BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARCH 28, 2017
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 28,
2017, 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 Brenda Carey (District 5)
Commissioner
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner
Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Clerk of Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy
County
Manager Nicole Guillet
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Kyla Spencer
Deputy Clerk Terri Porter
Dr. Dwayne Mercer, Crosslife Church, Oviedo,
gave the Invocation. Commissioner Dallari
led the Pledge of Allegiance.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The
Business Spotlight video for Gittess Orthodontics was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – 2016-572
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the week of April 9th – 15th, 2017
as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Seminole
County Sheriff Dennis Lemma and Office of Emergency Management Director Alan
Harris addressed the Board and thanked Seminole County telecommunicators and the
Public Safety staff for all of their hard work.
-------
Agenda Item #2 – A-3271-17
Edward
Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Lynx, addressed the Board and noted Ms.
Tiffany Homler, who is over the external affairs planning functions, is present
as well. Mr. Johnson presented a
PowerPoint presentation entitled “Seminole County Update” (copy received and
filed) and reviewed Major Emphasis. He
pointed out that he had asked
Nicole Guillet, County Manager,
if Lynx could brief the Board at least two or three times a
year so Lynx isn't coming
before the Board only on days
they are asking for money. Mr. Johnson_%_Johnson stated in regard to service efficiency,
there are certain
requirements Lynx must go
through in order to achieve on-time performance. He
discussed partnerships and noted reaching out to the University of Central
Florida, Valencia Community College,
and soon Seminole Community _%_College. Mr.
Johnson stated they
will be incorporating new technology to improve customer confidence in the Lynx system. He
explained Lynx made a
commitment to serve on at least two boards within the community, and they will
make sure that one of those boards is an organization that has a dependency on Lynx.
Mr. Johnson reviewed Ridership
by Mode and explained why
ridership goes down when gas prices go down.
He discussed SunRail Connectivity and Vision 2030 Plan adding _%_Lynx has to provide services with vehicles that
meet the demand of the particular area that they are looking to expand in. Lynx
will be coming back to their board later this year to talk about improving frequencies along the
roads, expanding services in areas that currently do not have services; but
they are going to do it in such a way that it is representative of the
characteristics of that community. Mr. Johnson discussed Route
Optimization.
In regard
to the Paratransit - Mobility
Management slide, Mr. Johnson stated riders do not always need to be picked
up with the large paratransit vehicles, so as the State continues to work through its transportation
network company's
regulations, Lynx will look at
incorporating Uber and Lyft into their operations which
will hopefully provide cost savings for Lynx to reinvest in expanding services. He reviewed Wireless Internet Access on Buses
and noted there has been a lot of positive feedback. Mr. Johnson discussed Real-time Next Vehicle
on Fixed Route, Real-time on Neighborlink and Real-time on ACCESSLYNX. He stated these are apps where riders can
track their bus real-time and explained how that is helpful. The beta test begins in April and Lynx is
hoping to roll it out in late spring or early summer. Mr. Johnson reviewed Mobile Fare Payment and
pointed out it will start out as a “flash pass” but will eventually be
developed as an electronic reading system.
He explained how the mobile fare payment could save riders money due to
the fact they won’t be able to lose an electronic bus pass.
Chairman
Horan asked if Lynx has ironed out the communication
problems regarding the move
to m_,21_anaged care. Mr.
Johnson explained Medicaid has since moved away from
the transit providers and the State
is now handling that through another provider system. Lynx
only operates paratransit with Americans
with Disability Act as well as the Transportation Disadvantaged Program that is offered through the
State of Florida.
In
closing, Mr. Johnson recognized Commissioner Henley for serving over 15 years
on the Lynx board and thanked the Board for their services to the Lynx
organization.
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners at 10:10 a.m., and convened as the U.S. Highway
17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
U.S. HIGHWAY 17-92 CRA
Agenda Item #3 – A-2825-16
Tricia Setzer, Chief Administrator, Office
of Economic Development and Community Relations, addressed the Board to present
a request to either approve a Redevelopment and Construction Grant to 17‑92
Five Points, LLC, in the amount of $740,000, for demolition of the former Flea
World site, located at 4311 South U.S. Highway 17‑92, Sanford; or approve
a Redevelopment and Construction Grant to 17‑92 Five Points, LLC, in the
amount of $1,380,039, for demolition and utility connections needed in
preparation of redevelopment of the former Flea World site, located at 4311
South U.S. Highway 17‑92, Sanford; and adopt the associated Resolution
implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17-009 appropriating funding from
the U.S. 17-92 CRA Trust Fund, Reserve for Capital Improvements.
Ms. Setzer explained after hearing feedback
at the March 14, 2017, BCC meeting, staff has revised the award payout schedule. For both the demolition proposal and the demolition and utilities proposal,
the 20% up-front payment has been removed
so _--1_as not
to _-01_put taxpayer dollars at risk. The
ad valorem taxes paid _-71_on the project
property as reflected in
the total 2016 real
estate ad valorem taxes
proposed by the Seminole County Tax Collector
shall serve as the initial base year for _-P1_award
pay_-S1_out purposes.
Upon payment _-Y1_of the ad valorem taxes due
on the project property, Five Points,
LLC, may request an award payout which is the equivalent of
five times the amount of
the increase in
the total real estate ad valorem taxes paid on the project property over that
which was paid the prior year.
Additionally, the increase
must be attributed to the assessed _-1_value
of the new vertical
construction associated
with the project.
Ms.
Setzer stated whatever the ad valorem
increase is due to vertical construction above that of the previous year, Five Points, LLC,
may draw down five times that increase for the designated period. This
phased award payout will be based
on a five year return on investment
and payment shall not exceed
the maximum payout award.
The formula set forth may be repeated
for _-Ó1_up to
five years or until maximum
award payout is reached, whichever occurs first.
In five
years if the entirety
of the award is not
reached, Five Points, LLC, will forfeit
the_-ď1_ balance.
Ms.
Setzer expressed this payment schedule
safe_-ő1__-ö3_guards taxpayer dollars by
ensuring grant payout is not
executed without _.%1_guarantee of actual
vertical construction.
Because the public benefits stemming from the proposed redevelopment
activities would be the vertical
construction, staff recommends that if the CRA
awards grant funding for demolition costs, utility costs, or both,
that the award payment
be connected to the realization of
such benefit. Ms. Setzer stated staff believes that
the_.U2_ demolition of the
existing structures on site provides
a clear public benefit through the reduction of blight along the corridor. Additionally, the
demolition activities will contribute to the accomplishment of the longer range site redevelopment goals. As such, staff _.w1_recommends
that the CRA
award 100%
of the site demolition costs
in the amount of $740,000, for demolition needed in preparation of the
redevelopment of the former Flea
World _%_site to be awarded on a phase basis as detailed in
the G_.†2_rant Agreement.
Rocky
Harrelson, 225 Carolina Way, addressed
the Board and asked if the Board plans to extend the CRA program. Chairman
Horan answered the Board hasn't decided that yet. Mr.
Harrelson stated the projected value of the Flea World property is $9,175,401 and the Applicant expects the property
value to be $141,000,410 after they are through with the development. He
asked why a taxpayer should support a development that is going to turn $9
million into $141 million because the Applicant will go on with the
development whether or not
they receive the $2 million that is being requested. He suggested other ways the County could use CRA money and discussed affordable
housing. Chairman
Horan noted the _1R2_money that
is _1V3_utilized for the CRA has
to _1_1_come from
tax _1b1_increment increases and the
trust fund that is in the _%_CRA, so the
County can't use
that money outside
of the CRA.
Doreen Freeman, 705 Mellonville
Avenue,
addressed the Board and
explained she would like to remind the Board
that _%_the
City of Sanford allocated money for _%_Gateway, the development next to City Hall. The parcels are still pretty much vacant, and Ms. Freeman feels
that is a waste. _%_She urged the Commission to think twice before delegating tax dollars
for developers who may or may not honor their commitments. Commissioner
Carey stated the change in
the payout request that Ms. Setzer described is the insurance
that would ensure that there is no payout of the CRA funds until such time as the Applicant has gone vertical and
there is incremental value of that. If five
years from now nothing
is _2Ć1_built
out there, the Applicant _2É1_doesn't
receive any money. Ms.
Freeman asked if the money is going to be allocated before
they do the
development. Commissioner
Carey answered it would be
allocated in the CRA funding
but it will not be paid to the developer until such time as they've gone vertical,
made application and have a large enough investment.
