March 23, 2021

            The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 23, 2021, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.



Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)

Vice Chairman Amy Lockhart (District 4)

Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)

Commissioner Jay Zembower (District 2)

            County Manager Nicole Guillet

County Attorney Bryant Applegate

Clerk of Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy


Attending remotely:

Commissioner Andria Herr (District 5)

            Deputy Clerks Terri Porter, Kyla Farrell, and Chariti Colon




            Pastor Eric Allen, The Contact Church, Sanford, gave the invocation.  Members of the Historical Commission led the Pledge of Allegiance.




            Alan Harris, Office of Emergency Management, addressed the Board stating he wanted to go over a couple of things and then noted he brought a few medical experts to speak to the Board as they had requested at the last meeting.


            Mr. Harris talked about the Office of Emergency Management trying its best to be transparent and about their daily procedures, meetings and efforts with regard to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  He proceeded to give an update about the Executive Orders that are in place.  He noted he looks to subject-matter experts, which he will bring forward today, to help them make decisions in emergency management and to help guide how they move forward.


            Mr. Harris introduced Sean Benoit, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the Central Florida Regional Hospital, Hospital Corporation of America and Oviedo Hospital, who gave a report on what is happening at their institutions here in the county. 


            Bridget Zamora, MSN, RN, NEA-BC, Chief Nursing Officer, Orlando Health South Seminole Hospital, was then introduced and she reported on the current trend in the number of hospitalizations and their concern about the spread of the virus, particularly after Spring Break when so many young people were gathered in large groups.  She stated there is still a lot to be learned about the virus and the role its variants play in the vaccination and immunity it offers ultimately.  The pandemic is a very fluid situation, and until the vaccine is more widely available and a large number of people are vaccinated, wearing masks will continue to be the best tool they have in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in their community.  She added that once the mask mandate was implemented last year, Seminole County saw a decrease in the number of cases and the numbers have remained low here because they are doing the work in the community to keep them low.  They encourage everyone to continue to wear masks, social distance as much as possible, and to get vaccinated when they have the opportunity.


            David Sinclair, MD, MBA, FACHE, CHCQM, Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, AdventHealth Altamonte, was introduced and participated remotely via CMT.  He also reported on the trends in admissions, infections and deaths happening currently.  He discussed the predominant variants that are now circulating and said unfortunately here in Florida, they lead the nation in terms of the number of coronavirus variants that are circulating.  He noted they need to continue to address and combat the misinformation and the hesitancy that there is about vaccinations even as more and more citizens, 20% in the state of Florida, have received at least the first of the two doses.  As they see those numbers increase, they also keep their eye on the number of new cases here in Seminole County, from 60 to 100 per day, as well as the positivity rate, which has ticked up in the last seven days. 


            The medical experts addressed questions posed by the Board.


            Mr. Harris introduced Tim Cook, Administrator for AdventHealth Hospital, who spoke briefly through CMT.  He suggested, maybe in the dialogue, they do need to identify or recognize that the CDC has actually kind of begun to implement a step-down plan.  In fact, as an encouragement and an incentive to get people vaccinated, the CDC has indicated that if you are in a room where everyone has been vaccinated, you can take off the masks.  He thinks it really is creating a direction that as they continue to publicly mitigate, as all of the physicians have said, they will see more and more milestones that would suggest they are getting closer and closer.


            Kevin Baker, MPH, CPH, CHES, Senior Epidemiologist, Florida Department of Health in Seminole County, gave an update of what is occurring in the county.  (PowerPoint received and filed). 


            Donna Walsh, Seminole Health Officer, Florida Department of Health, responded to Commissioner Lockhart’s question stating that Seminole has vaccinated over 48,000 of their 65+ population and that totals 62%.  Commissioner Lockhart asked that Ms. Walsh email the statistics regarding vaccinations to all of the Commissioners.  Upon Chairman Constantine’s inquiry, Ms. Walsh advised they have vaccinated about 23% of the adult population in the county. 


            Mr. Baker continued with his report and talked about the statistics of the variant cases, the mask mandates, and then the updated CDC K-12 school guidance.  He concluded by saying they are still at a very high transmission zone right now.  They do not know if the variants are going to make them continue to see another potential increase or surge in case activity.  So, vaccines are being administered as quickly as possible and they are continuing to follow and recommend what the CDC recommends, which is wearing face masks, physical distancing, and washing hands as often as possible to help stop the spread.


            Dr. Todd Husty, Seminole County’s Medical Director, stated that the report that they are doing so well in this county does not surprise most of them.  It really is the community and the citizens who are really pulling this together.  He then talked about the White House metrics report that is put out every day by Mr. Harris and his staff, and said you can see where they are.  He asked what is the end point, and said he has talked to many people since the meeting two weeks ago, and he thinks and medical professionals all over think it is herd immunity.  He totally agrees that that is the end point.  He opined that it is a moving target, however.  They are getting closer and learning more and more about the disease.  The CDC is working to help figure out what that target is.  He noted the real point about the variants is they should get as many people vaccinated before they take hold, because the variants could get more variable, and they do not want to see that. 


            Dr. Husty shared an idea, which is when they have reached some metrics like are already published and they are into the yellow and green range more, which is all interrelated, when they see some come down, and they are all going to start coming down with masks, social distancing and vaccinations, he thinks they should go out and ask for volunteers to get tested for antibodies.  Not just yes or no antibodies, but how much.  It is how much antibodies do these individuals have.  And do this through Fire Department personnel, law enforcement, school personnel, and county employees.  Ask for them to come forward and get tested.  It is going to cost a fair amount of money.  But they could actually come up with how much antibodies they have in the community right now.  They could make that a sample large enough to be able to have some faith in it.  Then they have to correlate that with whether that is enough or not.  But at least it gets them started.  At least it defines where they are today, which right now they do not know.  He noted they are doing studies like this in West Palm and South Florida.  They are finding interesting things about the antibodies already, like if you are over 80 years old, you don’t get much, and if you are over 90, you get almost none.  Those people maybe should get a third dose so they can get more antibodies.  They get some, but it is not enough. 


            Following Commissioner Lockhart’s commentary and questions, Dr. Husty said his goal was never just about hospitalizations; it was always about transmission and disease.  He was being asked whether masks work way back when, and the CDC and WHO had said no.  He said openly they were crazy because of course masks work; ask anybody in the health care system.  They know masks work to decrease or stop the transition of disease, and that has always been his goal.  He opined they are so far from a point where they decreased to some reasonable extent the transmission of this disease.  They cannot stop doing what they are doing, and frankly, they need to put their foot even harder on the brake and say no, they have got to even do better.  He thinks that there is not teeth in the mask mandate other than he thinks that once they did the mask mandate, all of the retails stores followed suit.  Some of them were already doing it.  He said you cannot discount what the good citizens are doing at all, but he thinks part of it is because they said this is so important, we have a mandate.  And anything less than that, makes it less important.


            Commissioner Dallari noted that Dr. Husty had mentioned that the older population produced much less antibodies and asked whether it would be better then to continue wearing masks.  Dr. Husty stated no one knows everything about COVID in the study that they are doing, they were a little surprised at the small amounts of antibodies the 80 to 90-year-olds produced, and then 90 and up were producing almost none.  He noted that people on immunosuppression therapy like chronic Prednisone use, anti-inflammatory, also made very little.  So, they are finding some stuff out about who makes antibodies and who doesn’t, and those people are unprotected right now.  And of course, they should be trying to protect them.  There is a reservoir of virus in this community and that is in the 15 to 55 age range, and granted they don’t get as sick as those in the higher age range.  But it is a reservoir and how do they have high transmission, and it is because it is still in the community and it seeps out of the reservoir and gets into the age groups that are more vulnerable, and they need to stop this thing.  They are doing a pretty good job, but it is certainly not time to let up.  It is too early.  There is a light at the end of the tunnel and with vaccines going the way they are, they have a really good shot at this.  So, there is a lot of hope, but they certainly are not there yet.


            Commissioner Dallari stated to Mr. Harris that he has the Board’s support and noted that Dr. Husty made a comment about voluntary antibody testing.  He said he would definitely entertain that at the appropriate time.


            Kelly Shilson, 224 Slade Drive, addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the mask mandate.  With regard to public participation, no one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.  Public Comment Form was received and filed.




            County Manager Nicole Guillet presented the COVID Relief Update in connection with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program and the American Rescue Plan (PowerPoint received and filed).  She stated they will meet with each Commissioner individually and she would like to bring a more specific allocation back to the Board on April 13.  Any feedback they receive today would be very helpful.


            Upon Commissioner Constantine’s comment, Ms. Guillet advised they did talk about this program at the Mayors and Managers meeting with respect to direct assistance.  They ran the direct assistance programs under the CARES Act because they were the entity that received the money.  In this case, the cities will be receiving their own buckets of money.  So, they talked with the mayors and managers last week about an attempt to maybe coordinate efforts for direct assistance, so they don’t have eight different individual assistance programs or eight different business assistance programs, to try to see if there was an opportunity for Seminole to have one countywide program where they could all “sing from the same sheet of music” so they do not cause confusion or potential double dipping or any other issues that can occur if you have multiple assistance programs. 


            Commissioner Dallari asked if they know what the cities are getting and Ms. Guillet answered she can get him the list of what the allocations are.  She noted the only city that is getting funding directly is Sanford; the other cities’ funding will pass through the State.  Sanford is an entitlement city of CDBG, which is why they get their monies directly. 


            Commissioner Zembower stated he would personally like to see them look at senior community centers and he agrees broadband is a good one.  His district struggles in the rural area of having any capability to the internet in some cases.  At the end of the day, he would like them to look at whether they really need all of this money and whether it should go back, and what are the options if they send it back.  Ms. Guillet advised they can only send it to the State.


            Commissioner Lockhart stated along the lines of sending it back, back would be to the taxpayers because it is their money.  So rather than sending it back to the federal government for them to spend in some way that may or may not be appropriate for their citizens, if they are getting to that conversation, she would be supportive of giving some of Seminole County citizens some of their money back, directly to them.  She does think there are some good plans on the chart that Ms. Guillet presented.  They have some lands they might want to purchase, and there are some community centers that are certainly on the radar.  She said she would love to see them be able to wrap up some items like that with these funds, with a rational nexus.  They had their budget review two weeks ago and so they know that while things look okay now, they are going to have some challenges in a few years.  She would hesitate to put too many things in place that would require ongoing commitment of funds.  She added that an argument could definitely be made for all of the items listed in the PowerPoint. 


            Chairman Constantine stated they will do a longer look at the meeting on the 13th and they should.  He does not think they should set those now, although he thinks they all would agree that what they did with the previous CARES Act monies was something that was an immediate hit to all of their citizens in a very positive way.  He thinks that is something they should look at.  They were also looking at the shovel-ready projects, some of which they are talking about right now with their Congresswoman.  Quite frankly, they also set priorities and one of those priorities is that they talked about how there will be opportunities in water and sewer, and there is already.  Those are some of the things they need to look at. 


            Commissioner Dallari said he thinks those are all very valid, and giving the money back to the citizens is always an option.  He thinks the broadband is just as important, and he would like to work with their cities to do that.  He also wants to talk about tourism because the issue is they need to try to bring it back as soon as possible.  Sports tourism is being eroded away by other communities because they had such a great niche and it is now being eroded by other counties across the state.  He would like to get some ideas from staff to ensure they can bring back the tourism market quicker, because that will actually help their economy as a whole since it has a big trickle-down effect.  He does not know if that would be additional soccer fields, but he would like to see what staff brings back to them. 


            Commissioner Herr said she thinks it looks like a really comprehensive list.  She would suggest that they start thinking about improving the health and wellbeing of the members of their community in some meaningful way and this seems like a good opportunity to do that.  They can at least start that discussion.  If you ask her with short notice to give where she thinks the priorities are, broadband expansion certainly changes the life of a child in today’s day and age of education and so she thinks that is important.  She also believes they have to create good jobs.  She thinks they are sitting in the catbird seat in terms of how well the State has done with regard to the response.  She thinks there are businesses out there that are sick of where they are and want to relocate and they need to be at the forefront of inviting them to Seminole County, so that is a huge priority. 


            Chairman Constantine addressed Ms. Guillet stating outside of the issues that they have already addressed in the previous CARES Act, maybe in some of these others that they have discussed today, if she has specific numbers or programs and their costs, that would be helpful as they look at these priorities.  They all can say they want to expand broadband, but they really don’t know what that would entail.  He knows of certain areas in Commissioner Zembower’s district and potentially in Commissioner Dallari’s area that need a bit of help in that, but they really don’t have a specific number or a specific program.  So that might be helpful for all of them as they look at these various potential opportunities as far as what the cost would be and the value added as they go forward.


            Commissioner Lockhart pointed out in connection with the broadband discussion, on the DEO website they have their broadband initiative, and there is a very interesting map that you can zoom into specific counties to see where there are gaps.  Having looked at it recently, she can tell them there are gaps all over this county in every single corner and pocket.  It would help many, many people throughout the county.  Chairman Constantine added the FAC also has a very informative map of where the service is not good, and some areas are surprising like areas in downtown Orlando.


            Commissioner Dallari indicated he supports helping the digital divide, but that is not his issue.  He also wants to make sure they are not causing another issue because of service district areas by providers; they all know how the PSC works and he wants to make sure they are not causing another legal issue.  County Attorney Bryant Applegate stated he actually read the entire Act a couple of times, not just the section involving local governments, and it is staggering the amount of money they spent on things that have nothing to do with COVID and you just have to shake your head.  Broadband is a safer one because it is specifically mentioned in the bill.  His office is checking every day on the guidance that is being issued by the White House and the Treasury, what all of this means.  They are trying to take a very broad interpretation of it, but his job is to make sure that they are not doing something that is going to cause a problem down the road or have auditors knocking on the door long after he is gone.  Commissioner Dallari added just like utilities’ service districts, one utility cannot go into another service district, and he wants to make sure they are not breaking that.  Mr. Applegate responded there is going to be a great deal of work involved in all of this.


