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 that’s 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 they’re still monitoring it and they haven’t 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
aren’t aware of until they get into it, so it’s 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 doesn’t 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,
addressed the Board and
stated the specific
contaminates are arse n ic and
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 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 olf cour se
may have used, and they have been
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; 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 for all kinds of different contaminates;
and in this case ,
there 's not really a standard for parks .
They agreed to a
blended standard, which is low er than what
would be acceptable in
a commercial or industrial site but higher than what would
be _7í2_acceptable f 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 and all of the testing 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 anguage
in the contra ct that
says if t hey do n't
close in t he 4 5 days ,
the sel ler ha s th e
r ight to termina te the cont ract . Ms. Porter-Carlton answered no. She explained the 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 area’s
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 wouldn’t 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 doesn’t think anyone would object to several
hundred dollars a year because they are in a higher price range community so it
wouldn’t 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 Florida’s 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 doesn’t 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 it’s desirable, if it’s environmentally sensitive, if it
contributes to the overall livability of Seminole County, he doesn’t 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 it’s gone, it’s
gone. She noted the estimated value is
about $6 million. In Seminole County,
things will continue to grow; so to her, the cost piece isn’t an issue right
now. It’s 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 it’s 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 don’t approve the
contract.
Vincent
Kosmac, 1231 Arden Street, addressed the Board and asked if the FDEP
negotiation would be a public record once it’s finalized. Ms. Guillet answered all of the environmental
reports and everything they’ve 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 isn’t a member of the Board who isn’t in favor of converting
the property into a park and doing exactly what they’ve 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
isn’t 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 they’re 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 County’s 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 wouldn’t
offer another extension. It’s not that
the County isn’t 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 it’s 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 it’s not 65%, the County can’t 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 shouldn’t
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 can’t be the answer to that. She reiterated this is a unique situation and
that’s 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 that’s why they need
more time. Commissioner Carey stated the
Board’s decision has to be made on the facts that they have before them, which
is an estimate of $1.5 million from the County’s 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 that’s 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 it’s 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 seller’s 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 that’s why he’s asking for
the first initial days so he can define how to move forward and if he’s 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. They’ve 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.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms.
Guillet announced there is an addition to the County Attorney’s 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 Manager’s 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 County’s 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 County’s 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 Attorney’s 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. Johnson’s timely payment within 30 days of the
Board’s 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 everybody’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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 this
case, staff felt because
there were very few
substant ive issues in
this change , except w ith
regard to wages, and
because the over all addition_nú1_al cost
of the wage adjustment was
under $100,000 (about $60,000 over the term of the agreement), t 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 didn’t feel they needed direction, they
didn’t 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 wasn’t 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 staff’s 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 's not unusua l fo r the
County to p ha se
inc rease s or to retroactively do
increa ses, so there wasn't
any thing i n t his c ontra ct tha t was_o´2_ particular ly unus ual
from what they have done in other
c ontra 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 the _p¡1_onl y
d ivi_p¤1_sion in
the _%_C ou nty th at is
union is th e firefighters’ union. She
do esn't see th at it 's a bene fi t or requirem ent
t o g_pÜ1_et t o
a c ont ract wi th the
B Uni_pä1_t that goes b 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 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 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 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 a sked
if there is enough concern about the
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 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 % in 2017
because of the "me-too" clause.
Ms. Guillet a 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 it’s 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 d; but
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT
AGENDA
Clerk
& Comptroller’s 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 & Comptroller’s
“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. Developer’s Commitment Agreement #17-20500016,
Old Lockwood Fawn Run PD; Harris, Fraser, Nelson, Lomas.
24. Developer’s Commitment Agreement #17-20500027,
Chateaux at Markham PD; Chateaux of Markham, LLC.
25. Developer’s 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 CJ’s Sales
and Service of Ocala, Inc. d/b/a CJ’s 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; O’Reilly Automotive
Stores, Inc. d/b/a O’Reilly 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 CJ’s Power System; Genset Services, Inc.; Alternative Power Solutions,
Inc.; and
PS-1473-17
from HSA Golden, Inc.; S2L, Inc.
REGULAR
AGENDA
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 1000–1014
Miami Springs Drive, Longwood, subject to staff’s 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.
PROOFS
OF PUBLICATION
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.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
SCHOOL IMPACT
FEE LDC AMENDMENT
(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 County’s 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 can’t 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
wouldn’t 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 County’s 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 don’t agree with Ms. Monaco’s 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 Dallari’s 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.
ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDA
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.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS (CONTINUED)
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.
WALKER ROAD
REZONE/Julian Coto
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
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
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 voteseminole.org. 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.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORT
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. McCullough’s
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.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
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 agency’s 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.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
ks/js