With regard to public participation, no one
else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Agenda Item #3 and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Carey reminded that the unanimous recommendation of the RPA board was
for _3ť5_$1,380,000
because the application does
allow for utilities to be included in
that. Chairman Horan discussed an email he received
from the Applicant, Syd Levy, and requested more information on that. Randy Morris, 323
West Trotters Drive_3ä1_,
consultant for the Applicant, addressed the Board and
stated the Board has a Development Order for this project so they know what can be built and
what can't be built in a general sense. He explained about two years ago
whe_4X1_n the
Applicant was making application,
they were negotiating the Development Order and working with staff. Staff approached the Applicant
regarding Spine Road. At
the _4Ż1_same time
the Applicant
was coming forward, _4µ1_DOT was coming
forward with the widening of U.S.
17-92 to six lanes. The Applicant
had _4Ç1_a light
and _4Ę1_a signal
on _%_U.S.
17-92 in one location_4Ň1__4Ó1_, and DOT and the _4Ô1__#_County
wanted him to move
that location, which t_4Ü1_he Applicant
did not have to do. Mr. Morris stated they chose to
move the road to
accommodate the County's new
entrance with the _4í2_widening
because the County was losing an entrance at Five Points.
Mr.
Morris explained in additional
discussions with the _511__%_County
in regard to Spine Road, it
was established that the
County wanted the Applicant to run that route to _%_Hester Avenue
to connect with the Five Points entrance at U.S.
17-92 going over to Hester Avenue on _%_Ronald Reagan
Boulevard, which the Applicant was under no obligation to do. That connection would elongate
the original road by almost 50%. To
make the connection under engineering principles required by
the County, it cut right next
to the wetlands. So
the Applicant
approached the County
and asked if the County would participate in
building the road if it was built where the County wanted it. At the
time, it was estimated to cost $1.8 million to build a
two-_5Ó1__5Ó1_lane road to Count_5×1_y standard. Consequently,
the Applicant entered _5ě1_into an
agreement with
the County in
which the County would
fund up to 50%
of the cost_6#2_, capped at $900,000. Upon the
engineering being done,
the field research being
done, the mock roads being
done, work with St. Johns, and work with the
environmentalists, the estimated cost in the field went through the roof. Mr.
Morris continued, the Applicant then brought in another _6a3_engineer to value engineer the engineer’s work_6h1__6i1__6j1__6k1__6l1_ trying to figure out a way
to get the cost down and
they have not been successful. So now the Applicant has to look at it from _61_a pure
checkbook issue, and figure out if they go forward
with an agreement with
the_61_ County that is capped at $900,000
or put it where it was originally planned at a much lower
cost and save
money.
Mr.
Morris stated these are two different
issues. This application is the
largest redevelopment in the history of
Seminole County and the
largest redevelopment in terms of _%_U.S.
17-92, and is exactly why
the CRA was setup. The
road is a different
application that they agreed
to _723_over a year and a half ago with the County. However, money is fungible and
bills are really fungible
in _7I1_terms of
cost_7L1_. Mr. Morris explained Mr. Levy approached him and said he can't see building the road without the grant _7…4_being approved for the full amount that is
being requested ($1,380,039). He
expressed that the Count_7™1_y will
have expenses _7 1_if the
Applicant doesn't build the
road_7¦1__7§1_ because the County
ha_7«1_s made decisions
with the community to put a signal in
at _7µ1__%_Hester Avenue. Mr. Morris pointed out that is not demanded in the agreement with the County. The
Applicant has to put the signal in when the road is built, which is about
$350,000 to $400,000 alone; but the County
is going to have that expense if the Applicant doesn't build the road.
Mr.
Morris stated the Board has done
a lot of CRA applications
in the past and staff has told the Applicant
that this is the most thorough
application they have seen. The
Applicant has had David Johnson, Seminole County
Property Appraiser, re_8G1_view the
application and assist with some of the estimates in terms of what the projections
would be.
Mr.
Morris thanked Deputy County Manager
Bruce _%_McMenemy for the diligent work he did in terms of negotiating
a payout schedule
which is a guarantee that construction must occur
and tax dollars will not be
at _81_risk because
the County will have a return on investment. He
clarified the return on investment is four years, which is one of the most rapid paybacks on anything that the _%_County has done with the CRA. He
reiterated it is guaranteed or the Applicant will not collect the money.
Mr.
Morris stated he has
discussed this issue with the
Board individually and on the
public record. _%_He mentioned clients don't
always follow consultants’ advice, and he has advised the Applicant he should build the road
at the County's preferred
location but it is the Applicant's checkbook.
Commissioner Carey expressed she can see w_%_here Mr. Levy is coming from
and he is the only one
that has any skin in the game. She stated he has owned that piece
of land
for a long time
and has been a good steward
of it. He was very
creative in making the land work
for him, and he is doing exactly
what the CRA was set
up _9°1_to do,
making application
for things that are allowed _9ż1_under the CRA. She noted it is the largest catalyst
project that the
County has done and will
ever do because there
isn't any land of that
size with this opportunity
on _9ŕ1_it
left in Seminole County. She
reiterated that she
can understand why Mr. Levy
wouldn't develop _9í1_the road
if _9đ1_he
is not getting any support
from the County.
Commissioner
Carey explained if
the _%_County wants someone _:$1_to build
a road, they partner _:,1__:-1_with different people to _:01_come in
where they are going to do
something; and if the County wants
it to be bigger, at
a different intersection
or a different configuration,
the County makes a contribution toward the
construction of that in
order to best _:S2_benefit the
public.
If the County is spending public dollars
and they have to do
it _:`1_on
their own, then it costs more money than if they had partnered with _:k1_a private
individual.
She opined that there are a lot
of _:v1_great merits
about the CRA application and
noted that she is pleased with the _:‘1_payout
option that has been
negotiated by Mr. McMenemy and staff with the Applicant_:ˇ1_.
Chairman
Horan stated there is basically no _:1_risk on
behalf of the County
because the verticality and the verification has to occur
before any of the money
is _:Â1_paid,
and Ms. Guillet responded that is
correct. Mr. Morris
explained he and Mr. _%_Levy had
a _:Ó1_conversation with Commissioner Constantine
where Mr. Morris was _:Ú2_drilled on the issue of
the roadway; and_:ć1_; and Mr. Levy committed
to building the roadway if he gets the $1.38 million, even though it's at risk to him.
Chairman Horan pointed out that these are two separate issues. Mr.
Morris stated the roadway
development agreement expires at the
end _;a1_of the year. Part
of the construction has started
on the roadway
but it is at a southern
location where the _;z2_preferred route
would be if they didn't
buil_;„1_d the
roadway. Chairman
Horan_;‡1_ explained that is an
incentive agreement, a public-private
partnership based upon the Count_;›1_y's
contribution for what will essentially be a public-private _;§1_purpose road. The risk is
on the developer whether the risks go up or down.
With regard to the CRA grant,
tha_;Ď1_t is
a _;Ň1_grant program.
The grants are not fixed to
completing a particular
improvement. The grant
is _;î3_limited to
certain parameters
und_;ř1_er the County's requirements under the _%_CRA. He noted whether the cost _<$1_of what
a _<'1_grant is given
for goes _<.1_up or
goes down, that
is what the grant is, one way or the other. Mr.
Morris agreed and added the
developer has to provide
receipts to County
staff that they _<J1_review
regarding the work that
gets done. Ms. Guillet
stated it is a
not-to-exceed reimbursement so it's based
on cost. Mr. Morris clarified a grant generally is money handed to somebody, as the
federal government does all the time for some theoretical purpose. This
is not theoretical, this is actual physical infrastructure for the project, and then the County has to accept the receipts. It
is the same way on the road project; the County
will inspect the road that
has to be built_<—1_ to
County _<š2_standard and then
the County eventually takes it over._< 1__<ˇ1__<˘1__<Ł1__<¤1__<Ą1_
Chairman Horan stated
these are grants that are not only requirements of the CRA, but they are conditioned _<»2_based upon what
is going _<Á1_to happen
to the development itself_<Č1_. He reiterated that what_<â1_ever the grant _<ĺ1_is,
it is going to be _<ę2_conditioned upon the verticality
of the development and paid in
proportion to the _<÷1_increase
in the ad valorem tax_=#1_ation, which
is the whole _='1_idea of
the CRA. It's
tax_=/1_-increment financing. He
expressed his concern is with the numbers.
Mr. Morris reminded
the Board that the original _=L1_application was for $2.4
million just for the sheer scope and
size_=X1__=Y1_ of the project. Staff had advised him
that the Board was
not too enamored with
paying for landscaping and entrance features, so _=m1_he revised
down_=r1_ward. He
pointed out the Board has given grants of
significant size and greater than the
staff recommendation here
for far less in the past
so he thinks by proportionality, relative
to _=Ž1_the size of the project, this is actually
a _=—2_minimum request
and one that the _%_Applicant has cut by
50%_=ˇ1__=˘1_.