            Ms. Guillet advised she sent the Commissioners an email that she thinks they also received directly from Congresswoman Murphy’s Office regarding some potential community projects.  Congress is going to be considering a funding bill for community projects.  They are not exactly sure how it is going to work.  But the Congresswoman did reach out to them and other jurisdictions in her district asking them if they were interested in submitting projects.  They can submit two and she can submit ten to request funding.  So, they think it will be somewhat competitive because there are a lot of jurisdictions in her district.  These are sub-million-dollar projects and they need to be projects that they can get up and running pretty quickly.  They did share with the Board the list of shovel-ready projects recently under the Sales Tax program, and most of those are significantly bigger projects than sub-million-dollar projects.  They started thinking about projects that would have a strong community impact as well as projects that would frankly, get the Congresswoman’s attention and be attractive to her enough that she would be willing to submit them. 


            Ms. Guillet noted she sent the Commissioners a list of potential projects yesterday and she apologized for the short time frame.  They just heard from her office last week and they need to get their submissions in by April 1st.  They sent five projects yesterday and the top two projects are the Play for All Playgrounds at Rolling Hills, and that is the inclusive playground for children that may have disabilities.  That is a project that is not funded.  The Parks Foundation has been trying to raise money for it.  They would submit a request for a million dollars on that project.  The second project they are recommending is the Little Wekiva Restoration project to remove some of the sediment and the invasive species, and it would reduce flooding and improve the water quality.  That is a project in which they have applied for an appropriation from the State, which is one of their funding priorities, as the Board is aware.  It is a $1.7 million project and they would request a million dollars for that.  Those are the two they think are probably the best candidates.  That being said, they are still working with their federal lobbyist to make sure that they meet the criteria.  There is not a lot of really clear criteria on this, so they have listed some fallback projects.  A couple of them relate to Rolling Hills and some of the improvements they are trying to do at that park, and then, they do have two shovel-ready intersection projects that they think meet the criteria and they are within that price range.  One is at Lake Mary Boulevard at Country Club and then on SR 434 and Sand Lake Road. 


            Commissioner Dallari commented that he thinks staff has a good plan and Chairman Constantine agreed.  He added he thinks those two are eye-catching and the Congresswoman herself indicated that she is supportive of those.  Chairman Constantine said he would support those being sent as described by Ms. Guillet.  Commissioner Zembower said he concurs.  There was consensus of the Board to have Ms. Guillet follow through with her recommendation.




Agenda Item #1 – 2021-2611


            Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation recognizing Machinery Technician 3rd Class Petty Officer Troy F. Deppen, U.S. Coast Guard, as Seminole County's January Veteran of the Month.


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


Agenda Item #2 – 2021-2598


            Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-37 recognizing the contributions of Cecil Tucker.


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


            Members of the Tucker family expressed their appreciation.




            Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 11:45 a.m.; reconvening at 11:55 a.m.




            County Manager Nicole Guillet announced there is one add-on, Item #31, a BAR in connection with due diligence for the Deer Run project.  Chairman Constantine noted that this is not anything more than changing the General Fund by putting $138,000 from the reserves into the Deer Run Property Study.


            With regard to public participation, no one spoke in support or opposition to any consent agenda items, and public input was closed.





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


County Manager’s Office

Business Office

3.      Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-38 recognizing David Branchett, Public Works Department, for 30 years of service to Seminole County and its citizens.  (2021-2530)

4.      Adopt a Proclamation proclaiming April 7, 2021, the 105th Birthday Celebration of Mrs. Mary Ellen Strohaker.  (2021-2596)


Community Services

Business Office

5.      Approve the FY 2020-2024 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Report (AI) and the Community Services Citizen Participation Plan.  Authorize the Community Services Department to submit to HUD for approval.  (2021-2590)

6.      Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution No. 2013R61, and the HOME Program Activity Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution No 2015R51 for the month of February 2021.  (2021-2589)

Community Assistance

7.      Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute three (3) subrecipient agreements for Harvest Time International, Inc., Christian Help Foundation, Inc., and Heart of Florida United Way, Inc. in the amount of $123,121.00 utilizing Community Services Block Grant COVID (CSBG-CV) funding to assist low income individuals impacted by COVID-19.  (2021-2549)


Development Services

Business Office

8.      Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-39 establishing the number of members and their terms for the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for Water & Wastewater, Fire, and Library Impact Fee Updates.  (2021-2612)

Planning &Development

9.      Approve the final plat for the River Run Preserve subdivision containing ninety-four (94) lots on 31.07 acres zoned PD (River Run Preserve Planned Development), located south of the Kentucky Street and Jessup Avenue intersection; Aaron Struckmeyer, Pulte Group, Applicant; Avigation Easement.  (2021-2561)

10.       Authorize release of Cash Maintenance Bond to guarantee subdivision improvements in the amount of $15,799.00 for Brighton Estates subdivision; Sun-Tec Builders, Applicant.  (2021-2565)

11.       Authorize release of Performance Bond #59BSBII3123 for roads, streets, and drainage, in the amount of $748,928.74, and Performance Bond #59BSBIG1762 for offsite roads, streets, and drainage, in the amount of $73,253.87, for Crestwood Estates subdivision; Aaron Struckmeyer, Pulte Home Company, Applicant.  (2021-2566)

12.       Authorize release of Performance Bond (Cash Completion Bond) for right-of-way improvements, in the amount of $119,801.00 for the Glen Academy at Lake Marie; Sevcha Partners, LLC, Applicant.  (2021-2567)

13.       Approve the minor plat for the Spencer Estates subdivision containing two (2) lots on 1.04 acres zoned R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling), located on the northwest corner of Myrtle Lake Hills Road and Northridge Drive; Warren Spencer, Applicant.  (2021-2576)

14.       Authorize release of Performance Bond #1019658 for roads, streets, and drainage, in the amount of $381,468.42 for Silverleaf Park; (KB Home Orlando LLC, Applicant)  (2021-2545)


Public Works

Traffic Engineering

15.       Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Preemption Interconnection Agreement between CSX Transportation, Inc. and Seminole County in the amount of $99,339.00 for the highway rail grade crossing at Osprey Trail and FL-419; and approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-40 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-040 in the amount of $70,000 from 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax reserves.  (2021-2523)


Resource Management


16.       Board ratification of the contract with Ernst & Young LLP up to $910,000 to provide services for the Emergency Rental Assistance program as authorized for execution by the Board Chairman pursuant to County Code Section 220.41 executed by the County Manager on February 4, 2021.  (2021-2578)

17.       Approve the Final Program Status and Financial Reports of the Criminal Justice, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant for submittal to the Florida Department of Children and Families.  (2021-2574)

18.       Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2021-R-41 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-041 through the Public Works Grant Fund in the amount of $558,942 from the Florida Department of Transportation related to a Supplemental Agreement #1 for the design of Roundabouts on SR 434.  (2021-2613)

31.       Add-on Item (Not Sequential)

Approve appropriate Resolution #2021-R-42, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #21-046 through the General Fund in the amount of $138,000 from reserves relating to the fund the Deer Run Property Study (CIP #02104051).  (2021-2604)

Purchasing & Contracts

19.       Award RFP-603892-20/BJC – Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) Solution to Selectron Technologies, Inc., Lake Mary, and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Division to execute the Agreement.  The estimated cost of the Agreement is $127,370.00 for System Configuration of Cloud Services Implementation plus annual fees.  (2021-2560)

20.       Approve ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act, and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one (1) Agreement for PS-3505-21/RTB - Master Services Agreement for Big Econlockhatchee and Little Econlockhatchee Basin Study. Estimated Term Usage of the Agreement is $1,500,000.00.  (2021-2588)


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




Clerk & Comptroller’s Office - Item #21


Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated February 9, 16 and 23, and March 2, 2021; and Payroll Approval Lists dated February 4 and 18, and March 4, 2021.  (2021-2591)


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


Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed” Documents


1.            Executive Orders #2021-006, #2021-008, #2021-009, and #2021-010 Extending the Declared Local State of Emergency for COVID-19.


2.            Executive Orders #2021-007 and #2021-011 regarding the Tolling of Certain County Processes and Resuming Code Enforcement for Priority Cases.


3.            FPSC Orders #PSC-2021-0082-TRF-EI issued February 17, 2021 and #PSC-2021-0088-TRF-EI issued February 22, 2021.


4.            Public Officer Oaths for Lawrence Wright, Board of Adjustment; Timothy Smith, Planning and Zoning Commission; and Lamar Stokes, Contractors Examiners Board.


5.            Public Officer Oaths for Michael Fratrik and James DePoy, Contractors Examiners Board; and Daniel Lopez, Planning and Zoning Commission.


6.            Public Officer Oaths for Julie Howe, Seminole County Industrial Development Authority; and Don Peterson, Code Enforcement Board.


7.            Certificate of No Recall for R.B. Jai Alai, LLC.


8.            First Amendment to 2021 Memorandum of Understanding with Applied Ingenuity Diagnostics, LLC for COVID-19 Testing.


9.            2021 Memorandum of Understanding with Allied Health Corporation for COVID-19 Testing.


10.              Third Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with Allied Health Corporation for COVID-19 Testing.


11.              ESG-CV Subrecipient Agreement with Rescue Outreach Mission of Central Florida, Inc., Program Year 2020-2021; as approved by the BCC on May 12, 2020.


12.              Maintenance Bond #SU1165937 (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $33,724.53 for the project known as Hawk’s Crest.


13.              Maintenance Bond #CMS342351 (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $47,131.27 for Crestwood Estates.


14.              Maintenance Bond #0792508 (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $37,012.00 for Chapman Pines.


15.              Maintenance Bond #2312670 (Water and Sewer Facilities) in the amount of $20,709.10 for Integra Crossings.


16.              Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #CMS342352 (Private Road) in the amount of $98,098.10 for Crestwood Estates Homeowners Association.


17.              Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #CMS342353 (Public-Streets, Curbs, Storm Drains) in the amount of $6,659.44 for Crestwood Estates.


18.              Cash Maintenance Bond (Water and Sewer Improvements) in the amount of $1,138.40 for Academy of Excellence.


19.              Performance Bond (Irrevocable LOC) #90565012 (Road) in the amount of $37,950.00 for Wellington Business Center.


20.              Cash Maintenance Bond (Paving and Drainage Improvements) in the amount of $6,380.00, and Escrow Agreement, for The Glen Academy at Lake Marie a/k/a Sportsman’s Paradise.


21.              Performance Bond #1154284 (Roads, Streets, Drainage) in the amount of $1,649,667.66, Recording of Plats and Title Opinion, for Eastgrove.


22.              Developer’s Commitment Agreement #20-20500010, Avila Planned Development.


23.              Addendum #4 to Developer’s Commitment Agreement #20-20500017, Aloma Mini Storage.


24.              Development Order #21-30000005, 1512 Little Wren Lane; Meritage Homes of Florida, Inc.

25.              Corrected Addendum #1 to Amended and Restated Development Order #20-20500028, Goldeneye Planned Development.


26.              Customer Agreement for Reclaimed Water Rates and Reclaimed Water Flowfor Enclave at Alafaya.


27.              Bill of Sale accepting Water, Reclaim Water and Wastewater Systems for Integra Crossings.


28.              Bill of Sale accepting Water, Reclaim Water and Wastewater Systems for Landings at Hawk’s Crest.


29.              Bill of Sale accepting Water, Reclaim Water and Wastewater Systems for Chapman Pines.


30.              Bill of Sale accepting Water, Reclaim Water and Wastewater Systems for Crestwood Estates.


31.              Conditional Utility Agreement for Water and Wastewater Services for O’Reilly Oviedo; Vaquero Oviedo Partners, LP.


32.              Bill of Sale accepting Water, Reclaim Water and Wastewater Systems for Academy of Excellence.


33.              Denial Development Order #20-30000124, 2641 Estuary Loop, Karuppuswamy Karuppaiya and Sivapriya Baskaran.


34.              Approval Development Orders as follows:  #20-30000110, 418 Gleaming Andover Way, Justin Birmele; #20-30000111, 2858 Aloma Oaks Drive, Matthew and Hyonsuk Poe; #20-30000113, 8424 Anson Way, Alexander and Caroline Jimenez; #20-30000114, 160 E. Faith Terrace, Benjamin Harrison; #20-30000115, 1241 Oxford Road, Shenandoah Moore; #20-30000116, 1042 Princess Gate Boulevard, Shane and Fiona Murphy; #20-30000117, 601 E. Highland Street, Miguel Botto and Jane Sharkey; #20-30000118, 593 Whittingham Place, Brian and Laura Wheeler; #20-30000119, 1639 Augusta Way, Christopher Canet and Belkis Rodriguez; #20-30000120, 137 W. York Court, Robert and Stephanie Williams; #20-30000121, 4248 Reynard Court, James and Sarah Faust; #20-30000122, 550 Quail Avenue, Stephen and Vincie Mahoney; #20-30000123, 3127 Dellcrest Place, Debra Rizzo; and #20-32000010, 100 O’Brien Road, James C. Harrelson.


35.              Tourist Tax Funding Agreements with Perfect Game Youth Florida, Inc. for Frozen Ropes; Florida Diamond Sports Management for President’s Day Super Nit; USSSA Central Florida Fast Pitch, LLC for 2021 Elite Select; Prep Baseball Report Florida, LLC for Spring Training; and Florida PGF, LLC for Iron Girl Power Tournament.


36.              Head Tennis Pro Agreement with Stan P. Aranda; Associate Tennis Pro Agreement with Sarah Harkins, Michael Paul Custer, Craig Sheets, Jeff Levine; Assistant Tennis Pro Agreement with Maria Garcia; Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreement with Joshua Edlund and Connor Barrett.


