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