Commissioner Carey
explained under the
typical rules for these grants, they could be
entitled to 20% of the
payout right now because the demolition
work is already _=Í1_done. But staff has
re_=Ů1_negotiated this so that there is no payout until their
whole infrastructure is in
and they go vertical. They
are applying for things that are allowed under the grant. She discussed how successful CRA redevelopment projects like Altamonte
Springs and Casselberry provided the utilities
and how it is not uncommon for CRAs to provide those things which
is why the application
allows for it.
Commissioner Dallari
asked what happens to
the application if the road isn't built.
Ms. Guillet answered the application is
based on a plan that contemplates the road being constructed.
The County has entered into a
cost-share agreement for
that road being constructed,
which is what the application
predicated on and that is the plan
that was submitted. She
explained because
staff hasn't discussed it, she is not sure what not building that
road does _>Ú1_to the overall
project. So
the Board would be
approving a grant that
would involve a modification to the Development
Plan if they didn't
build the road.
Commissioner
Carey_?k1_ stated the
road is not part of the Development
Order. She specifically asked staff about it
and they came back and said that the road agreement_?1__?‚1__?1_ is outside
even of the
approved Development Order. The
Applicant could develop tomorrow based on the Development Order that
they have, and they have no
obligation to do the _?˘1_road
other than the agreement
that the County has to assist in
funding the road, but the Applicant is moving
forward in good faith. Commissioner Carey explained the
Applicant has entered into an
agreement with an anticipation that the County's application allows
for _?ë2_certain requests
that they have requested.
There is nothing that
would keep the
County from _@#2_putting in
the motion that the road
would have to be a
part of the approval. Ms. Guillet
responded if the Board approves the grant based on the application, since
the _@>1_road is
contemplated as part
of the application,
they wouldn't have to make
an affirmative motion to that effect.
Mr. Morris stated
the Applicant has a legal
right to change the site plan at any time. The grant is
not _@v2_tied directly
to the site plan,
the site plan is a rendering. He
reiterated the Applicant has
a right to put the
road pretty much wherever
he wants to put it. Ms. Guillet
explained
the grant agreement references
the _@Ű1_project. The project _@á1_is what
is _@ä2_contemplated
in the grant application which
demonstrates that the
road will be constructed,
so everything is _@ű2_tied to
the project not the Development Order. The
grant application contemplates construction
of _A91_that road.
So if the Board
wants to release
the Applicant
from construction of that
road, they need to make
a note of that
in their motion because it's different than
the grant application.
Mr. Morris clarified there is no requirement
for _Ab1_the
Applicant to accept the
grant, and it is actually a risk to do
the grant. The
issue of not building the road is a financial issue
for the developer and
one that he
is not required _A±1_to do, nor
is he required to take the grant money even
if the County gives
the_AÁ1_ grant money. Ms.
Guillet agreed. She
explained if the developer enters into the
grant agreement,
he is required to construct the project consistent with what
he included in the
grant application, which _Aę1_includes
the_Aí1_ road. She
reiterated the developer is under no obligation to take the grant
money and is not obligated at that point to build the
road_Aú1_. But the
grant application, _B$1_as it's
been presented_B*1_ to the Board
and _B-2_as the grant agreement that they are considering
contemplates, _B21_includes
construction of the road
as a_B92_greed upon
in the cost-share agreement_BA1_. So what was represented in the grant application and what is included as an
attachment and an element of the grant agreement
contemplates construction of that road.
Mr. Morris asked
if the developer _Bx1_signs
the grant agreement,
is he required _B1_to build
the _B„1_road. Ms.
Guillet answered if he wants to collect _B”1_the
award, he has to comply. Mr.
Morris confirmed with _%_Ms. Guillet
that the developer is not required by
signing the grant agreement_B©1_;
but if he wants to collect
any money, then he would have
to _B®1_perform
under the conditions Ms. Guillet
stated. Commissioner Carey noted there are
people that the County has
awarded grants to
who see _BŃ1_all that
they have to go through to _BŘ1_collect the money and
do not come and collect the money.
Syd
Levy, 530 Manor Road, Applicant, addressed the Board to state he sent an e-mail to
the Board to explain what his
position is. When he originally looked at the road for $2 million, it was fine and he decided they would
build the road. Mr.
Levy explained it has cost $450,000
for the wetland exchange, it is going to
cost for the _Ci1_lights.
The retaining
walls are going to cost over $1.5 million because it is so close to
the wetlands,
and the lift station is
just over $1 million. So
to build the road, it
is going to cost _Cˇ1_over $4
million. Mr.
Levy stated he was planning on
going ahead with
the road if h_CÎ1_e received the full grant. He thinks
the road is something that
the _#_County
wants because
it is nice to have the
road joining _D!1__%_CR 427 and going into
the_D%1_ County's property, and that is a good thing. But
whe_D32_n he
is spending dollars _D91_that he
has to account for and come
up _DC1_with the financing,
there is no value
in_DM1_ putting
$4 million extra into that
road if he's
only getting _Da1_a little
bit _De1_of help from the County.
Mr. Levy discussed a similar situation
with the Windsor _DŚ1__#_Square/Park Square _DŹ2_project
across from Ronald Reagan Boulevard. He
expressed he doesn't see how
he can financially afford to put the road in.
Ms.
Guillet stated she understand_Ec1_s where Mr. Levy is coming
from_Ej1_. She explained there was some concern _Er1_with respect
to _Eu2_funding the
utilities because
it is speculative funding that serves
a _E“1_private development and _E–4_it is not
something the County
has done in the past like public
infrastructure projects _EŞ1_including
roads.
She suggested instead
of funding the additional money for utilities, the Board may
want to consider providing that funding
to _EÇ2_supplement the cost, or underwrite the cost, of the _EĎ1_road. Then
the _%_County would
be _EŐ2_getting demolition, which _EÚ1_is truly
removal of blight
and clearly a CRA objective, and they
would also be contributing to the construction of the public infrastructure project, which is the roadway. The Board
could shift that funding
that the Applicant
has requested for the utilities _F)1_to actually
help underwrite the cost of the road
because it has come in significantly
higher than they originally contemplated, and then the County
is paying for actual public infrastructure _FK1_that will belong to the public at the end of the
project.
Mr. Morris stated for
clarification regarding the utility issue,
this is
an incentivized idea to
bring development to U.S. 17-92. Developers
ask _F‹1_if
there is capacity for water and
sewer and is
it _F¤1_site ready.
This proposal
makes it site ready and putting _FŞ2_the utilities in
at the same time as the
road actually has cost savings. He
pointed out they went with Seminole
County utilities and those_FŢ1__Fß1_ utilities will be a revenue maker for the County from a capacity basis,
hookup fees, and everything else that would occur. Commissioner
Carey _%__G\1__G]1__G^1__G_1__G`1_noted the grant does
allow for special site specific needs and if
those funds were
allocated to the road, which is
twice as much as
they thought _G…1_it was going
to be, then all of
the assets for that portion of
it _G’1_become property
of the public. Mr. Morris responded he thinks it is a great idea and has
no preference. Commissioner
Dallari asked if that changes the application, and Ms. Guillet
answered no. She
added they would be developing
the_G°2_ project as submitted
in the grant application.
The final result,
the ultimate development,
would be consistent with the grant application.
Commissioner Carey noted it would be applied when the Applicant
comes back to get the
proceeds. They are required to bring in all of the paperwork
about the road versus the utilities,
and they would still have to go vertical before
the_Gň1_ payout
would occur. Mr. Morris
stated in addition to the utilities, they are also dedicating the water and
sewer lines to the County so it will become County property.
Chairman Horan stated the _Hs1_notion that the County
would be giving a grant
for _H}1_utility
infrastructure or roadway infrastructure that eventually becomes ownership of the _%_County is certainly
more palatable than demolition. Commissioner
Carey _H–1__H—1_responded the demolition eliminates
the blight, which was the whole point of the CRA from the beginning. Chairman
Horan _%_agreed but pointed out that under the CRA, the County has the ability to go ahead and provide grants
where the County
get_Hµ1_s a return
on _H¸1_investment.
Ms. Guillet mentioned some of the concern
about funding the utilities is
that the utilities benefit this specific development. The road will
be _Hď2_available
to everyone in the public
to utilize and it will be a
benefit to not only people
who _I!1_are utilizing
that particular property but that
are accessing the government center. So
directing the funding toward
the _I51_roadway
may _I83_alleviate some of
the Board's concerns with respect to development specific benefit versus _IJ1_general public
benefit.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey to approve the Redevelopment and Construction Grant to 17‑92
Five Points, LLC, in the amount of $1,380,039, for demolition and road
construction needed in preparation of redevelopment of the former Flea World
site, located at 4311 South U.S. Highway 17‑92, Sanford, to be awarded on
a phased basis as contemplated in the associated Grant Agreement.