37.              Parks Contract for Services with Joshua Edlund and Jill Semento.


38.              Amdmt #3 to W.O. #56 to PS-0009-15 w/Atkins North America, Inc..


39.              Amdmt #1 to W.O. #77 to PS-0009-15 w/Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc.


40.              Amdmt #2 to W.O. #59 to PS-0009-15 w/Metric Engineering, Inc.


41.              Amdmt #2 to W.O. #5 to PS-0426-15 w/Horizon Engineering, Inc.


42.              W.O. #32 to CC-0559-15 w/Prime Construction Group, Inc.


43.              Closeout to W.O. #32 to RFP-1294-17 w/M&J Enterprises International, Inc.


44.              C.O. #2 to W.O. #33 to RFP-1294-17 w/M&J Enterprises International, Inc.


45.              C.O. #1 to W.O. #34 to RFP-1294-17 w/Pat Lynch Construction.


46.              C.O. #1 to W.O. #35 to RFP-1294-17 w/Dager Construction, Inc.


47.              Closeout to W.O. #35 to RFP-1294-17 w/Dager Construction, Inc.


48.              Amdmt #1 to W.O. #27 to PS-1320-17 w/Wood Environmental & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.


49.              W.O. #29 to PS-1320-17 w/Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp.


50.              W.O. #7 to PS-1473-17 w/S2L Inc.


51.              W.O. #17 to PS-1474-17 w/S2L, Inc.


52.              Amdmt #2 to W.O. #1 to PS-1566-17 w/Carollo Engineers, Inc.


53.              Amdmt #5 to W.O. #1 to PS-1802-18 w/Kittelson & Associates, Inc.


54.              Amdmt #2 to W.O. #18 to PS-1822-18 w/Reiss Engineering, Inc.


55.              W.O.s #30, #31 and #32 to PS-1822-18 w/Carollo Engineers, Inc.


56.              W.O. #33 to PS-1822-18 w/Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.


57.              Amdmt #1 to PS-1822-18 w/Carollo Engineers, Inc.


58.              Seventh Amdmt to PS-1822-18 w/Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.


59.              W.O.s #44, #45 and #46 to PS-1832-18 w/CDM Smith, Inc.


60.              W.O. #47 to PS-1832-18 w/England-Thims & Miller, Inc.


61.              W.O. #48 to PS-1832-18 w/CDM Smith, Inc.


62.              W.O.s #5 and #6 to RFP-1932-18 w/Renaissance Planning Group, Inc.


63.              C.O. #4 to CC-2439-19 w/Convergint Technologies.


64.              Amdmt #4 to W.O. #5 to PS-2468-19 w/S&ME, Inc.


65.              W.O. #8 to PS-2468-19 w/S&ME, Inc.


66.              C.O. #4 to CC-2602-19 w/BSE Construction Group.


67.              W.O. #4 to PS-2826-20 w/Pegasus Engineering, LLC.


68.              W.O. #5 to PS-2826-20 w/Atkins North America, Inc.


69.              First Amdmt to PS-2826-20 w/Pegasus Engineering, LLC; Moffatt and Nichol, Inc.; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.; Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Atkins North America, Inc.; and Dewberry Engineers, Inc.


70.              W.O. #2 to PS-2872-20 w/Ayres Associates, Inc.


71.              C.O.s #3 and #4 to CC-3036-20 w/Advanced Commercial Contractors, Inc.


72.              C.O. #3 to CC-3037-20 w/ Chinchor Electric, Inc.


73.              W.O.s #3 and #4 to RFP-3136-20 w/Miller Electric Company.


74.              C.O. #1 to CC-3176-20 w/Bearing Point Construction, Inc.


75.              C.O. #2 to CC-3186-20 w/Yovaish Construction Services.


76.              PS-3277-20, Master Services Agreement for Subdivision Rehabilitation Program Consulting Services, with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.; Ranking List approved by the BCC November 10, 2020.


77.              C.O.s #1 and #2 to CC-3324-20 w/Carlson Environmental Consultants, PC.


78.              CC-3426-20, Construction Services Agreement for Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Reclamation Facility, Electrical Rehabilitation and Replacement Project, with CTR III Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Control Engineering Group.


79.              Fourth Amdmt to IFB-602336-15 w/ Stryker Sales, LLC f/k/a Stryker Sales Corporation (Medical Division).


80.              Third Amdmt to RFP-602697-16 w/Brightview Landscape Services, Inc.


81.              Second Amdmt to RFP-603154-18 w/Charles Aquatics, Inc.


82.              First Amdmt to IFB-603571-19 w/Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc.


83.              First Amdmt to IFB-603612-19 w/Brightview Landscape Services, Inc.


84.              Bids as follows:


RFQ-3320-20, Seminole County Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Plan Development and Implementation Services, from Atlantic Energy Concepts, Inc.; Blue Strike Environmental d/b/a EcoShift Consulting; CMTA, Inc.; EXP U.S. Services, Inc.; GDS Associates, Inc.; Hanson Professional Services, Inc.; HKS, Inc.; Minimise USA, LLC; Southface Energy Institute, Inc.;


RFP-604065-21, Term Contract for Mosquito Control Aerial Applications-Unmanned Aircraft System, from Leading Edge Aerial Technologies, Inc.;


IFB-604070-21, Term Contract for Overhead Door Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Services, from DH Pace Door Services; DuraServe Corp. d/b/a American Roll-Up Door Company; and


PS-3505-21, Master Services Agreement for Big Econlockhatchee and Little Econlockhatchee Basin Study, from Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.; Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc.; OM Engineering Services, Inc.




Agenda Item #23 – 2021-2575 (Not in sequential order)

Special Event Permit for the 2021

Wekiva Island Winter Wonderland; Mary Sue Weinaug


            Mary Robinson, Project Manager, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.  She noted residents of the neighboring subdivision, Sweetwater Springs, submitted an email request to add a condition of approval that the event must comply with the County’s noise ordinance.  She advised she spoke with the Applicant who advised she does not support that request.  Staff recommends approval.


            Mary Sue Weinaug, Applicant, addressed the Board to confirm that she will maintain the requirement of the Development Order that any noise will be directed towards the river. 


            Commissioner Lockhart stated she thought the Board had approved a motion that covered all of the Wekiva special events for the year, and Ms. Weinaug explained that she could not get everything submitted in time for all of the events.  Commissioner Lockhart said then that they should anticipate future requests for individual special event permits.  Chairman Constantine noted there was also a misconception in the letter that the 18th was a Sunday, which Ms. Robinson mentioned, but it is also a Saturday.  He indicated that he has not heard anything but positive comments from the neighbors about the speed bumps that were installed.


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


            Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve the request for a Special Event Permit for the Wekiva Island Winter Wonderland to be held December 3 through December 26, 2021, subject to staff recommended conditions included in the Special Event Permit; Mary Sue Weinaug, Applicant.


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


Agenda Item #22 – 2021-2614

2021 Interlocal Agreement for Public School

Facility Planning and School Concurrency


Mary Moskowitz, Project Manager, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request and background as outlined in the agenda memorandum.  (A PowerPoint presentation was received and filed).


She advised a work session was held on January 12 and at the work session, the Board asked for additional clarification and amendments to the agreement.  A second work session was held on February 12, and since that work session, a couple of activities have occurred.  First, a clean, red-lined version of the draft 2021 ILA was sent to the PTAC and School Board.  This draft was also distributed by staff to stakeholders on February 9th.  Comments were received and incorporated into a final draft that included recommendations by staff and other members of PTAC.  This final draft was distributed and a meeting was held with the Development Advisory Board, and then on March 19, staff met with GOBA (Greater Orlando Builders Association) and AAGO (Apartment Association of Greater Orlando).  The final 2021 Interlocal Agreement is included in the backup along with both amendments.  Staff recommends approval.


Joseph Ranaldi, Executive Director of Operations for Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS), addressed the Board and thanked Seminole County staff.  He said he felt they clarified the document by taking all of the amendments that they came with last time that were amendments to the 2020 Interlocal Agreement by creating a 2021 Interlocal Agreement and then they highlighted where the different elements were, whether they were previous amendments or comments from staff or other organizations.  (SCPS Policy 5120.01, Revision of School Attendance Zones, was received and filed.)


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


Commissioner Zembower stated he has a question, probably for County legal staff and maybe Mr. Ranaldi also.  He still has an issue with a contractual agreement that is in the fashion that it is.  Can either party point to any agreement contractually that does not have an out clause that they are currently in.  Mr. Applegate said that again, this is statutory, and that 99% of the agreements the County enters into have an out clause.  Commissioner Zembower questioned if there is a way, in this particular one, and he fully understands why they want this and he supports doing what is right for the school system, but is there a vehicle that would allow the agreement to stay in place but yet there could be a conversation in the event that there may be one or two or more parties that are having some difficulties, or maybe their scenario has changed in their city, that could allow it to stay intact but yet be having conversations about they need to change this.


Mr. Applegate indicted he knows that Mr. Ranaldi will speak to this, but there is always that review period.  Mr. Ranaldi stated they went more specific on what the PSFPC, the primary board of elected officials, would be reviewing on a regular basis at that three-year milestone.  But once again within the document, any PSFPC member can identify they have an issue, and they would bring the PSFPC together again to address the issue.  Commissioner Zembower then stated under that scenario, that member voices their concerns on behalf of their municipality or their board, that within itself does not allow them to get out of the agreement unless all parties agree to it.  Mr. Applegate advised that Commissioner Zembower is correct, and the only thing he can say is he may be the only county attorney in the state of Florida with a county of seven or more cities where there hasn’t been a lawsuit between the cities and the county and the school board.  So, he thinks the no out clause is simply statutory.  It does open the door for a party to say something has changed and they need to bring it back and that is probably the best they can do there. 


Commissioner Zembower said he agrees right now “everybody plays well in the sandbox,” but looking to the future, there may be a time when somebody may want to get out of this.  What he is interpreting is if one or two or seven want to get out of it, they cannot get out of it, plain and simple.  If one party does not want to get out of it, they can hold everybody to it, and he asked if that is a fair analogy.  Mr. Applegate responded that it is and it is a policy decision.  Commissioner Zembower then questioned whether there is a way that they could put together a majority or multiple entities that may want to get out instead of having one party that could hold up the whole agreement but yet still keep the agreement intact while that conversation is happening, so they are not in non-compliance statutorily and it is still intact until that is resolved.  Mr. Applegate noted if the parties agree, they can change it from a unanimous consensus to asking one party or a percentage that they want to have a discussion about reopening the agreement.  Commissioner Zembower said so that can be done and still keep the agreement in force while that is happening.  Mr. Applegate indicated as long as there is a discussion, but there simply is not an out clause in this; it is statutory.


Commissioner Lockhart addressed Mr. Ranaldi stating what would be the impact of the agreement as a whole if one entity were to decide that they didn’t want to participate at all anymore.  Not that they don’t want to tweak it, maybe there are modifications that need to be made, certainly that discussion happens every so often, but what would happen if someone just said I am out.  Mr. Ranaldi responded their CSAs are tied to the boundaries established for elementary schools, middle schools and high schools.  They are not aligned with the boundaries of any municipalities.  So, since they are a countywide concurrency system, it would leave a huge hole somewhere in the county and they would not be able to accommodate developers coming in that wanted to tap available capacity, because the actual calculation of that available capacity would be literally impossible.  So, it would stall them from being able to determine what the available capacity was within the CSA and any contiguous CSA associated with that as well.


Commissioner Lockhart said so in a way, the interlocal agreement and the way that it is designed encourages the different agencies to work together to come to a consensus to find a best solution for all parties involved, because it sounds like by legislative design and intent, the interlocal agreement is intended for all parties to participate because of what he just explained.  Mr. Ranaldi said exactly, when they go from the CSA to the contiguous CSAs as well, a lot of times they are passing boundaries of municipalities, so there is cooperation that needs to happen between those municipalities as they work through the approval of those developments that impact, not only what is in their municipalities, but ones that are outside their municipality.


Commissioner Dallari addressed Mr. Applegate and said he understands what he is saying legislatively, but just to have a review is sometimes not enough.  There has to be a way of making sure that everyone is playing “nice in the sandbox,” sort of speak, and there has to be something legally they could recommend, because to have something for perpetuity purposes that can never be changed, he can see the city that is going to be reviewing this saying why would they agree to this.  And it would be nice so that everyone is “playing at the same table” so that if two or more cities have issues, they come back within a certain time frame and do something.  He asked, legally, how do you make something like that happen.  Mr. Applegate recommended since time is not of the essence, to come back at the next meeting with it and they can try and come up with a solution that everybody can work with.  One suggestion would be amending a section of the agreement to allow for a discussion if a party wants to bring up an issue.  Commissioner Zembower said he is saying that maybe there is a majority if you want to get out of the contract. 


Commissioner Herr stated she actually thinks that the agreement is written in such a way that if one party had an issue with the agreement, they would bring it back and the discussion starts while the agreement is in place.  The whole notion behind it is that they have aligned together with the idea that they will cooperate with each other for the benefit of the students in their school district to make sure that there is alignment. The document is written in such a way, and quite frankly the County is the party that is hanging it up right now, but the document is written in such a way that it facilitates that discussion.  She is not 100% clear on what the ask is, because the way she is reading it is that one party can bring it back to the table and they convene and then go through this process again.


Chairman Constantine noted from the discussion at the Mayors and Managers meeting last week that almost all of the cities, including Altamonte Springs who pulled it back, are all waiting for the County.  He does not want them to think that the County is the outlier who is holding it back.  He said that Commissioner Herr made a good point in saying they are the ones that are holding it up.  He does not want to come back again if they can get this done.


Mr. Applegate stated that just working through this, it is a policy decision to propose to amend the agreement that they take a percentage of the parties in the agreement to recommend that they all sit down to amend the agreement rather than it having to be unanimous.  Looking at language, they could say that this agreement may be amended by written consent with no less than 75% of the parties to the agreement, or pick a percentage, and that opens the door to, if there is an issue, amend the agreement.


Chairman Constantine noted he had a discussion about this very subject with the County Attorney yesterday.  He noted they have already gone through this 36-page agreement and came up with the problems and then found solutions.  Upon inquiry about approval, Mr. Ranaldi stated they have submitted it to PTAC, which is the technical advisory committee, and there was one additional comment that they addressed.  Then it was sent to the PFSPC on March 2nd and no comments have been received at this point.  So, everyone has reviewed it and they understand the changes and they are ready to go.


Commissioner Zembower said again, he understands concurrency.  He understands all of what his fellow Commissioners have said and agrees.  All that he is saying is that if there comes a time, maybe that is 10 years from now, maybe it is 5 years from now; it could be next year, that there is an issue by any of the parties for whatever reason something changes and they want out, they cannot get out.  He understands they can review and one party can say, “Hey, we don’t like this,” and you know what they can say if the County is the only party that does like it and the other eight do not, “Too bad.  We don’t care that you eight do not like it, it is staying in effect, we could care less.”  That is there wherein lies the problem.  There needs to be enough incentive by all the parties to make this work and he sees no incentive in an agreement that if all but one party can’t agree, that one party can hold up all the rest.  So, what is the harm in having some kind of clause.  He understands the review process.  Everybody can voice their opinions and those people in the PFSPC and PTAC can all weigh in and do their stuff.  When that is all done, one party can say, “Hey, we have heard you, that is great; sorry, not interested.”  Then it still stands where it is.  All he is saying is that if there comes that time, they should not put anyone, whether it is them or the School Board or any other municipality, in a position if there are a majority of the partners that want out of this agreement, they cannot get out; they are held up by one party.  Commissioner Dallari said he agrees and wants to ask Mr. Applegate what he thought was a fair percentage. 


Chairman Constantine noted he is trying to come up with a consensus.  He noted they have a better agreement before them than they had in 2008, and all of them agree with that.  And they want it to pass, and so therefore, they have an agreement in which anyone can veto the new agreement and they stay in the old agreement.  Commissioner Dallari agreed.  Chairman Constantine said he agrees that he does not like one outlier being able to “veto.”  At the same time, he thinks it needs a simple majority is far too low of a bar.  In discussion with the County Attorney yesterday, he asked them to make up a motion that it would take more than one to stop or ask for a change.  That means it would take two, and if they do that, it would be 88%; more than one.  He would be supportive of that to take it back to the School Board so there is not one outlier that stops everybody else. 


Commissioner Dallari noted the only other issue he would have is they did receive an email from the DAB, and he would just like to know which issues of the DAB have been addressed because he has not seen that.  Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director, addressed the Board to reply.  She stated she believes the last issue that they received from the Development Advisory Board that hadn’t been addressed through email correspondence between the School District, Chad Moorhead, and Mike Towers was this exact issue which was that it takes 100% of the parties to the agreement to amend the agreement and to accept any changes to the agreement, and their recommendation was that perhaps there should be some sort of citizens advisory committee or review board appointed that would review those and make recommendations on it.  And the jurisdiction that requested the change would not be part of that review board nor would the School District.  Chairman Constantine expressed to Commissioner Dallari that he thinks that right now in the agreement anybody can ask for it to be reviewed, so he really does not see that as pertinent.  Commissioner Dallari agreed that he does not see that as an issue right now.


Commissioner Zembower said his is similar to a question he had previously, which the answer he received was it would be litigated and that was when it comes to entitlements or the developer gets into a lack of agreement with the School Board’s position.  He asked how they are going to do that, sort of litigate it.  He knows they changed the language from “may” to “shall entertain and have discussion,” but what if that fails.  Mr. Ranaldi replied that Section 12.8 has an appeal process which is tied to Florida Statute Chapter 120, the Administrative Procedures Act.  So, the School Board falls under 120 in that process, and only if it is relevant to a capacity determination.  If it is a collection issue, then they go to Chapter 105 of the Land Development Code, which has a process where they have a staff member review, and then if they do not agree with that staff member’s review, then it goes to the board for resolution.  And there are elements within 120 that have different methodologies.  He noted their attorney’s flight was cancelled last night and unfortunately could not be in attendance, but they did speak to Mr. Chipok about that a little, the difference between the School Board being under 120 and the County being under 125.


Commissioner Zembower asked how Mr. Ranaldi sees that functioning in the administrative process and who would sit on that review process.  Mr. Ranaldi advised under 120, it would be a hearing officer as a result of that.  But if it is a capacity issue, it is basic math.  There is not much subjectivity at all in the process in identifying the numbers.  So when it comes to a capacity determination, it is the math, it is tied to the impact fees, student generation and all that, so the language in regards to 120 goes back to the 2008 Interlocal Agreement as well.  They really do not foresee any issues being associated with how they calculate the capacity because it is pretty straightforward. 


Commissioner Zembower stated and the follow-up to that is, in the previous discussion in the work session they held, there was a discussion about busing of the children.  He asked whether this, within itself, prevents busing the children past an existing school to another school.  Mr. Ranaldi responded that it is not passing an existing school by decreasing the sizes of the CSAs, at the elementary level, but then looking at the contiguous ones, they have a tighter grouping.  They may be giving capacity from a contiguous CSA in order to get approval for a developer, and eventually they may have to do some type of administrative rezone to balance all of those CSAs, but it gets them away from that subjective piece where they had one middle school CSA that included the entire county, so it helps them tighten it up from that standpoint.  Commissioner Zembower stated he agrees with the theory and the modeling they have done, but for the public’s understanding, they still have the scenario where a child’s parents could buy a home and be bused past an existing school to go to a school capacity, so it is not going to stop parents from weighing in on, “Hey, why are we going to a school that is past one or two schools that my child could go to.”  He understands it helps manage that issue, but it does not prevent nor was it designed to totally prevent it.  Mr. Ranaldi stated that the Commissioner is correct.


Ms. Hammock noted she wanted to correct the record from her previous statement about the DAB recommendation.  They were recommending the separate review board, if there was an issue or an appeal, instead of having to go through the administrative review process or go through litigation that it be reviewed by a separate volunteer-type board.


Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Herr, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the 2021 Interlocal Agreement with the Cities of Longwood, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, Winter Springs, Lake Mary, Sanford, Casselberry, and the Seminole County School Board, for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency.


Under discussion, Commissioner Zembower stated he will not be supporting the ILA under its current writing and reading for those purposes that he has already discussed amongst the Board.  He is not interested in entering into an agreement where one party can hold up the others.  He appreciates Chairman Constantine’s 88% majority; he thinks that is a good start.  He does not know that 88% is the right one, maybe it is 66%.  He is happy to have that discussion.  He is not going to say a few things that could be said, but he thinks they need to be looking in the future.  They get along with all the partners right now, but there could come a time where they may not get along with their partners in this county.  That could be next year, that could be ten years, and why do they want to subject people to the brain damage if there are parties, more than one, that want to get out of something, why are they “throwing the anchor around their neck” and making them live with it into perpetuity.  When multiple parties want to get out, one shouldn’t be able to hold it up.  It is what it is and if you have an appeal process, all it takes is one to say, “It is what it is, sorry, we hear you, we understand you, we love you, but we ain’t doing that.”  


Chairman Constantine addressed Commissioner Zembower saying that is why he suggested a motion that it should take more than one.  Commissioner Zembower said he does not know that two is the right answer.  Chairman Constantine said he is right, it would take two, but at least that is more than one claiming a veto.  He reminded that they have a motion and whatever they agree to goes back to get approved by the School Board.  Also, he thinks everyone agrees that what they have in front of them is better than what they had.  Everybody has to agree to this one and that is where they are right now.  He said he thinks that the alternative he suggested would at least give pause so the School Board could go back and look at it to see if they would accept that and then could bring that back either yay or nay.  Commissioner Zembower indicated he would prefer one-third or three be the number.  If they have that many, he thinks three would be the right number.


Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve a friendly amendment to move it to three individuals, or whatever the calculation is, 33%, and that would have to be the majority to keep it in effect or back out of it.  Chairman Constantine noted that would be in Section 15.1 and Commissioner Zembower stated that is correct. 


Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari expressed he agrees with the Chairman and Commissioner Zembower.  One person, he thinks, is too little.  He thinks it needs to be a big enough threshold because it needs to be a big enough issue.  He would definitely support three individuals that have an issue with this that it needs to be redone.  If it is a perfect agreement, which it could be close to it, then no one is going to have any objections to it.  But he thinks there needs to be a way to, not only give the School Board the ability to move forward, but also if anyone has an issue, bring it up and make sure that it is not going to take another eight, ten years for them to be back here and to get everybody back on the same page.

Commissioner Lockhart asked what type of impact that change would have on the School District, and how does Mr. Ranaldi foresee that.  Mr. Ranaldi stated as a point of clarification, are they talking about amending the agreement and it would be two votes to amend and unanimous to abolish, or are they talking two votes to abolish and amend.  He pointed out there are two pieces that Mr. Chipok and he were talking about that in order to abolish and do away with it, unanimous makes sense; to amend, then maybe the two or three makes sense if they are modifying CSAs, adding CSAs, things like that. 

Commissioner Lockhart stated she is glad that Mr. Ranaldi brought that up because that was kind of where she was trying to get at, and that is in order to get their partners to now have to go back and agree to this potential amendment, they have to be able to adequately explain what the consequences of it would be.  She is hearing people using the phrase, “Get out of it.”  She does not believe that language reflects what the intent is, but those are the words that are being used, so she wants to be really clear about what is being proposed by this friendly amendment, because it is not clear to her.

Ms. Guillet suggested she direct them to the agreement to try to clarify.  On page 26, there are two different sections that she thinks people might be talking about.  There is Section 15.1, which deals with amendment, and then 15.4 that deals with termination.  They both require unanimous consent to amend the agreement, and for any party to get out of the agreement, it requires unanimous consent, unless they made some sort of exemption that none of the cities would actually qualify for.

Commissioner Dallari inquired as to where this would fall into, and Chairman Constantine said he thought the intent was for any action, whether it be an amendment or to get out of it.  Both the motion maker and the seconder agreed that the Chairman is correct.  Commissioner Zembower added that is under 15.1 and 15.4.

Commissioner Zembower remarked he just wants to follow up, again, and he guesses he’ll ask the School Board.  If this is such a great agreement that should last into perpetuity, what is the harm.  If they get to a point where they can’t amend it, somebody or multi-parties are not getting along with each other, and this agreement is so fantastic, what is the harm.  He understands how concurrency works, he does not need to hear all that.  Mr. Ranaldi responded the PSFPC and the School Board have not addressed that.  They did talk about the issue of it being unanimous, but they haven’t discussed if it is two or if it is three.  If there is an amendment, he would then have to work with the PSFPC Chair, and he thinks this is of a magnitude that they would probably bring the PSFPC back together.  He would first work with the PTAC, then with the PSFPC.

Commissioner Zembower said he understands and he agrees, and he thinks maybe that is what has to happen.  Again, if the agreement is that good and so perfect, and they are all going to work perfectly together until the end of the days, then what harm does it have to have a provision for them to amend and/or get out of at such time that one party might just dig their heels in and say, “We don’t care.  We don’t care what y’all think.  It is not a democratic discussion.  It is our way.  Don’t care that y’all like it.  You’re in it.  Sorry you agreed to it.  Have a nice day.”  And that is probably 60 elected officials between the whole county and all the cities, so again, his friendly amendment was for 15.1 and 15.4, for both.

Commissioner Herr addressed Mr. Applegate.  At the time they were asking the question, it was relative to amending it, where he was talking about a percentage.  If it is statutory that they do this, should they be able to get out of it by a percentage.  Mr. Applegate responded if they want concurrency, it has to be all the parties and you need an interlocal agreement.  So, if one gets out, then concurrency is history.  And that is statutory, but the recommendation would be to amend just 15.1, which he said earlier would be a possibility, if obviously the parties agree.  But that would be a policy decision on the Board’s part.  Commissioner Herr mentioned that 15.4 is that they just get out, and frankly, she does not think they really know the ramifications of that. 

Commissioner Herr stated her perspective on this, for whatever-it-is-worth category, is that they are already in an agreement, as Mr. Applegate described.  This agreement, they have all agreed, is better than that agreement.  And they are not willing to move forward with this agreement, even though they know it is better than that agreement, because they want the ability to “get out,” using their terminology.  She explained the reason she seconded the motion is because she thinks they should approve this agreement, and then they should oblige the agreement and debate the next question with no time constraints, with real full, thorough thought and education around what the implications are of what they are asking.  So, she thinks taking a step forward with this agreement is the best decision for today, and that they continue, through Mr. Ranaldi’s process, to debate the next round, which is an adjustment by amendment or termination.  She opined those are two very long discussions. 

Commissioner Lockhart stated with that thought process, they know that the PTAC and the PSFPC can be called together very quickly to discuss this and talk about ramifications, but does their compliance regarding concurrency not get reviewed by a state agency.  Mr. Guillet remarked she hesitates to say this, because it is going to “muddy the waters” a little bit more.  The issue of a majority on the termination, 15.4, is going to be a little bit of a challenge, because in order to have concurrency, because concurrency is now optional, the only way that you can have concurrency under the existing statutes is for the County to agree to it and enough Cities to agree to represent 80% of the county.  Say if for some reason, the County wanted to get out of it, nobody else could have concurrency then.  So, like she said, she does not intend to “muddy the waters,” but it is not terminating, and eliminating concurrency is not a simple matter of one entity gets to walk away. 