Chairman Horan called for a second to the
motion, without response, whereupon the motion
died for lack of same.
Commissioner Dallari stated he has spoken with the Applicant
regarding the developer
providing a market-_IĐ1_rate product.
His issue is if the market rate bears
it, then let the market bear
it. Commissioner Dallari opined the issue
about the road
is _Ií1__Iî1_another issue altogether_Iő1_, so he isn't giving that any thought. But
he does have issues with the
demolition and the utilities.
He also has to give
some thought to Ms. Guillet's suggestion of directing the funding towards the
roadway instead of the utilities.
Commissioner Constantine agreed that the road and
the_Jv1_ CRA are separate
issues. A road is
going to be built for
that project _JŽ1_one way
or the other, but he believes the best location for
that road eventually will
be _JŁ1_found to
be where the County
has suggested.
He
stated the Board should not be discussing
the _J¶1_road when they are talking
about the CRA. Commissioner
Constantine explained how the
CRA is different from any other structure that the County uses._KZ1_ He discussed the Altamonte _%_Springs, Casselberry
and Sanford CRAs and how those areas are very constricted
and different from U.S. 17-92. Commissioner Constantine stated the County can_K»1__KĽ1__K˝1__Kľ1_ look at what
is _KĘ2_dilapidated and what will
help in bringing forth
additional development along
the_Kß2_ entire route, not _Kă1_just at
the_Kć1_ location, and that will
be the removal_Kó3_ of
the debris.
He agreed with the
recommendation of staff and the development of the criteria
that they did.
Motion
by Commissioner Constantine to approve the Redevelopment and Construction Grant
to 17‑92 Five Points, LLC, in the amount of $740,000, for demolition of
the former Flea World site, located at 4311 South U.S. Highway 17‑92,
Sanford, to be awarded on a phased basis as contemplated in the associated
Grant Agreement.
Chairman Horan called for a second to the
motion, without response, whereupon the motion
died for lack of same.
Commissioner Dallari
stated the reason he is not _Lq2_supporting the motion
is because he do_Lx1_es not know the product
that the County is getting. Commissioner
Constantine opined staff came up
with a reasonable recommendation and that's
why _L¨1_he
was _LŞ3_suggesting that. He
pointed out that until the tax valuation goes up, that is _LÍ1_all the
developer is going to get. Commissioner
Dallari reiterated if
it is what the market bears, then let
the_Lç1_ market bear it.
Commissioner Carey explained
the developer isn't going
to _Lř1_know the exact product that_M$1_ ends up getting built until they
are a little closer to
going vertical. The market studies that are done _M31__M41__M52__M71_will show how many bedroom apartments are
needed, rent factors, and what the people
in the demograph_MN1_ic can
afford to pay. Every
development that occurs in
S_M\1__M\1_eminole County
is market
driven at a market-driven rate,
otherwise developers wouldn't put their money in and build. She
opined all projects
start that way and
as _M2_things
change and things develop, the market will dictate what goes
in_M”1_.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at
11:00 a.m.; reconvening at 11:10 a.m.
Motion
by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to no
date certain, the request to approve the Redevelopment and Construction Grant
to 17-92 Five Points, LLC, in the amount of $740,000, for demolition needed in
preparation of redevelopment of the former Flea World site, located at 4311
South U.S. Highway 17-92, Sanford, to be awarded on a phased basis as
contemplated in the associated Grant Agreement; and adoption of the associated
Resolution implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17-009 appropriating
funding from the U.S. 17-92 CRA Trust Fund, Reserve for Capital Improvements.
Discussion ensued regarding when the i_%_item should come back to the Board. Chairman Horan stated
the Board needs some certainty as
to _NÇ1_what this
project is going to
look_NĎ3_ like,
what is actually going
to be built and when it is going
to be built. He added the Board needs_O(1_ more certainty from the developer
as _O01_to exactly
what the developer is going
to go forward _O91_with regardless
of what the
Board _O@1_grants
at this particular time. Commissioner Carey explained there
is a Development
Order _OI1_that outlines what the
project is going to look like;
and _ON2__OV1_this early in the game, the developer is
not in a position to say exactly _OZ1_what is
going to happen which
is why the Development Order is as flexible as it is.
The Development _%_Order
does not call for the _O{1_road to
be built from U.S.
17-92 to Hester Avenue.
Chairman Horan responded that is another clarification that
the Board needs.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey noted she
would like to see
that this Item comes
back sooner verses later because it is only fair to
the developer for _Oˇ1_the
Board _OŁ1_to vote
one way or the other
so _OŻ1_the developer can move on with
what they are doing. Commissioner
Henley agreed. Commissioner
Carey stated staff was
not _PB2_recommending the $1.3
million when the Technical Advisory Committee
approved it or when
the RPA approved
it_P]1_, but the Board doesn't
always take a staff recommendation. Commissioner
Constantine noted it is fair to the citizens that the Board gets it right, not just to the developer.
Commissioner Dallari’s ex parte
communication regarding this item was received and filed.
-------
Chairman
Horan adjourned the meeting of the U.S. Highway 17-92 Community Redevelopment
Agency at 11:18 a.m., and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
County
Manager, Nicole Guillet, announced there is one addition, Item #22A, which is a
request to approve a Resolution to redefine the period for the local state of
emergency for Hurricane Matthew so that the County can get the maximum FEMA
reimbursement. Commissioner Constantine
requested Items #15 and #19 be pulled for separate discussion.
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:
County Manager’s Office
Animal Services
Division
4. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement for Pet Licensing
Services between Seminole County and Pet Alliance of Greater Orlando, Inc. (A-3379-17)
5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an Interlocal Agreement for Mobile Veterinary Services between Seminole County
and Pet Alliance of Greater Orlando, Inc.
(A-3380-17)
Community Services
Community Development Division
6. Approve and accept the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61. (A-3382-17)
Development
Services
Building
Division
7. Approve the issuance of a Notice of Determination
that the unoccupied building located at 1st Avenue, Sanford, is a Public
Nuisance; and authorize the Building Official to: (a) serve Notice of this
determination, pursuant to Sections 168.5 and 168.6, Seminole County Code; and
(b) set a date for a "Show-Cause" public hearing, as prescribed in
Sections 168.5-168.7, Seminole County Code, based on the Building Official’s
certified findings. (A-3248-17)
8. Approve the issuance of a Notice of Determination
that the unoccupied building located at 3008 E. 20th Street, Sanford, is a
Public Nuisance; and authorize the Building Official to: (a) serve Notice of
this determination, pursuant to Sections 168.5 and 168.6, Seminole County Code;
and (b) set a date for a "Show-Cause" public hearing, as prescribed
in Sections 168.5-168.7, Seminole County Code, based on the Building Official’s
certified findings. (A-3249-17)
Environmental
Services
Solid
Waste Management Division
9. Approve the annual consumer price index
for all urban consumers adjustments (CPI-U) and semi-annual fuel index
adjustments (CPI-F) for residential solid waste collection services, as set
forth in Sections 13(d) and (e) of the Residential Franchise Agreements, with
new rates to become effective on April 1, 2017.
(A-3272-17)
Public
Works
Engineering
Division
10. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute an Interlocal Agreement between Seminole
County and the City of Sanford concerning Oregon Avenue (Rinehart Road to H.E.
Thomas Jr. Parkway, a/k/a CR 46A). (A-3388-17)
11. Adopt
appropriate Resolution #2017-R-39 and authorize the Chairman to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and
Seminole County for the SR 434 at CR 427 intersection improvements. (A-3362-17)
12. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-40;
authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $20,200
between the Florida Department of Transportation and Seminole County; and authorize
the Chairman to execute a County Deed conveying property (Parcel Number 130.1)
needed to construct the SR 429 (Wekiva Parkway) right-of-way project. FDOT FPN
240200-2. (A-3261-17)
13. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-41;
authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement in the amount of $74,800
between the Florida Department of Transportation and Seminole County; and authorize
the Chairman to execute a County Deed conveying property (Parcel Number 131.1)
needed to construct the SR 429 (Wekiva Parkway) right-of-way project. FDOT FPN
240200-2. (A-3264-17)
14. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-42;
authorize the Chairman to execute a Purchase Agreement in the amount of
$594,350 for real property, $9,550 for review appraisal costs for this and
other project parcels, for a total of $603,900 between the Florida Department
of Transportation and Seminole County; and execute a County Deed conveying
property (Parcel Number 124.1) needed to construct the SR 429 (Wekiva Parkway) right-of-way
project. FDOT FPN 240200-2. (A-3378-17)
Resource
Management
Budget
and Fiscal Management Division
15. Pulled
for separate discussion by Commissioner Constantine.
16. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-43
implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17-041 through the 2014
Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to appropriate budget of $300,000 from Reserves
to establish the SR 419 at Osprey Trail (Soldiers Creek) signal project. (A-3339-17)
17. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-44
implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17-042, in the amount of
$1,563,065, through various Water and Sewer Funds to: (1) restructure and
reallocate funding in FY 2016/17 for Water and Sewer Capital projects, a
reduction of $1,578,065 from project budgets is offset by an increase of the
same amount in Capital Improvement Reserves; (2) to appropriate $5,000 from
Fund 40102 Water Connection Fee Capital Improvement Reserves to provide for
connection fee refunds; and (3) to appropriate $10,000 from Fund 40103 Sewer
Connection Fee Capital Improvement Reserves to provide for connection fee
refunds. (A-3350-17)
18. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2017-R-45
implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #17-045 which will (1) establish
budget through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund in the amount of $236,654
for the SR 434 at CR 427 intersection improvement project from Reserves
(CIP#01785150); and (2) re-appropriate budget in the amount of $382,274 through
the 2001 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund from SR 434 I-4 to Rangeline Road
Project (CIP #00205307) to the SR 434 at CR 427 intersection improvement project
(CIP#00205311). (A-3383-17)
County Investment Advisor
19. Pulled for separate discussion by Commissioner Constantine.
Purchasing
& Contracts Division
20. Award
RFP-602702-16/GCM - Term Contract for disaster debris hauling services to
Ashbritt, Inc., Deerfield Beach; Ceres Environmental Services, Inc., Sarasota;
and TAG Grinding Services, Inc., Marietta, GA; and authorize the Purchasing &
Contracts Division to execute the Agreements.
The estimated usage of the contract will be determined at the time of a
disaster. (A-3330-17)
21. Revoke the award
of IFB-602645-16/GCM - Term Contract for ozone treatment equipment system checks
and maintenance with Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc., Freedom, PA; award
the Agreement to FIN-TEK Corporation, Wayne, NJ; and authorize the Purchasing &
Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. The estimated annual usage is $120,000. (A-3320-17)
22. Award RFP-602771-17/TLR - Term Contract for vending
services for hot/cold foods and beverages to Global Vend Services LLC, d/b/a
Blindsters Refreshments, Orlando; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts
Division to execute the Agreement. (A-3342-17)
County Attorney’s Office
22A. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2017-R-46 to redefine the period for the Local State of
Emergency for Hurricane Matthew for the limited purpose of debris removal and
disposal. (A-3435-17)
-------
Consent Agenda Item #15 - (A-3229-17)
Consent Agenda Item #15 is the request to adopt a Resolution amending
Section 3.35 of the Seminole County Administrative Code by establishing that
the County's Financial Advisor is to implement the County's Investment Policy
by determining how the County's public funds are to be invested and to develop
strategies related thereto; requiring the Financial Advisor to submit quarterly
reports to the County; establishing criteria for the selection of the County
Investment Advisor; establishing protocols with the County Clerk's Office as
custodian of the County's funds; providing for an effective date.
Richard
Wright, Esquire, 738 Rugby Street, addressed the Board to state he is counsel
for Grant Maloy, Clerk of Court and Comptroller. Mr. Wright
explained the amendments, which
have gone through a number of iterations, severely impact
the _Ql1__#_Clerk's
ability to carry out his
constitutional and statutory obligations _Q}1_in light
of the sweeping _Q‚2_changes contained therein.
It is the
conclusion of these remarks
that the proposed amendment be opposed
because at best it will interfere
and _Q©1_at worst
it will prevent the Clerk
from fulfilling his legal responsibilities owed to the Seminole
County electorate who placed him
in _QĆ1_office. He
pointed out the Seminole
County Administrative Code _Q×1_does not
apply to the Clerk,
so the amendments being discussed _Qĺ1_with regard
to _Qč4_3.335
wouldn't apply to the Clerk; pursuant
to _Qö1__%_Section 2.2(E)(2) of the
Seminole County Home _R$1__#_Rule Charter, by its own specific terms does not apply to
elected Constitution_R;1_al Officers. Mr. Wright stated he deems it necessary
to _RF1_comment regarding
the amendments because _RK1_of the language
and the issues that are
addressed therein. Article
8 _R]1_of the Florida
Constitution, Section 1(d), acknowledges and recognizes County Officers, the Clerk specifically, as a Constitution_Ry1_al Officer.
Section 28.33 of
the _R„1_Florida Statutes states, _R1__#_"The Clerk of
the Circuit Court _RŽ1_shall invest County
funds in excess of
those required _Rš1_to meet
ex_Rť2_penses
as provided in 218.415
Florida Statute_R®1__RŻ1_s."
In
regard to
218._Rş1_415,
Mr. _%_Wright explained that
is what vests the
Commission with the authority
to _RÎ1_establish an investment _RÓ2_policy or
in_R×2_vestment plan for the County.
The Commission establishes the investment policy
in _Rę1_a manner
consistent with Sections 1
thr_Rő1_ough 15 of
21_Rů1__Rú1__Rű2_8.415, and the Clerk
carries that out. He
added some of those subsections
deal
with investment object_S@1_ive,
performance objective, performance measurement,
ethical standards and so forth.
The
Seminole County Home Rule _S_1__#_Charter
establishes under Section 3.1
the _Si2_duties of
the Constitutional Officers shall not be
alt_Su1_ered by
the _Sx1__#_Home Rule
Charter;
and as mentioned earlier, _S…1__#_Section 2.2(E) expressly states the Administrative
Code shall not apply
to the elected Constitution_Sź1_al Officers, in this case, the Clerk.
Mr. Wright pointed
out _S1_the proposed amendment with
regard to 3.35 does state
an _Sż2_interest in appointing
a County Investment _SĚ3__#_Advisor who would essentially be carrying out
the _SŘ1_powers, duties _SÜ1_and functions
in _Sŕ1_some regard
of _Să1_the Clerk.
This is essentially an
amendment which is existential
in _Só2_its
terms. There
is _Sů2_language within the
amendment where the term "Clerk" is _T71_stricken
and the term "County Investment Advisor_TC1_" is inserted.
Mr. Wright opined nothing could be more
clearly existential.
Chairman Horan asked
if the Clerk were to appoint
his _Ta1_own Investment _Te3__#_Advisor, would he
be _Tl1_doing the same thing.
Mr. Wright answered no. He
explained the terms of the
language amending 3.35 seek _T‚1_to require
the _T…1__#_Clerk to follow
the _TŤ2_directives of the proposed County
Investment _T3__#_Advisor which is quite different than the Clerk _TĄ1_himself appointing
an _TŞ1__#_Investment
Advisor from whom
he takes direction,_T·2_ comments
and _T»2_input. That
is precisely what the Clerk
wants to do.
Chairman Horan opined
that is what the Clerk has done. Mr.
Wright responded there have
been efforts taken to retain PFM
Asset _%_Management, LLC. However,
PFM has
not _U"1_been paid by the Clerk and _U'1__%_PFM
has not engaged _U/1_in any
in_U22_vestment
advising at this point. Mr. Wright noted
Steven Alexander, PFM,
is present and will
be _U@2_addressing specific points
with regard to that
contract, and the issues _UV1_that have
been raised by the
Commission with regard to
that contract will be able to be specifically
addressed in terms of how fees
are _Uj1_paid.
Commissioner
Carey_Ux1_ stated
the Board is amending the County's Administrative
Code w_Uy2_hich says "the Clerk" because
in _UŠ1_1995
the _UŤ1_BCC passed a
Resolution delegating their authority to
do the investments to
the Clerk.
The Clerk _UÂ2_didn't have
the authority to do the investments _UË1_prior to
the _UÎ1_BCC taking this
action in 1995. In
1995_UÚ1_, the
County had a $195,000,000
portfolio and a Clerk
that held a Series 7
license. She
explained she spoke
to some of the Commissioners
who voted on the 1995 Resolution and they stated because of _V%1_the
Clerk_V'1_'s experience and her holding a Series 7 license, they felt she was more
equipped and a better
option than the
BC_VR1_C. The
County's Admin_Vj1__Vk1_istrative Code says
Clerk today because the BCC
delegated that authority to
the Clerk. Mr. Wright stated that is the law
and_V‡1_ the Clerk's interpretation of the law
that the authority by
which he seeks to
act _Vź1_is in
fact from the _VŁ1_Florida Constitution
and _V§1__#_Section 28.33 of Florida _V®2__#_Statutes. Commissioner Carey asked if that was the case, why would the County Commission have to pass a Resolution. Mr. Wright
answered the Commission is entitled to
do anything consistent with the _VË1_Florida Constitution
and _VĎ1_Florida Statutes and that_VÓ2_ determination was completely
consistent with it.