Commissioner Lockhart opined they have to separate the conversation; the 15.1 and 15.4 are two very distinctly different issues and what she is hearing, loud and clear, is concurrency doesn’t exist and the interlocal agreement itself does not exist if all of the parties do not agree to be in.  Not that you need all of the parties to agree to amend.  She thinks that is a different, worthy conversation.  But she is not comfortable with the idea of moving this forward with an amendment today that attaches anything to the termination piece.

Commissioner Zembower stated he wants to play out a scenario in that format.  If you keep 15.1 intact, and let’s say there are four cities or three cities and the county that want amendments.  And the amendments that they desire are the same, but they would like considered by the rest of the group.  And maybe during that discussion, they maybe bring along one or two others that say, “Yeah, that’s not a bad idea.  We never thought about it.  We are not really having that impact in our city right now, but we could see where that could be a couple of years from now, so we’ll go along with that.”  One can say, “Yeah, we hear you, sorry.  Have a nice day.”

Commissioner Lockhart expressed that is why she is saying that she agrees with Commissioner Zembower that 15.1 is a worthy conversation, but to Commissioner Herr’s point, it is a much lengthier conversation than attaching it to this motion, she thinks, today.

Commissioner Zembower opined there is no harm having both the same.  You can certainly massage 15.1 and he understands, again, how concurrency works.  It doesn’t work unless all parties are at the table willing to do their thing.  He has got all that.  He understands this is better than what they originally had.  They are amending it now.  Why don’t they amend everything that all parties want amended now before they adopt something that is not a finished product.  So, it may leave here and go to Winter Springs or somewhere else, and they may have something they want to weigh in on, and then it has to come back through this Board again.  So, he understands they don’t want this revolving door of, “Well, somebody else wants this.”  But getting back to the point of, if they are going to amend the existing agreement, then they should amend it.  “Let’s be done and get a better product, once and for all, and then we are good.”

Mr. Applegate advised he is just going to try and sum up where he thinks they are.  He knows there are one or two Commissioners who may object to this, but there are three provisions they are really talking about.  In regard to 15.1, there is a recommendation, not only from the County Legal Department, but he thinks from staff if need be, that it can be amended to allow for a percentage, whether it is two or three or whatever number they all decide.  He noted 15.3 covers the repeal of the agreement and that reads, “If the Florida statute, as it pertains to school planning coordination and school concurrency is repealed, the agreement may be terminated by written consent of all the parties of this agreement.”  Then there is 15.4, which is termination of the agreement.  He read, “No party to this agreement may terminate its participation in the agreement except through the exemption process in which a municipality may not be required to participate in school concurrency when demonstrating that all the requirements are no longer having a significant impact of school attendance.” 

Mr. Applegate stated (1) they can amend 15.1 as they discussed earlier, which is leave a motion pending, or (2) they can approve the agreement as is, or (3) take a pause to make sure all of them are comfortable with the wording, and bring it back at the next meeting.  But this is where they are and he cannot speak for the other parties.  But at some point, if you want concurrency, there is going to have to be an agreement.

Commissioner Zembower indicated he just wants to make sure that he is clear.  He thinks they all desire to have this done in the quickest, most efficient fashion that they can and he realizes this is becoming a burden on all of them in getting through this.  But Mr. Ranaldi indicated this is not time sensitive.  And then he is hearing Commissioner Lockhart say that it is time sensitive, and he thinks they all agree they would like to have it done as soon as possible and they want it to move on, and he’s got that.  But he asked that Mr. Ranaldi explain to him the statement he made about it is not time sensitive.  Mr. Ranaldi noted the only other issue that they are working on right now is the update of the impact fee; they have commenced that; they are getting their committees together.  He believes at the next BCC meeting, this Board is going to identify who their representatives will be.  It would be beneficial to have the ILA in place, so he can work the committee through the ILA so that they understand there is some interweaving of that impact fee.  He advised the first meeting with that committee is tentatively scheduled probably at the end of April.

Commissioner Zembower stated with that being said, since they apparently will be the first to maybe consider adopting this, he questioned where the seven cities are on this.  He thinks they have heard where Altamonte is.  Mr. Ranaldi noted he wasn’t aware that Altamonte Springs had stepped back away from it, but the School Board has approved it with Amendment #1.  They are on the agenda for the 23rd to approve it, the new 2021 version.  And at that point, he is going to be coordinating with the other municipalities where they are going to approve in their process.  Commissioner Zembower inquired have the seven cities, notwithstanding Altamonte because he knows they’ve done one thing and then something different, but in regard to the other six cities, is it his belief or not belief, or no understanding whatsoever, what their position is on this.  Mr. Ranaldi explained he communicates through the PSFPC members primarily, so that then they work with their governing bodies.  But at this point right now, nothing significant has been changed against what they approved back in November.  So, it is his belief that they are just kind of waiting to see if there are other issues that are going to come up.  Commissioner Zembower clarified he is speaking about their representative on that board and Mr. Ranaldi affirmed that.  Commissioner Zembower confirmed then that he believes those Cities reviewed and approved their representative to tell or represent to the School Board that up to that point in November, everything was good.  They all agreed with it.  Mr. Ranaldi responded yes, they approved it unanimously.

Chairman Constantine indicated that he is not going to support the amendment, so that is three votes that are not going to support the amendment.  He will support, if they want to do it today, he would support 15.1, 15.3 and 15.4 needing more than one to make any changes, which would be an amendment.  This document is better than the document they currently have.  He does not know how much more time they can spend on this and make it any better.  He is saying that 66% is too low of a bar, but he does not want an outlier to be able to change everything or stop anybody from doing anything as far as concurrency or anything else in this agreement.  And, that is why he is saying it would take more than one.  Commissioner Zembower mentioned he does not think they can do that with 15.2, and Chairman Constantine stated there is no 15.2.  He then asked if they are saying they cannot do that with 15.3.

Ms. Guillet explained that 15.3 talks about repeal of the entire agreement and it must be unanimous.  They are required to have an agreement with the School Board, a coordination agreement.  They are not required to have concurrency, that is optional.  And this kind of rolls both of them into that.  She does not think anybody ever contemplated that the Legislature would bifurcate those requirements, but they are required to have an interlocal agreement with the School Board.  Concurrency is something they have elected to put in there and keep in there.  When you start moving the pieces around, as she said, on concurrency, and participation and concurrency, that is a calculus that has to be considered for people opting out.  She thinks 15.1 is just like any other agreement.  And they could do 15.3, they could do a majority on repealing it, but then they would have to replace it with another interlocal agreement.  Commissioner Zembower remarked “right,” and that is why his position is 15.1 and 15.4, not 15.3.  Ms. Guillet noted since they have to have an agreement, she does not know why they wouldn’t just amend to this agreement instead of repealing it and replacing it entirely.  She does not even know that 15.3, depending on what you do with 15.1, matters.

Chairman Constantine indicated he thinks they are in two places because of the votes.  (1) they can approve it with 15.1 and 15.4 being changed to 88%, or more than one, or they are going to go back to the drawing board here, and he does not think they need to go back to the drawing board. 

Chairman Constantine said right now, they are on the motion to amend and called the vote stating all in favor of that motion, which was to be 66% for 15.1 and 15.4 say aye.

Districts 1 and 2 voted AYE.

Districts 3, 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion failed.


Chairman Constantine stated they are now back on the main motion. 

Commissioner Dallari stated he will make a friendly motion to approve that same motion but with two people required.  Commissioner Zembower confirmed it is for 15.1 and 15.4.  Commissioner Lockhart wondered if the Commissioners were listening to what the County Attorney is saying because they cannot do that with 15.4.  Mr. Applegate advised that 15.4 is kind of a separate agreement, a separate provision altogether.  He does not see how they could do that with 15.4.  He reiterated they can do that for 15.1, as he said a half hour ago.

Commissioner Dallari questioned if they did it just for 15.1, what does that do?  Mr. Applegate replied it allows for the agreement to be amended and the agreement stays in place; it allows for that discussion.  Commissioner Dallari said the discussion or the amendment.  Mr. Applegate responded the parties would have to agree to an amendment.  Commissioner Zembower noted the discussion provision is already there in 15.1.  Mr. Applegate advised as written, it would take the consent of all the parties.  Commissioner Zembower added to actually amend it, and Mr. Applegate replied correct.  Commissioner Zembower said, “Not have the discussion but, actually, physically amend it.  Mr. Applegate read aloud again, “The agreement may be amended by written consent of all parties to this agreement.”  He stated that what he recommended a half hour ago was that this agreement may be amended by written consent by than no less than…, and then pick a number. 

Motion by Commissioner Dallari for an amendment to Section 15.1 that there must be two parties.  Chairman Constantine clarified it to be 88% and asked if there was a second to that and Commissioner Zembower stated he will second it for discussion purposes, not that he wants to discuss it a whole lot more. 

Under discussion, Commissioner Zembower stated the thing that troubles him is they have heard Mr. Ranaldi say on this consideration that they have been talking about one, two or all, that there really hasn’t even been any discussion regarding that with the PFSPC and PTAC, which then begs the question to him, is this thing really “fully cooked.”  And again, he knows he is going to have people say, “Well, it’s better than what we had.” He has got all that, but if they are going to amend it, he said they should amend it once and for all and be done with it.

Commissioner Lockhart noted the PSFPC did discuss whether unanimity was required for this agreement.  It was a point of discussion.  It did come up.  And every member sitting around that table with the support staff that was there concurred that unanimous participation and moving forward unanimously was important, not only for the details of the agreement, but for them as a community to continue to support a countywide school district.  She thinks it is a little unfair to say that the PSFPC never talked about it and they didn’t review it, because they did.  It was discussed and it was determined differently by that group than some would like, clearly, and that is okay.  But she thinks it would be appropriate to allow the PSFPC and the PTAC to go back through the process that is established in the agreement to review that and talk about whether it is 30% or 80% or whatever percent they want to make it, so that they are still consistent and abiding by the terms of the agreement that they do have a process in place for how this works.  She thinks for them, as one party of the agreement, to spitball specific numbers when they really don’t have a rationale for what number they would be picking or not, is really kind of disingenuous in terms of the spirit of the agreement being an interlocal agreement, that everybody is supposed to be united.  Her only hesitation is that there is a process that they can go through to discuss this very valid point about 15.1, and she just does not think they should be “shooting from the hip” here from this dais.  Commissioner Zembower said he concurs 100% and that is why he believes they ought to get a tone in what the seven cities want to do, because it sounds like to him they are going to keep revisiting this.

Chairman Constantine remarked that changing 15.1 to say that more than one needs to amend it guarantees that it is going to be discussed by the School Board, because they’ve got to go back and approve it or not approve it.  And if they don’t approve it, they are going to come back because 100% is needed.  He can support the amendment that Commissioner Dallari has put forward because it is going to be that the School Board and others are going to have to discuss it.  It is basically saying that no one entity can veto anything; it has to take more than one.  Commissioner Zembower said that is including the School Board.  He just wants to make sure, because this isn’t about it is the School Board or the seven cities or the county, it is the whole community. 

Chairman Constantine confirmed the amendment is on 15.1, which is the ability to amend it and it is essentially saying no less than 88% or in other words, it takes more than one to stop an amendment. Commissioner Zembower agreed.  Chairman Constantine said then that is the amendment to the main motion and not the full motion, and he called the question.

Districts 1, 2 and 3 voted AYE.

Districts 4 and 5 voted NAY.

Motion passes 3 to 2.


Chairman Constantine stated they are now on the main motion as amended.  Commissioner Lockhart restated the motion below:

Motion by Commissioner Lockhart to adopt the 2021 Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency, between Seminole County, the cities of Longwood, Altamonte Springs, Oviedo, Winter Springs, Lake Mary, Sanford, Casselberry, and the Seminole County School Board, amending Section 15.1 to be more than one entity to modify the agreement.

Commissioner Herr said she doesn’t necessarily know that they want language in this that says “more than one.”  That is not descriptive, so what is more than one.  Chairman Constantine clarified the amendment would say the agreement will be amended by written consent of no less than 88% of all parties to this agreement.  Commissioner Lockhart as the motioner and Commissioner Herr as the seconder agreed that that is the motion.  Chairman Constantine said the agreement will remain in effect until amended in accordance with Florida Statutes.  He explained that is the continuation of that amendment, which was made by Commissioner Dallari and seconded for discussion by Commissioner Zembower. 

Commissioner Dallari wondered if they want to send it back to the School Board to get their input or to PTAC.  Commissioner Zembower said to that point, if this goes to the City of Winter Springs or Altamonte or whoever, one of their other community partners, and they decide they don’t like this, at this juncture, what will happen.  Mr. Ranaldi explained they will go back to the standing 2007/2008 Interlocal Agreement.  Commissioner Zembower questioned if Mr. Ranaldi is assuming, since the County approves or whatever is approved today, that the rest of the cities are just going to buy in.  Mr. Ranaldi answered that he is not assuming that at all.  Commissioner Zembower said so to the Commissioner’s point about being worried that they are the ones holding it up, they may get through this today and somebody else holds it up.  So, he is not so worried about that.  He thinks they all want this to go through as quickly as possible, but they are not the only partner in this.  There are eight others, of which one has agreed and a second one apparently agreed and now has backed away.  The rest have to agree, or they go back to where they were.

Commissioner Lockhart summarized that she has been saying yes, they are one of a party and there is a process established in the current agreement for how they amend the agreement.  And it is to have Mr. Ranaldi and the School Board pull together the PTAC and the PSFPC and have them review whatever the issues are.  This has gone through the process.  What is being proposed to happen right now takes the amending of this agreement out of that process and it now puts it on the dais as if they are somehow not going to abide by the process that they had agreed to abide by, and then says to the others, you either take it or leave it.  And it puts this Board in that position of making a statement to their partners that they don’t really care about what the process was that they had agreed to with the PTAC and the PSFPC.  They are now going to throw out an amendment to an agreement and hope that the other parties like it or don’t like it, and may approve it and may not, and then wind up in this perpetual situation where everybody is waiting to see what the County is going to do.  And that is not how this process is supposed to work.