Chairman
Horan opined delegating a power the Board doesn't have would not be
consistent with the Constitution. Mr.
Wright disagreed. Chairman
Horan_Vô1__Vő2__V÷1__Vř1_ asked if _%_Mr. Wright
agrees that the County has
the statutory authority to adopt
an _W+3__#_Investment Policy, and Mr. Wright answered yes. He
added that Investment _#_Policy, pursuant to Section 218.415, must be consistent with that language
as well as the duties of the Clerk
under the Florida Constitution and Section 28.33. Commissioner
Carey noted that is to be the custodian of those
dollars, and Mr. Wright added and to have _Wo1_discretion
within the context
of those items to make those
in_W„2_vestments at the direction and in
a _W‰2_manner that's
consistent with the _W‘1__#_Investment
Policy.
He stated the Clerk's
interest is to get
all _WŻ3_of the proper investment
input that he can.
Chairman
Horan mentioned an e-mail from Mr. John Londot, Greenberg-Traurig Law (copy
received and filed). Mr. Wright
explained there has been an opinion rendered and provided
to the Board_X&1__X'1__X(1__X)1__X*1__X+1__X,1__X-1__X.1__X/1__%__X/1_
from one of the attorneys representing the State Association
of Clerks,
Mr. _%_Londot; and that opinion
specifically lays out the
legal framework by
which the Clerk is
ad_XS2_vancing this
opposition to the language. Chairman
Horan _X]1_responded that opinion says that the Supreme
Court decision is no longer valid because _X1_it was based
on _X1_a Statute
that was changed and
re_XŚ2_numbered,
thus standing for the proposition that anytime the
Legislature wants to invalidate a Supreme Court
decision based upon a statute, all they need
to do is put the same language into
a different position and renumber it. Mr.
Wright expressed he does not
agree and the _XĂ1__#_Clerk does not agree with
the interpretation of the Alachua County v. Powers, Florida
Supreme Court opinion from 1977_Xŕ1_.
Mr.
Applegate asked if the Clerk
has signed a contract with PFM. Mr. Wright
answered yes and explained
the contract is presently being amended to address some concerns which have been raised
by _Yt1_the
Commission.
He stated PF_Y–1__#_M has
over 40 years of
experience in asset management and manages over $100 billion
in _Y¨1_assets.
The amendments
that are being proposed would have
their fees paid from
budgeted funds and they address concerns
raised with regard to
Mr. Maloy's
alleged lack of investment
expertise.
Mr. Wright pointed out the Clerk recognizes that
and he wants to get input
from the best possible
source, and PFM would
appear to be a qualified,
sol_Yó1_id
and reasonable one to do that with
great experience in investment
direction for public entities
such as Seminole County. He affirmed the Clerk wants
to work with the _Z31__#_Commission.
Commissioner
Carey_Z61_ stated, as she reads the
law_ZY1_, the Clerk
does not have the authority
to _Z`2_allocate BCC dollars.
That lies solely with
the BCC. If the Commission is the governing body and the Commission has the fiduciary responsibility to the public to deal with
public funds and to
say _ZÁ1_how those
funds would be _ZĆ1_expended, she asked how the Clerk could_%_could sign a contract where the fees are being
paid from the County Commission funds. Mr. Wright
answered the initial PFM contract is in the process of being amended to address
the funding source of
the fees. Commissioner Carey stated
the Clerk can't sign a contract
to obligate _[%1_the
Count_['1_y Commission
funds.
There are two _[51_sets of
money that
the Clerk has control
over. One is
the Clerk's money_[F1_, the fees
and _[J1_fines that
he holds as Clerk of the Court which are his responsibility by the Florida _[Q2_Statutes,
and the other is the BCC dollars
which are the responsibility
of _[`1_the
BCC.
She explained if the
Board didn't have to delegate
the_[r1_ authority
to have allowed the Clerk to have done the investment on their behalf in
1995, the Board _[‚2_wouldn't have passed
a _[2__#_Resolution to do that.
The word “Clerk” is being stricken because the way it is now, until the
policy is amended, it is still delegated to
the Clerk based on the 1995
resolution.
Mr. Wright stated that is one of the sources, but that
it not the sole source. He added it is not the
case under existing _[Ň1_Florida Constitutional
and _[×2__#_Statutory law that
the_[Ű1_ Commission
has _[Ţ1_the ability
to _[á1_create
a _[ä1__#_County
Investment_[é3_ Advisor
which will essentially
function as a de facto Clerk _[đ1_in the discretionary
investing of the funds
under which the Clerk
is given discretion to
in_\*1_vest in
accord with the _\11__#_Investment
Policy established under the Statute by this Commission.
Mr.
Wright explained a clear reading _\Ś1_of Statute
218.415 in the Preamble _\1_states,
"Investment
activity by a unit of local
government must be consistent with a written
in_\Ą2_vestment plan adopted by the governing
body.” He advised that isn't referencing the same entity.
Commissioner Henley left the meeting at this
time.
Mr. Wright continued, the unit
of _\É1_local government
is _\Ě1_the
Clerk_\Î1_. The governing body
is _\Ö1_the
Commission.
So investment activity by a unit
of _\ä1_local government, the Clerk, must be
consistent with a written
investment plan adopted by the governing body. Chairman Horan asked if
unit of local government is
defined by the Statute. Mr. Wright answered it does not
specifically define “unit of local
government” but he pointed
out, for example, in 218.415(13), the statutory _]Y2_language further supports
this clear interpretation of the two
enti_]e1_ties with
reference to "_]j1__#_the unit of local government's officials responsible for
making investment decisions," which is the Clerk.
Commissioner
Constantine stated there are
some good points being made,
but he does not want this to be an
ad_]1_versarial
position.
He suggested that
the Board let Mr. Wright finish his presentation and then hear staff's presentation, and Commissioner Dallari agreed.
Mr.
Wright stated, as further support,
pursuant to Article 5, Section
16 of the Florida Constitution, the Clerk is
the ex officio Clerk
of the BCC, also _%_auditor,
recorder and custodian of all
of the County funds. As
auditor, he is required by
law to oppose any unlawful expenditure even if it's approved by the BCC. That
is with authority that cites the Florida
Supreme Court opinion of Alachua County v. Powers. Under
Article, 8 Section 1(D) of the Florida Constitution, "[t]he Florida Constitution
creates a system of checks and balances with regard to _%_County expenditures that protects the public funds
from improper disposition." It is the _%_Clerk's responsibility to
carry that out and it can only be altered by County Charter
or _^~1_special law
approved by a vote of those people
who _^‹1_elected
him _^Ź1_in the first
place.
In
closing, Mr. Wright
quoted Ronald Reagan, "I’ve _^¸1_always believed
that a lot of
the troubles of the world could
dis_^Ă2_appear if
we were talking to each other instead of
about each other." He
added it is the interest of
the Clerk for everybody _^Ď1_to work
together on this to
prop_^Ö2_erly invest
and make the proper
decisions under the law
for the benefit of the
people of Seminole County.
Commissioner Henley re-entered the meeting at
this time.
Steven
Alexander, 300 South Orange Avenue,
addressed the Board and
stated he is an investment advisor with PFM that was hired by the Clerk to help with the investments.
He reviewed his qualifications and noted he would be
very helpful in working with the investment__…1___†2___2_ policy to make sure
that the policy is governing under the
three major objectives: safety,
liquidity and yield. He opined one of the reasons the Clerk selected
PFM is
because they manage public funds, and
only public funds, throughout
the__˝2_ entire nation and have been for 40 years.
Mr.
Alexander explained how the fees are applied to the overall portfolio.
There was an analysis
presentation that PFM provided
in a meeting with the Clerk, __đ1___ń1___ň1___ó1___ô1___ő2___÷1___ř1__#___ů1___ú1__%_Chairman,
and a few others that gave some ideas
and _`$1_recommendations
about the investment policies and
procedures that would help the County move
forward in a very positive and professional way.
In doing the analysis, it is _`D1_always very
important to look at a
cash-flow analysis _`O1_to determine
what assets make sense to stay short, to pay for
obligations, to make sure payroll
is _`Z2_taken care
of _`^1_and other
bills necessary_`d1_. The analysis then shows what assets
can be
invested longer term to
take advantage _`s1_of better
interest rates and better
securities. The analysis shows bifurcation _`…1__`†1_between liquidity funds and core portfolio. Mr. Alexander emphasized his fees
apply only to the core portfolio, not to the total assets. PFM does not
charge any asset fees
for _`Ż1_CDs, bank _`˛4_balances,
any type of
pools, any other type of
investment pools that the Clerk
can enter into himself, so there
is _`ż1_no overlapping _`Ă1_in fees.