Commissioner Zembower replied okay, he’s got that and then asked why they are here talking about it at all.  If it’s the PTAC and PSFPC that makes all the decisions, why are they even having this discussion.  Commissioner Lockhart explained it is not that they make the decisions; it is that they discuss it and air out some of the concerns.  Commissioner Zembower noted he has got all that, but it is the Board that has to make that policy decision.

Chairman Constantine pointed out regardless of what they do here today, all of the parties are going to be discussing this.  What is put forth as an amendment right now is in 15.1; and it says, “The agreement may be amended by written consent of no less than 88%,” which means that it takes more than one to veto any amendment.  He said that is the only difference that they are talking about today.  It is a high standard, but it is not a unanimous standard where one person can hold up everything as an amendment, and that is why he is comfortable with it in that one particular case, where it takes more than one to stop an amendment.  So yes, the School Board is going to have to agree to this.  All of them are going to have to agree to this.  And they may come back and say, they don’t agree, and then they will be back in the position that they are in right now; he agrees with Commissioner Zembower on that. 

Chairman Constantine asked again if there was any public input and there was none. 

Chairman Constantine confirmed the main motion was made by Commissioner Lockhart and seconded by Commissioner Herr and stated they are now on the main motion as amended and called the question.

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



Scott McIntyre, Managing Director of Hilltop Securities, attended remotely and addressed the Board to present the Investment Advisor’s Report (received and filed).


Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt the recommendations of the Board’s Financial Advisor based on the report submitted, and direct the Clerk to implement said Board-adopted recommendations.


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




Item #32 – Settlement Agreement – Seminole County et al. v. FDEP et al.


Settlement Agreement in DOAH (Division of Administrative Hearings) Case #21-0791RP received and filed.


            Mr. Applegate announced that Terry McCue will be presenting this item.


            Dr. Terry McCue, Environmental Services Director, addressed the Board to talk about the proposed settlement in the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Rule challenge.  He stated as the Board is aware based on individual briefings as well as a memo that he prepared for their offices from December 23, 2020 (received and filed), it was staff’s recommendation that Seminole County petition to challenge the CFWI ruling.  He explained that at its core, the rationale behind Seminole County’s challenge is protecting the environment should come first, but it must be cost efficient and it must be equitable.  After they filed the petition, they have been in negotiations with FDEP and with the water management districts, and for consideration today, before the Board is the result of those negotiations, which is a settlement that they believe is in the best interest of all parties.  His understanding is the OUC (Orlando Utilities Commission), Polk County, Winter Haven, Mulberry, and closer to home, Casselberry and Sanford, have all agreed to and signed this settlement.  He then introduced Ed de la Parte, their legal representative in this matter, to give a brief interpretation of the settlement.  He mentioned then that Mary Ellen Winkler with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) would be speaking afterwards.


            Edward de la Parte, de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., addressed the Board and stated the legal process here worked out.  When you are involved in litigation and a dispute with another party, the solution you always look for is one where you can resolve it with the other party and do it in a way that is equitable and accomplishes the goals of both parties.  In this case, he thinks they have accomplished that in the proposed amendments to the Rule that were developed through this process.  These amendments will allow the Rule to go forward to protect the environment and at the same time, address the concerns that Seminole and others had regarding this matter. 


            Mr. de la Parte explained before he gets into the specifics of the amendment, he wanted to talk about the structure of the settlement agreement.  There were approximately 10 petitioners, including Seminole County who challenged the proposed Rule, and there were five interveners, so there were 15 parties involved in this case.  The agreement assumes that at the very minimum, the 10 original petitioners including Seminole County will sign the agreement.  Once that is done, the Department will publish a Notice of Rule Change, and once that is published, then all the petitioners and interveners have agreed to withdraw their petition and voluntarily dismiss their petition and the case would be over.  The public would still have input regarding the Notice of Change because there is a 20-day period during which the public can have input regarding that matter.  If nobody challenges that matter, then the matter is over and then the Rule will become effective once it is ratified by the Legislature.


            Mr. de la Parte advised there were two issues the County was most concerned about.  One was the cutback in the Upper Floridan Aquifer allocations to a 2025 demonstrated demand and the other was the per capita goals that were set that had to be met by all public water suppliers above 100,000 gallons.


            Mr. de la Parte stated he wanted to address the first one, the aquifer allocation cutback.  The Rule has language now that says there will not be a presumption with regards to modification of existing consumptive use permits (CUP).  There is no limitation to the 2025 demonstrated demand unless a district demonstrates impact on water resources, either individually or cumulatively.  New groundwater withdrawals will only be granted above that demonstrated 2025 demand or whatever limit is approved if there are demonstrated offsets. 


            The County was very concerned because there was language in the original Rule that says you could not take into account any offset projects or AWS (Alliance for Water Stewardship) projects that were constructed before December 31, 2015, and that is one of the provisions that was changed.  Now you can take credit for those projects to the extent they were not fully utilized.  So, if the County had built a project but only had utilized 10% of that project, they could still take credit for the other 90% of that project.  A public water supplier will only be required to address when it’s developing and offset its relative contribution to the environment, so you are not being responsible for anybody else’s impact; they will have to be responsible for their own impact.  You will only be responsible for offsetting your impact to the environment.


            The other provisions that are important deal with temporary allocations.  The proposed Rule said that you can get a temporary allocation for up to five years, and it could be longer if approved by the governing board, and that has been dramatically broadened under the proposed Rule.  So, now a temporary allocation can be granted if you are developing projects that are single-phased projects, you are just going to build one project and then the users are going to have up to seven years from the date of the effective date of the Rule to complete that project, and they can get a temporary allocation for that period of time.  But if you are working on a more complicated, multiphase project that is going to take decades to implement, then there is a provision where you can come up with a plan on how you are going to use your allocation over that period of time, and if approved by the water management district, then you can keep your allocation to be used kind of as a standby during those times when you are building the phases. 


Mr. de la Parte indicated one that is very important to Seminole County deals with minimum flows and levels (MFL).  The SJRWMD is going to go forward and very soon adopt a prevention and recovery strategies for minimum flows and levels in their areas involving critical springs and the Wekiva River, and there is language now that the district can grant temporary allocations to a public water supplier if that permittee provides a plan on how to mitigate its impacts on the MFL or in connection with a prevention or recovery strategy.


On the public water conservation goal side of it, Mr. de la Parte advised the districts realized that certain communities like maybe Altamonte Springs, who had a very large commercial component to their water use; had come up with those limits that were really not appropriate or feasible for them.  So for those communities who have a commercial use that is 30% or greater, they will be required to submit a conservation plan and provide annual updates.  The other users would still have to comply with the conservation goals. 


Mr. de la Parte remarked he wanted to finish his presentation with a quote from Winston Churchill, “This is not the beginning of the end; it is the end of the beginning,” because there is still a lot more work that needs to be done regarding not only this Rule, but minimum flows and levels that are going to be considered by the water management district in the near future, and that is where the heavy lifting is going to take place in terms of protecting the environment and also dealing with future water supply.


            Mary Ellen Winkler, General Counsel for the SJRWMD, addressed the Board to discuss the settlement.  She expressed she first wanted to address a couple of concerns that have been raised in the news about the Central Florida Water Initiative.  Their district and Southwest Florida Water Management District and their friends at South Florida Water Management District working with the Department of Environmental Protection worked long and hard on these rules.  It really was the culmination of their regional water supply planning effort that was finally approved in the fall.  That plan concluded that current and future water demands can be met in this area while sustaining water resources and natural systems, if alternative water supplies and conservation are developed.


The Plan determined that the sustainable yield of the aquifer in this area is around 760 million gallons per day (mgd), if they implement management strategies like wellfield optimization.  She said just to give them a sense of what 760 mgd means, their 2017 use for this region, the CFWI area, was 659 mgd, and in 2020, they were close to 700 mgd.  So, they are rapidly approaching that 760 number.  In 2040, they project that they will need close to 900 mgd of water.  So, they are trying to plan for the future and these rules, they hope, are going to help them do that. 


If they do nothing, they anticipate according to the Plan that outstanding Florida springs like the ones in this county, Rock Springs, Wekiwa Springs, the Wekiva River, and Lake Sylvan could be negatively impacted.  In this area today, they estimated that there are 36,000 acres of stressed wetlands and 11 MFLs (Minimum Flows and Levels) that are not being achieved.  Nine of those are in Southwest Florida Water Management District and two are in St. John’s.  With that situation they felt it was important, and the Legislature also recognized that, and in 2016 directed rulemaking.  They are at the culmination and they hope with Seminole’s support today to move forward and get those rules implemented. 


Ms. Winkler noted that Mr. de la Parte did a great job summarizing the settlement in the changes that they made to the Rule, they really wanted to work with local governments to facilitate solutions to move the ball forward.  What remains very clear is that for those entities, utilities and other water users that are causing detrimental impacts, they are going to move forward with reaching out to them and dealing with those problems.  In addition to the public supply use class, which Seminole would be a part of, industrial, commercial, institutional, and mining use classes are also limited to their 2025 demand, which for them, because they don’t grow like local governments, they will be limited to their current allocations.  Also, new uses similarly will be limited to their 2025 unless they can demonstrate, as Mr. de la Parte mentioned, that they have implemented offsets and other things.  She stated they are pleased to be able to work with the County to create tools like temporary allocations and other things to give people time to meet these water needs.  She appreciates their support in the settlement agreement and in helping them to achieve protection of the water resources.


            With regard to public participation, Charles Lee, 1101 Audubon Way, representing Audubon Florida, addressed the Board (remotely) stating the first option he thinks the Board should consider is that the Commission should not vote to approve the settlement.  Instead they recommend they vote to direct the County Attorney to simply file a motion for voluntary dismissal in the matter in front of the Division of Administrative Hearings in this case.  He advised the second option they recommend, if the first option is not viable for them, is that they defer action on approving the settlement pending a public meeting, which they would characterize as a “fairness” hearing to be held by the DEP and the water management districts, to allow detailed public comment on the proposed settlement.  He then explained their concerns.  (Speaker Form not received.)


            Mr. Applegate stated he would address both points that Mr. Lee made.  One was with respect to his concern about this not being noticed as an agenda item for the public to have input and the other concern is with regard to the settlement itself.  Mr. Applegate explained the issue in connection with the agenda was a question of timing, when the petition had to be filed.  Dr. McCue provided publicly the memo at a board meeting to talk about these issues.  It did not have to be on the agenda; the decision the Board made did not have to be publicly noticed.  As Mr. de la Parte has pointed out, if the Board agrees to the settlement stipulation, there will be a 20-day period for anyone to object to the proposed Rule.  Based on all of those circumstances, Mr. Applegate indicated that everything has been done in a proper manner and expeditiously as possible.  Secondly, Mr. de la Parte has been under contract with Seminole County for a great number of years as their outside expert counsel on these matters.  The renewal of the agreement that was approved months ago covers the exact services that he provided in this matter.  He opined that in their expert’s view, this is a good settlement for the county. 


            Mr. de la Parte noted if the Board simply does not sign the agreement and withdraws their petition, the way that the situation is now set up to be is that if everybody signs and approves this, which appears is going to be the case by Thursday, the Department is going to publish a Notice of Change on Friday, and then by next Monday, all of the petitions will be withdrawn, so they will have accomplished exactly what that first item is if the Board signs the agreement.  Also he noted, when the judge put this case in abeyance was because eight or nine of the entities that were petitioners were local governments and they had to schedule hearings like this one in order to approve it, so the order is very clear that the abeyance was only to allow those local governments to hold the hearings.  There is also a detriment if you try to keep the case pending (until April 19) because this has to ratified by the Legislature, and the change that is being proposed by the Department has to be part of that legislative ratification.  There is a vehicle that is now in the Senate that just got passed out of their first committee, so when it goes to the second committee, the thought is that this amendment will then be added on to that so they have an opportunity this session to ratify it.  Any delay is going to jeopardize the ratification of this and then they will be back to square one. 


            Chairman Constantine addressed Ms. Winkler stating when they had their meeting in early February along with her staff, Dr. Shortelle (SJRWMD Director), the County Manager and County Attorney, Mr. de la Parte, and Dr. McCue, he talked about the fact that he did not want their tax dollars suing their tax dollars, and he wanted no harm when it came to the environment.  He added he wanted an agreement in which everyone could say that this is the right thing to do.  He asked where they are now and what the St. John’s opinion of this agreement is. 


Ms. Winkler responded that she would not be here if their agency did not support the settlement agreement, and they would not put forward rules that they thought would be harmful to the environment.  They have worked, as Mr. de la Parte noted, since 2006 beginning with the Central Florida Coordination Area that was the precursor to CFWI.  They have been at this for a very long time.  She said she appreciated the opportunity to speak with Mr. Lee yesterday, but she respectfully disagrees; he is right in the sense that the CFWI did focus on cumulative impacts.  One of the things that they faced in this CFWI is that, as mentioned before, they think there is a limit of 760 mgd on the aquifer and they have permitted 1.1 billion, and obviously those numbers do not add up.  They have, over the past 10 years, developed a computer model that allows them to better look at impacts across boundaries.  What was happening is each of the three different districts were issuing their permits and going along, and by having this initiative, they now have a groundwater model.  It is very complicated; for example, it takes 30-plus hours for just one run.  But it now allows them to see what those cumulative impacts are.  So, to address Mr. Lee’s concerns, yes, they are going to look at cumulative impacts.  That is part of how they got to where they are.  In fact the language makes it clear; if they find that a use is detrimental, and they added this language, part of the underlying language is individually or cumulatively with other uses, if it is detrimental to the water resource, they can modify the permit.  That is very important and they have not ignored cumulative impacts, but in fact that is part of the Rule, and they will do what they need to do to protect the resource.


            Chairman Constantine expressed he respects Charles Lee as much as anyone he knows in the environmental field and has worked with him since the 1980s.  He added Mr. Lee was on the original and continues to be on the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Commission that the Chairman has chaired since 2003.  There is no one he admires more for his dedication to the environment.  He stated when they took this one, they were all concerned about the environment and they were also concerned about putting Seminole County in a spot in which they could not dig out of.  He thinks (1) their attorneys and the St. John’s, in good faith, negotiated this on the basis of finding a solution that was beneficial to both Seminole County and St. John’s, and (2) not just do no harm but ensure that they are going to move the bar forward when it comes to the environment.  He graciously disagrees with Mr. Lee at this time, and he hopes they can continue to improve this.  Chairman Constantine advised that Dr. McCue has indicated that he is going to do everything he can to continue to move forward the opportunity for the County to conserve, and conserve even more than they are talking about right now. 


            Chairman Constantine stated for their information that the City of Altamonte Springs, unlike the other ten, has already made an agreement on consumptive use before this County did and the others who joined the petition has come to an agreement with the St. John’s.  He feels that they can do no better and he hopes moving forward that this initiative continues to gain momentum, strength, and does what they hope and intend it to do which is to preserve the water resources and improve the water resources of the state of Florida, specifically the Central Florida area.


            Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to approve the Settlement Stipulation that resolves the administrative challenges, filed by Seminole County and other local governments to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, CFWI Rules, which among other things, requires Seminole County and the other challengers to voluntarily withdraw or dismiss their respective petitions immediately following publication of the Notice of Change by the Department.


            Commissioner Dallari asked in regard to the model that Ms. Winkler was talking about, whether it addresses both the upper as well as the lower aquifer.  Ms. Winkler replied that it does, and it has multiple layers representing the upper and then many layers also representing the lower so they can tell what the effects are.  Commissioner Dallari opined that is very important because the way the Rule is presently, it only really addresses the upper aquifer, which in his opinion is a problem.  Ms. Winkler stated they are addressing the Upper Floridan Aquifer, but overlaying this, they have their standard conditions for issuance that any permittee has to meet, and those conditions for issuance provide that any use must not be harmful to the water resource, which means even if a permittee or applicant comes in and says they are not going to use the upper, they are going to go all lower, they can then then say, “Well, you might meet this part, but you still have to meet the condition for issuance.”  So even if someone had all lower in the CFWI area, they would still be able to deny that permit if they found that through the modeling or other data. 


Commissioner Dallari expressed that is critical because looking at the entire system, it should be a holistic approach, because they all want to protect not just the groundwater, the springs and the streams, it is important to do because just going after the upper does not really do that.  Ms. Winkler indicated they focused on the upper in this rulemaking, but in their general overlay of the conditions, they have to look at lower as well.  Commissioner Dallari they are looking at the calculations of how many gallons per person per day, and the 115 did not really account for the commercial aspect of it being transient, where people are not living in this area.  But they were looking at the population base locally, and he really thinks that is a fallacy, so he is glad they are addressing that as well.  Ms. Winkler pointed out there is language in the rules for those that needed deductions for things like that, but for those that are utilities that are so heavily skewed towards commercial and they happen to be in this area, they have adjusted the Rule to account for that as well.  Commissioner Dallari thanked Ms. Winkler along with her entire department and staff for working with them.


No one else spoke in support or opposition, and public input was closed.


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




                Chairman Constantine recessed the meeting at 2:05 p.m.; reconvening at 2:40 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell, who were present at the Opening Session.




            Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, 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.




Agenda Item #24 - 2021-2465

Amendment to Chapter 65, Borrow Pits, of the LDC


            Jeff Hopper, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. 


            With regard to public participation, Nancy Harmon, Geneva Citizens Association, submitted a Written Comment Form in support; Cindy Haller, 1731 Beacon Drive; and Richard Creedon, 1172 Apache Drive, spoke in support; no one else spoke, and public input was closed.


            Commissioner Dallari and Chairman Constantine submitted their ex parte communication for this item (received and filed).


            Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2021-11 amending Chapter 65 (Mining, Borrow Pits and Excavations) of the Land Development Code to clarify circumstances which require a borrow pit permit approval by the Board of County Commissioners for borrow pit excavations exceeding 5,000 cubic yards of material, and providing standards for the exemptions from a borrow pit permit in conjunction with platting of a subdivision; as described in the proof of publication.


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


Agenda Item #25 – 2021-2537

Accessory Dwelling Units LDC and Comprehensive Plan Amendments


            Mr. Hopper presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.  The Board briefly asked Mr. Hopper a few questions regarding his presentation, and he noted staff recommends approval. 


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


            Chairman Constantine asked if there had been an uptick in requests for accessory dwelling units, and Mary Moscowitz, Planning and Development, explained the most recent situation was actually a Code Enforcement issue.


            Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-12 enacting Comprehensive Plan text amendments to permit accessory dwelling units in the County’s urban area; and, subject to final approval and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments, adopt associated Ordinance #2021-13 enacting corresponding revisions to the Land Development Code; as described in the proof of publication.


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


Agenda Item #26 – 2021-2570

Public Notice Procedure Comprehensive Plan Amendment and LDC Amendment Transmittal


            Dagmarie Segarra, Planning and Development, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.  Commissioner Lockhart asked if the County Attorney’s Office had time to review a letter the Board received from an attorney regarding this item.  Paul Chipok, Deputy County Attorney, answered he had time to review the letter from Rebecca Wilson.  They are dealing today with legislative policies and changes, so it is within the Board’s discretion; and Ms. Wilson’s viewpoint is only for consideration.  Commissioner Lockhart asked if there is a rationale to Ms. Wilson’s argument that property owners in the rural area are being treated somehow differently or inequitably.  Mr. Chipok answered he doesn’t believe so.  Out in the rural area, if you leave it at the same standard, you’re notifying the next-door neighbor and that’s about it because the parcels are larger.  If the Board’s intent is to notify more people, then this amendment accomplishes that. 


            Commissioner Zembower asked if staff has run a cost analysis to determine what additional costs this may put on single-family homes.  Discussion ensued why this would cause a change in cost.  Commissioner Zembower stated a developer has to take into consideration all the costs involved as to what they market and ultimately sell their product for.  He asked what impact, if any, this has on the cost of a home.  Rebecca Hammock, Development Services Director, answered staff has not done that analysis, but they have had public notice procedures like this for a couple of years now.  Commissioner Lockhart asked for clarification regarding whether or not the public community meetings have to be recorded.  Mr. Chipok advised for a Sunshine meeting, minutes have to be taken, so he has included the minimum standard in this transmittal for the meetings to be recorded, and that obligation and duty falls on the applicant to take the minutes and provide them to the County.  Commissioner Lockhart clarified minutes are suitable for the term “recording,” and they are not requiring audio or visual recording.


            Commissioner Dallari submitted ex parte communications into the record (received and filed).


            With regard to public participation, Nancy Harmon, Geneva Citizens Association, submitted a Written Comment Form in support; Cindy Haller, 1731 Beacon Drive, spoke in support; no one else spoke, and public input was closed.


            Ms. Hammock clarified in regard to Ms. Wilson’s email of opposition, one of the things she was objecting to was that the minimum number of parcels that have to be notified in the rural area is different than the minimum number of parcels in the urban area; and she was saying they should be equal.


            Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to transmit the proposed Ordinance enacting a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to amend regulations applicable to Public Participation and Public Notice for Public Hearings; and, subject to final approval and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan text amendment, adopt the associated Ordinance enacting corresponding revisions to the Land Development Code; as described in the proof of publication.


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


Agenda Item #27 – 2021-2594

General Housing Trust Fund Ordinance


Allison Thall, Community Services Director, addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum.


Commissioner Dallari submitted ex parte communications into the record (received and filed).


Commissioner Dallari stated on line items 66 and 68, it talks about the revenue expenditures for transitional housing and permanent housing; it’s 10% and 80%.  He pointed out that equals 90% and asked about the other 10%.  Ms. Thall indicated the other 10% is sitting in reserves, and Commissioner Dallari stated they need to identify that somehow.  Mr. Chipok explained another way to look at that is in those provisions, those are ceilings that the expenditures cannot exceed.  They are not meant to be a specific allocation of the funding.  Commissioner Dallari stated he wants to make sure they are allocating all the funds.  Ms. Guillet added that indicates that there are other things the Board could do with these funds outside of the two listed items.  Commissioner Dallari stated he sees the percentages, and he wants to make sure there is proper equity on the lower housing because people who make 140% of the median income qualify just as much as the people who make 30% of the income.  He’s hoping that the guidelines that are going to be written actually talk about equity shares; it should be defined somehow in the guidelines and procedures of the policy book.  Ms. Thall advised those guidelines will be drafted by staff in conjunction with the County Attorney’s Office, and they need to go to the Board for approval, so staff can adjust those to a satisfactory amount for the Board. 


Commissioner Lockhart suggested although it would be in the next steps, they may want to think about some of the federal funds because they may be able to be utilized to help augment this, and then it wouldn’t come out of the general fund; and it would certainly have a rational nexus to COVID-19.  Commissioner Zembower asked staff to share this with his colleagues across the region on the attainable and affordable housing conferences once they get it in place.


With regard to public participation, Wafa Esposito, 5040 Hawks Hammock Way, spoke neither in support or opposition but to offer suggestions; no one else spoke, and public input was closed.


Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-14 creating a Seminole County General Housing Trust Fund for the purpose of receiving funds that are not required to be placed in the existing Affordable Housing Trust Fund established for the purposes of receiving CDBG and SHIP funds; to provide regulations and codification in the Seminole County Code; and to provide for severability and an effective date; as described in the proof of publication.


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


Agenda Item #28 – 2021-2595

Community Land Trust Procedures


            Ms. Thall presented the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum.


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


            Commissioner Dallari submitted ex parte communications into the record (received and filed).


Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-15 creating the Community Land Trust Procedures for the purpose of creating long-term affordable housing options for Seminole County residents in partnership with qualified nonprofit agencies; as described in the proof of publication.


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




Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell was replaced by Deputy Clerk Chariti Colón.




Commissioner Dallari submitted ex parte for Items #29 and #30.


Agenda Item #29 – 2021-0008

Seminole County Fire Station #39

Small Scale FLU Map Amendment and Rezone


Annie Sillaway, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. 


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


Motion by Commissioner Herr, seconded by Commissioner Lockhart, to adopt Ordinance #2021-16 enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Public, Quasi-Public (PUB); and adopt Ordinance #2021-17 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) and R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) to PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) for approximately 2.08 acres, located on the south side of 1st Street, 0.1 mile east of Orange Boulevard.; as described in the proof of publication.


Commissioner Dallari stated this fire station is very close to International Parkway, and it would save very valuable time getting to International Parkway and the Wekiva Parkway if 1st Street was extended instead of going all the way around using Orange Boulevard.  He would like for staff at a later date to look at the possibility of extending 1st Street or somehow extending access for this fire station from 1st Street to International. 


Ms. Guillet advised they are already looking at that issue on a staff level.  Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, advised there is a trail in that area and also a utility plant.  They have looked to see if there is a possibility to extend it, but they did not go into detail to see what the cost or what alternatives there are to consider; but they have talked about it before at a staff level.


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



Agenda Item #30 – 2021-2558

Board of Adjustment Appeal/2129 Laurelwood Way

Frank and Kaitlyn Garcia, Appellants


Kathy Hammel, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the agenda memorandum. 


Commissioner Zembower inquired if there was any indication of what the HOA's position is.  Ms. Hammel responded the HOA in their documents state they allow a fence 5 feet from the property line. 


Commissioner Dallari inquired if there are other situations in this subdivision that allow this.  Ms. Hammel responded there were two variances approved in 2020 for the same setback.  He inquired if this is consistent with those locations, and Ms. Hammel responded it is consistent with the requests that they have made and it is in the same development.  The Commissioner inquired if staff has reviewed this and seen any obstacles for why this should not be approved.  Ms. Hammel advised there was approval received from Traffic Engineering that there are no safety issues with the location of the proposed fence. 


Chairman Constantine inquired if there are any extenuating circumstances that made this one different from the others that were approved to explain why this one was denied.  Ms. Hammel stated the size of the lots and the requests are all similar. 


Commissioner Zembower clarified the HOA is 5 feet from the street side sidewalk, not the street.


Frank Garcia, Appellant, addressed the Board and explained what makes this one different than the other ones that were approved is he was unable to attend the BOA meeting in person due to a family emergency, and he thinks that was part of the reason it did not get approved.  On March 12, 2021, he did get architectural approval from the HOA for the fence at 5 feet from the sidewalk (received and filed).  He stated with his appeal application, he submitted seven letters from neighbors in support.  He has four more letters in support (received and filed). 


With regard to public participation, Christian Flask, 2117 Laurelwood Way, spoke in support of the appeal. 


No one else spoke in support or opposition and public input was closed.


Public Comment Form received and filed.


Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Zembower, to grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Board of Adjustment’s decision to deny the request for a side street (south) setback variance from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet for a privacy fence in the PD (Planned Development) district; Frank and Kaitlyn Garcia, Appellants; as described in the proof of publication.


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




Tricia Johnson, Deputy County Manager, stated there has been more movement with respect to preemption bills than in previous years.  Although about the same amount of 50 or so have been filed, they are moving faster through committees.  It is speculated that is because there have not been special interest groups or large groups of community members going to Tallahassee which makes it a little bit easier to move some of these types of things through.


Ms. Johnson reported the majority of the preemptions have been removed from the Vacation Rental bill.  At this point, it doesn't impact Seminole County, which is good news.  It does still impact South Florida, so that language is up in the Senate now and the House is watching to see what the Senate does. 