The fees are
basically half of _`Đ1_the amount
that the Board has been
discussing and has been hearing in
other parts of the county. Mr. Alexander concluded his presentation and made himself
available for questions from the Board.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr.
Alexander that in the contract he
signed with the _a*1__#_Clerk,
his fees are 10 basis
points for the _a41_first $25
million, 8 basis points for the next $25 million, and 7 basis points for
everything over that. Commissioner Carey asked if Mr.
Alexander is saying that it
isn't of the entire $470
million pool today, but only of the $260 million pool that would be
invested. Mr. Alexander
answered he has determined it is
closer to $200 million. Commissioner Carey pointed out in the PFM exhibit, it shows $250 million. Mr. Alexander
explained he has done some
further modifications to that report so he is still trying to streamline it as much as possible as he goes
through the preliminary cash-flow analysis.
Commissioner
Carey_a’1__a“1_ asked if Mr. Alexander
is aware that the contract
the County has currently
executed with their Investment
Advisor is 3 basis points for
the same pot of money, and Mr. Alexander answered he believes the fees are about the
same. He expressed, from what he has heard, they are 3 basis points on all assets and there was a fixed fee of
$150,000. Commissioner
Carey noted she will have that clarified but she wanted to confirm PFM's fees so everybody could understand what the fees
are. Chairman Horan
confirmed with Mr. Alexander that he has not been
retained by Seminole County.
Doreen Freeman, 705 Mellonville
Avenue, addressed the Board and asked the Commission why after so many years is it necessary now for the Board to use an outside
source. She stated there needs to be checks and balances and
the Clerk can provide
that. She
stated she stands behind Mr. Maloy _bâ1__bă1__bä1__bĺ1_who has and
will continue _bę1_to serve
the _bí2_public as
he _bń1_was elected to do and
hopes that the Board
does the same.
Rocky
Harrelson, 225 Carolina Way, addressed the Board and thanked them for putting Item #15 up for public speaking so
quickly. He asked if the Board is dealing with
$470 million, and Mr. Maloy answered it is currently about $452 million. Chairman
Horan noted it varies. Mr.
Harrelson asked what the
minimum is that the Board would like to keep in that account. Commissioner
Carey directed him to the
graph provided by PFM and
explained there is about $250 million
invested at any given time. Chairman Horan explained how the
County's cash-flow
requirements are given by Resource
Management staff to the Clerk's Office on a monthly basis. Mr.
Harrelson discussed reducing
some expenses to the public once the account reached a cap. He stated he is opposed to
the Board taking the
authority away from
the Clerk and
doesn't think using bad decisions
made in the past to justify bad decisions _eĐ1_made today
is _eÚ1_a very
good idea.
H. Alexander Duncan,
P.O. _%_Box 620092, addressed the _%_Board and stated the Board
is talking about putting $500 million in the hands of a private company without _fÝ1_Mr. Maloy having
over_fĺ1_sight of
it_fč1__fé1_, a
private company _g51_making decisions that the citizens elected
the Board to make.
He discussed private developers and local
developments. He advised
he is opposed to this.
Steve
Edmonds, 1022 Vannessa Drive, addressed the Board and stated in 1995 when the BCC
decided to reconcile with the State
Constitution, he was finishing his political
science degree. He explained there was a discussion
in his class that was predicated around the fact
that government_h×1_s in the
system of federalism have to adhere to the different
levels of government, and there are things
that supersede _hô1_local governments. That is the _hú1_whole idea
of the Supremacy Clause and the U.S. Constitution, and that is the _i*1_whole idea
of the State of Florida _i.1__#_having a Constitution. _i91_ One
of the conclusions of
that discussion was that it
was probably a pretty good
idea that the BCC made
that Resolution to give
the constitutional authority _i]1_back to
the _i`1__#_Clerk. He
discussed how checks and balances are
extremely important _i—1_and why
there is a Constitutional Officer that
is elected to check
the _i©1_power
of _i¬1_the
BCC.
He stated he is strongly in opposition to
what h_iů1_e sees as a usurping of the people's power into
a consolidation of power into the
Board. Commissioner
Carey stated Chapter 218 of the Florida Statutes
talks about financial matters
per_j[2_taining to
po_j_1_litical
sub_jb1_divisions and confirmed with Mr. Edmonds that Seminole County is a political subdivision. She
asked Mr. Edmonds if the Clerk is a political
subdivision. He answered it is a Constitutional Office. Commissioner
Carey agreed and discussed Chapter
218, which talks about the responsibility of financial matters pertaining to
political subdivisions. Mr. Edmonds opined
that Article 8 of the Florida Constitution supersedes Chapter 218.
Bruce
McMenemy, Deputy County Manager,
addressed the Board
to state the idea of changing
this policy developed back in February of
2016_kł1_. The reason for
the _k¸1_thought that
the _%_County may
need to change
its policy was the Clerk, Maryanne Morse,
was not going to stay in
office because she was
retiring. There were several people who had filed to run for
office, none of which had any financial experience that matched the prior Clerk's experience in
investing. A discussion was had at a work session in March of 2016 to talk
about what the _%_County was going to
do going forward _l.1_in regard
to _l11__#_Investment
Policy investments.
Mr. McMenemy
explained through that _l<1_process, he reached _lB1_out to
the Clerk multiple
times to discuss _lN1__lO1_it. He had a
meeting with the _lc1__#_Clerk
and she was not open to
any _lp1_discussion about how the policy could
be _lx2_changed in
ord_l|1_er to
have professional financial
advice. Mr. _l„2__#_Maloy attended at
least four meetings, some of which
included Ms. Morse,
where they discussed _lť2_changing the policy
to _lŁ1_have a
Financial Advisor; Mr. Applegate _lŻ3_attended at least two meetings to discuss
potential changes;_lĘ1_ and
the Chairman attended
two _lŘ1_meetings
where the County
attempted to have a
discussion.
Mr. McMenemy stated this policy changes very little. Today
the _lđ1__#_Clerk is the custodian of $452
million. If
this policy is changed,
the Clerk will _m11_still be
the_m42_ custodian of $452 million. The County doesn't take
any _m<2_money away from the Clerk
so he still holds all
the dollars.
The only difference is
back when Ms. Morse
did the
investment policy, she made investment
decisions on her own
with no real input from anyone.
He opined there should be some kind of
pro_mĄ1_fessional
advice and discussion as
to _m1_where taxpayer
dollars are invested,
why_m»1_, does
it make sense, and are
they secure. He explained the proposal
that_mÔ1_ is in front
of _m×1_the Board
pro_mŮ1_vides more
checks and balances,
not less.
He pointed
out he doesn't think there has ever been a discussion about
investments and County
money in a
public hearing; _nV1_and if
the_n^1_ policy
changes, they will have to do _ng1_that because
the_nk1_ way the
policy is written, the Financial Advisor
will make recommendations to the Board at
a _n2_public meeting
for discussion_n‡1_. Mr. McMenemy stated the Clerk
has the
ability to voice his
concerns at the public meeting just like members of
the public have the _nŞ1_ability to
make their concerns known. It provides for
greater transparency, not less.
Mr.
McMenemy discussed one particular year where the
County had a very
large multi-million dollar write-down of the value of the securities. He
reiterated this proposal is
absolutely transparent and
it _oT1_benefits
the _oW1_taxpayer. He
explained the Board _o•1_can't spend
money that the _oš1__#_Clerk
is not approving. This is having a professional recommendation as to
how the money is going
to be utilized _oą1_and invested
and discussed in a public forum such as this.
Nicole Guillet, County Manager,
stated this policy does not
pro_oâ1_pose vesting
decision making with respect
to _oë3_investments in a third
part_oň1_y, it vests that _o÷1_decision
making with the entity that has
the _p$1_authority to do so, which is the BCC. There will not
be _p11_a private
third party making
investment decisions_p=1_. They will be
making recommendations and providing
advice to the BCC. She
noted the Board will be acting on those recommendations in a public forum which is not how investment _pp2_decisions are made today, they are
made privately _pz1_by the Clerk.
Ms. _%_Guillet reiterated this does not
im_p™1_pact the Clerk's custod_pž1_ial responsibilities. He
still has custody of
the dollars, and Section L
of _p«1_this policy emphasizes his role as
custodian of these dollars.
Ms. Guillet commented on the idea that this _pĂ1_was done
privately without _pČ1_any consultation
with the Clerk_pÎ1_. She expressed there were at
least three meetings
in the last three months
that included Mr. Maloy, and there are
changes included _q.1_in this
policy that were based on his
suggestions.