There is an Impact Fee bill that is going to be heard tomorrow morning at 8:30 that does impact a number of components related to impact fees, essentially narrowing the definition of infrastructure, so limiting how those fees can be spent and setting a precedent for that continuing narrowing of the language.  Florida Association of Counties is very involved with that particular bill and working closely with the Senate.  They have an amendment that benefits the County.  And the House will be watching to see what they do. 


There is an Emergency Powers of Political Subdivisions bill, which is another great concern to Florida Association of Counties.  It basically says that any emergency order put in place will expire after 10 days and cannot be put back into place until the majority of the county commission votes to approve it.  There are a number of other components to that bill that are concerning, so that is being watched.


The Civil Liability for Damages Related to COVID-19, which is positive for local governments, did pass the Senate floor and is in messages in the House, so they will be taking a look at the Senate language and probably visiting that bill by early next week. 


The County's appropriation requests are in the appropriation subcommittee on the House side and moving forward.  Even if they end up in the legislative budget, that doesn't mean that the governor will keep them there.  There is still a long road until they find out if they got either of those funding requests. 


The Regional Planning Council's bill has not seen much movement in the past few weeks.  That doesn't mean it's not dead, it just means that it's not moving for the time being, but it could be tacked onto something else, so they are continuing to watch that one as well. 


The Agritourism Bill did pass the Senate floor late last week.  Now on the House side is the County's opportunity to amend it.  Ms. Johnson advised she has been talking with representatives in Tallahassee about that opportunity as well since the amendment language is already drafted.  This was never one that they were going to be as successful with on the Senate side to amend but possibly will be on the House side.  Chairman Constantine noted the Agritourism Bill has now been revealed to be a U.S. Sugar bill.  There is a litany of requests they want to make so they can do certain things down in the Everglades. 




Ms. Guillet advised they have been engaged with District 5 for medical examiner services for two years now, and it has been a great relationship.  District 5 includes the five counties of Lake, Marion, Sumter, Citrus, and Hernando.  There is a governing board from the five counties that manages a contract with a third-party medical examiner.  That governing board met in February, and they revised the bylaws to allow Seminole County to have a seat on that governing board.  She recommends taking advantage of that opportunity to have a seat. 


Motion by Commissioner Dallari to appoint Commissioner Zembower to that position. 


Chairman Constantine called for a second to the motion, without response, whereupon the motion died for lack of same. 


Commissioner Lockhart inquired what the position entails.  Commissioner Zembower inquired how much time is involved.  Ms. Guillet explained that board manages the contract with the medical examiner, who is a private provider, and Seminole has been allowed to be a part of that.  They talk about levels of services.  They talk about budget.  There may need to be some capital investments in the coming year.  Because Marion County administers the contract, they have been talking to Guy Minter, County Attorney for Marion County, about how Seminole may have to amend any of their agreements to take advantage of this seat.  The governing board meets quarterly, and they have been moving the meeting throughout the five Counties.  Ms. Guillet stated she doesn't know if they need an appointment yet, but they can do that and be prepared.  She just wanted a head nod on the seat.


Discussion ensued regarding the previous relationship with Volusia County and the current relationship with District 5.  Chairman Constantine inquired since it only meets once every quarter, whether they need an alternate.  Ms. Guillet responded she does not know how it is structured.  Discussion ensued regarding alternates.  Commissioner Lockhart stated usually when they have appointments like this, they know what the terms are; such as, if it is one year, if it is a board appointment or Chairman's discretion.  Ms. Guillet stated she is not sure what it is.  It's an element of the governing board's bylaws that said Seminole County will be offered a seat.  That came out of the meeting at the end of February.  She just wanted to make sure there was an interest in doing that before they got deeper into the structure.  The Chairman stated they will find out the terms and then make the appropriate appointment.  The Chairman inquired if there was any objection, and no objections were voiced.




Ms. Guillet reminded one of the things they talked about at the recent retreat was the sales tax and starting discussions on where they want to go with that next.  She reported there was a Mayors and Managers meeting, and she did bring up the issue.  There was support to start those conversations.  They are trying to find a meeting date in April so they can talk about that and also talk about the American Rescue Plan direct assistance.




Ms. Guillet stated Ms. Hammock previously distributed an email regarding the Impact Fee Advisory Committee for the School Board.  They put together the composition of that board and have given Seminole County two seats.  That is in addition to the staff representation on that committee.  She will be asking the Board to name those two people at the next meeting.  They only had one seat last time, and it was the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.  It is her understanding it is not elected officials; it's other representatives.  She requested the Commissioners start thinking about that.




Ms. Guillet reminded there is a new protocol for meetings starting on April 13th.  There will be work sessions in the morning and then the regular meeting in the afternoon, so the actual BCC meeting will start at 1:30.  The work sessions scheduled for April 13th include impact fees, mobility fee update, and some Land Development Code items. 




Commissioner Dallari requested a work session about SunRail.  They are getting to the point where some decisions have to be made about terms, and he wants to make sure the Board is giving him proper direction so he represents them correctly; and he would like to discuss that in a work session.  Chairman Constantine stated the next SunRail meeting is on April 29th so this is time sensitive.  He directed staff to put that on the April 13th meeting as well.  Commissioner Dallari stated that way, staff can brief the Commissioners individually.




Commissioner Dallari suggested they do not need an emergency management update at every meeting unless something has happened.  They are getting emails throughout the week, there are videos, and there are Zoom meetings.  Discussion ensued. 


Commissioner Lockhart stated she will consider this morning's update as the work session the Board voted to have that they did not have. 


Ms. Guillet requested clarification so she understands what the Board's expectation is.  Chairman Constantine responded they would like an update if there is new information and much shorter reports coming from the staff.  Commissioner Dallari added his takeaway was they don't need an update at every meeting unless there is something that has happened.  The Chairman advised Ms. Guillet to use that as a guide when putting together the agenda.  He inquired if anyone disagreed with that, and no objections were voiced.




District 5


Commissioner Herr recognized Dr. Terry McCue, Environmental Services Director, and the Utilities business office team.  A citizen identified a process that had opportunity for improvement, and the team jumped in the mix and improved the process so there will be better customer service in the future.




The Commissioner recognized Alan Harris, Emergency Management Director.  A citizen suggested that the County's education around 911 texting was not robust enough.  That was brought to Emergency Management's attention, and it has already been rectified, so the website is now more robust in giving citizens information.




Commissioner Herr reported on Rescue Outreach Mission.  Progress is continuing to be made.  New officers were elected at the last meeting, and they did bring in the consultant who has visited a couple of times this week.  They are also doing a collaborative discussion with the Sharing Center because there are opportunities there that are worth exploring.




The Commissioner stated Katrina Shadix, Bear Warriors United, requested possibly getting the Realtors to educate citizens about bears, but the Commissioner didn't think the placement on the Realtors was appropriate.  However, the opportunity for government to step in and provide education is real.  Through a combination of Property Appraiser David Johnson, who has stepped up and offered to assist since he has the data, and the Orlando Regional Realtor Association, who has offered to lend their creative people to build what will be sent out, they will be doing a bear awareness initiative where mailings will be sent to new residents in the bear-sensitive locations.  That is in the works.  It will require very little time and effort on the County's part initially.  The Commissioner expressed her gratitude to everyone involved.




District 2


Commissioner Zembower advised staff is working on a JPA with Casselberry.  Casselberry has also asked to discuss trail connectivity.  The City is also inquiring again about the property with the water/cell phone tower. 




The Commissioner reported on Sanford Airport passenger counts.  He advised a discussion has been happening regarding Red Cleveland and Lake Mary Boulevard.  When they make any kind of decision, they will have that discussion and bring it before the BCC for consideration. 



Commissioner Zembower reported the Central Florida Zoo is doing well.  Attendance has been up.  However, they are canceling some fundraisers because they are not able to be held.




The Commissioner stated a good time ago they decided to enter into an agreement with a company on a prescription management review process with the interest of saving the County money, and he would like staff to give an update.  He inquired if the Board was okay with that, and no objections were voiced.




Commissioner Zembower stated he would like to have some discussion about benchmarking updates on the recent energy management audit award.  He would like the Board updated on what kind of work product or recommendations there will be on that RFQ.  Chairman Constantine suggested a quarterly report, and Commissioner Zembower responded he would like a quicker report than that because of Five Points.  The Chairman then suggested every two months.  Commissioner Zembower stated maybe staff could reach out to the individual firm and ask them what they think would be appropriate.


Commissioner Lockhart inquired if they had a contract with that firm yet and if reporting is outlined in it.  Ms. Guillet responded she is not sure of the status of the contract.  Commissioner Lockhart stated it might be important, if the contract hasn't already been signed and negotiated, to work into the contract whatever type of reporting the Board wants so the expectation is set at the front end.  Ms. Guillet agreed that is a good idea. 


Chairman Constantine requested the County Manager give an update on that at the April 13th meeting.  Ms. Guillet responded she will get some information and email all of the Commissioners to let them know what the status is.  She inquired if an email update on the PCM contract is sufficient.  No objections were voiced.  Commissioner Zembower stated he does think it's important on taxpayer dollar saving measures to share that with the public, and that can be done in a district report or a county manager report.




Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Daniel Priest as the citizen to the Contractor Examiner Board for one year starting January 2021.


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


District 1


Commissioner Dallari wished Ms. Mary Ellen Strohaker's a happy birthday.  She will be 105 on April 7th. 




The Commissioner advised he has received a request from Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida Forest Service, and the Charles H. Bronson State Forest Management Plan Advisory Group to participate in a virtual public meeting on March 29th.  He noted it is not the same group that Commissioner Zembower is a part of. 




Commissioner Dallari stated he would like consensus from the Board to have staff keep them abreast of what is going on in Orange County with Lake Pickett North.  He thinks it's important for staff to keep the Board up to speed on that and for them to have Board direction for that.  No objections were voiced.




The Commissioner stated at one point they did talk about Five Points post-COVID.  He wants to make sure they look at whatever changes need to be made due to the pandemic instead of waiting until after it's built.  Ms. Guillet requested clarification that the Commissioner is talking about the design of the annex.  The Commissioner responded they are doing a project out there now.  He wants to make sure as they move forward with that post-pandemic that after they start building this thing, whatever it is, they don't look at it and say they should have done this or this because of the pandemic.  There are a lot of new things that have changed because of all of the circumstances in the world.  Chairman Constantine asked if the request is that the County Manager provides the Board with updates on that.  Commissioner Dallari responded, no.  He is asking the County Manager and her staff to get with the professionals, the architect and construction people, to see about all of the things that are happening in the world with COVID-19, and to make sure that whatever post-pandemic changes need to be made are being addressed.


Commissioner Zembower stated it almost sounds like they are going to ask for a scope of service change to the contract.  Commissioner Dallari responded unless they know what those changes may be, they can't make a scope of change.  Staff would talk to the consultants, the architect and construction people, to say now that the pandemic is here, what things have changed that should be addressed.  Staff will be given a list, staff will report back to the Board, and then they may have to ask for scope of service.  There may or may not be anything. 


Commissioner Zembower stated he would like to know what the cost associated with that inquiry might be.  Ms. Guillet advised they can certainly ask what would be involved.  The Chairman asked if anybody had a problem with the County Manager asking what would be involved, and no objections were voiced.


District 4


Motion by Commissioner Lockhart, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to reappoint David Evans for a two-year term on the Agriculture Advisory Committee, Imogene Yarborough for a two-year term on the Historical Commission, Barbara Hilderbrand for a two-year term on the Library Advisory Board, and Dana McBroom for a four-year term on the Seminole County Port Authority (SCOPA).


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


District 3


Chairman Constantine reported the Florida Association of Counties is starting to have meetings with executive boards of other organizations.




The Chairman advised on March 11th the Central Expressway Authority had a Brightline update, and they are now looking at five years from the airport to Disney. 




Chairman Constantine announced the dates of various upcoming meetings and events.




Chairman Constantine advised there is a request from CareerSource Central Florida regarding reappointments to their board of directors.


Motion by Commissioner Zembower, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to reappoint David Sprinkle, nominated by Leadership Seminole, and Dr. John Gyllin, nominated by Seminole State College of Florida, to the CareerSource of Central Florida Board of Directors.


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



The Chairman stated since he is now the Expressway Authority's member of MetroPlan, the BCC needs to appoint either Commissioner Herr or Commissioner Lockhart as the new alternate to MetroPlan.  Commissioner Zembower suggested, regardless of who decides to be the alternate, that there is fantastic transportation-related training coming which covers funding from the federal level all the way down to the local level.  He opined that even if you aren't on the board, it is fantastic information to have.  Commissioner Lockhart suggested Commissioner Herr would have the shortest learning curve because she served on the Expressway Authority, and Commissioner Herr agreed.  Without objection, Chairman Constantine appointed Commissioner Herr as the alternate to MetroPlan Orlando.  Commissioner Zembower commented he will have his assistant email the training information.




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


1.            Letter dated February 22, 2021 to the BCC from John A. Gyllin, Executive Director, Foundation for Seminole State College of Florida, Inc. thanking the Board for the CARES Act Program investment/gift in the amount of $33,509.23. 

Public Comment on Items Not Related to the Agenda


Bill Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, advised the Orlando VA medical system is providing COVID vaccinations for all veterans who are enrolled in the system, regardless of age.  Those that are not enrolled in the system are not eligible, but they should contact the service officers at their American Legion and VFWs because they can get great assistance on getting into that program.  He requested that somehow be passed on to the veterans.  Commissioner Herr requested that information be posted on the website with a link to the VA.  No objections were voiced.




Wafa Esposito, 5040 Hawks Hammock Way, addressed the Board to thank them for considering the items on the agenda today.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m., this same date.