Bryant Applegate,
County Attorney, stated the BCC has
the _q1_authority to make the investment
decisions and the County's
auditor is to execute those
decisions. The
County expects the
Clerk to continue _qÁ1__qÂ1_doing the custodial
duties and audit duties under the Statutes. Mr.
Applegate explained he provided
counsel to the Clerk's
Office as to his
legal opinion, and he wants
to go over _r'1_and clarify
some points. Articles 5 and 8 _r71_of the
Florida Constitution, Chapter 28
of the Florida Statutes,
and Chapters 125, 218, and Section 3.1 of Seminole
County Charter all have one thing in common;_rV1_ which is nowhere in those provisions does it say
that the Clerk has the
sole authority to invest money
held in trust by
the BCC. What Article
8 of Florida
Constitution, Chapters 28, 125, 218, and Section 2.2 of the Charter
have in common is that
the _r›1_BCC has the
clear statutory _rŁ1_authority and home rule authority to
make investment decisions_rŻ1_. He pointed out the Clerk and the County agree that the
BCC
has _rÄ1_the investment
authority to develop a
policy.
If the policy consisted of one sentence, that the Board _rÜ1__rÝ1_wants the surplus funds
to be invested in
"treasury note X," the Clerk
has _rî1_to do that; and they
agree because
they recognize _rř1_that the Board has
that authority.
Mr.
Applegate agreed that the Administrative Code does not apply to the Clerk, it is a
BCC
policy. He
reiterated the policy doesn't take away custodial duties from the Clerk. Under
home rule a_s‡1__#_authority and the statutes, the Clerk is
a custodian. In regard to Alachua County v. Powers,
Mr. _%_Applegate read an opinion of the Florida _s´5_Supreme Court, "The
Board stipulates that the
trial court properly ruled that investments of surplus may be made upon
approval by the County Commission by adoption of
an _sĆ4_appropriate resolution. Thus, there _sŕ2_appears to
be no conflict with
the holding of the Court below that the Board may by appropriate resolution designate _t#1_the investment
place of surplus
funds and the Clerk
is required to carry out _t31_the
board’s directive_t81_.” They go
on _t<1_to say,
"On the other hand,
the boards of county commissioners
have long had the authority
to _tJ1_provide,
by _tM2_resolution, for the
investment of any surplus public
funds in their control
or _t^1_possession."
Mr. Applegate discussed Leon County
and how their board adopted an investment policy
to _t 2_govern the investment
of surplus funds of the county. He pointed out that Leon
Count_tÄ1_y has
an _tÇ3_investment committee and described
the duties of that committee. Mr.
Applegate stated in regard to
the term “unit of local government,” it is correct that the Clerk is
a unit of local government
in _uż1_the definition in Chapter 218. However, _uĎ2_unit of
local government also includes the BCC. Every time Section 28.33 Florida Statutes
mentions "the Clerk
shall," it goes on to say, "pursuant to the policy established by the
governing body." The Board is the governing body as defined in Chapter 218 of the Florida Statutes.
Thomas
Wilkes, Esquire, 301 East Pine Street, GrayRobinson, addressed the Board and
stated he and a senior litigation partner, Richard Mitchell, went through _wF1_all of
Mr. Applegate's analyses and
conclusions, and he can assure the Board
they believe Mr. Applegate is correct. Mr. Wilkes
opined Mr. Wright used _%_Section 28.33 as if
that is somehow a
grant of power or a grant of sole authority. He
explained in no county
is the Clerk in control of
the investments.
That Chapter says to the Clerk, go to the policy that the County Commission
adopts pursuant to that Chapter
and follow it. _%__x:1_Being a custodian is not
synonymous with being the Chief Investment Officer
and it never has been.
Mr.
Wilkes told a story about the Orange
County sewer & water_%__xm1_ system
back in the early 70’s and
how the County Commission wanted
to take control of the customer billing function, which _%_the Clerk
to the Board _x˝1_had been
op_xŔ2_erating and
performing. A
dis_xŘ1_pute erupted and
the _%_Board and Clerk
ended up in court. The judge _%__%_stated the Clerk is the
cust_y92_odian and
does not get to control the
billing.
The billing function is not synonymous with being
the _yW2_custodian.
Mr.
Wilkes stated that in 1995, the Seminole County _%_Board members
spent a lot of time making
sure that they _yŁ1_were thinking
their way through
the Investment Policy _y®1__yŻ1__y°1__y±1__y˛1__ył1__y´1__yµ1_because 1995
had a lot of significance _y»1__yĽ1_in Florida
with regard to investment
policies. He
discussed a Clerk in Escambia County
and their involvement with high-risk _z'1_derivatives. Mr. Wilkes stated the Legislature made a major sweeping revision of the investment policies in
1995 and that is where Section 218.415 came
from. That is
when the Board came
up _ză1_with a
rather detailed Investment
Policy and expressly
delegated the investment authority to the Clerk _z÷1_because
the_zů1_ Board
then decided _{!1_the
Clerk _{#1_had the expertise
to do it.
With
regard to policy, Mr.
Wilkes explained there is a very
strong policy that clerks
in any county in
Florida should not be
in_{V2_vesting public
money on their own without control
and _{b1_oversight
by the Board. He opined if
any _{k1_clerk
tries to assert that
the title of custodian
is _{z1__{{1_synonymous with also being the Chief Investment
Officer, they will get shut down in court.
Mr. Wilkes believes that the Board
is in a very strong
position and not only has the law
behind them but also
some historical precedent _{¤1_and a very strong public policy that says they are doing exactly what
needs to be done for
the public.
Grant Maloy, Clerk
of Court and Comptroller, stated this policy has changed
several times. _{Ę1__%_It originally
started off with a
third-party Investment
Advisor directing his day-to-day
operations.
Mr. Maloy pointed out when he brought
those concerns to the Board, everybody was in agreement_{í1_ that it was worded wrong so that got thrown
out. Then staff came out with another _{ř1_one. Today's
policy is the third version. Mr.
Maloy explained he has been
trying to meet with the Board. He
has asked for work sessions. He has had _|G1_meetings
canceled.
It seems just about the only communication
he has received from Mr. McMenemy are public
records requests for information
to _|Y2_prepare for
a _|]1_lawsuit. Mr. Maloy stated he has reached out several
times.
He discussed his
meeting with staff where PFM
made a presentation, a meeting that came to a halt before PFM could present their ideas. Mr.
Maloy made that presentation available to the Board with some ideas of what the County and _%_Clerk
can do to make the portfolio perform better.
Mr.
Maloy agreed that the Board sets the policy, but the Clerk carries
out the day-to-_|ľ1__|ľ1_day execution of
that policy;
the _%_Board doesn't send the Clerk
a specific order,
that isn't a good public policy. He opined the portfolio composition
needs to be improved, and the Board
did make some improvements on it today. But there's been
virtually no discussion of that.
Mr. Maloy stated they haven't really
discussed a
good portfolio_}71__}82_, but they keep discussing control. He
pointed out he is fine with the
Board setting a policy
and thinks that is the
responsibility of the Board.
They set the criteria
and tell the Clerk what
to _}S1_invest
in_}X1_, how long, and the_}[1_ duration; and that is what clerks do around
the_}l1_ state of
Florida.
Mr.
Maloy explained what he is
proposing is nothing that is out of line
of what other clerks are doing. Palm Beach County
has _}1_an in-house
investment staff and they have over $1
billion of
investments. That
is within the purview _}™1_of that
clerk.
Mr. Maloy responded to the discussion
of derivatives and stated that is not allowed by current policy and will not be
in the future.
Mr.
Maloy stated somebody has
to be in charge of
the day-to-day executions.
When the policy changed _}Ä1_the second
time_}Ç1_, it basically
said_}Ë1_ the consultant would
tell the Board then
to _}Ő1_direct the Clerk;
and Mr. Maloy noted that has flaws as well
because sometimes the Board
only meets once a month. Today's version of the policy says, "In rare
instances in which
financial market conditions are
extraordinarily volatile and investment decisions
require rapid response, the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
may, on the advice of the County
Investment Advisor, issue an Executive _#_Order directing transactions," which Mr. Maloy opined is clearly getting rid of checks and
balances. That is giving
the _~j1__#_Chairman
the authority to make a
unilateral investment decision. Mr.
Maloy expressed that is a
dangerous policy and it is a bad idea.
Mr.
Maloy stated he is all for improving the composition of the
portfolio; but when he went
to make some directions on that, he received a cease
and _~–1_desist letter from
Mr. _%_Wilkes. Mr.
Maloy explained he has been trying to change
some of the investments around,
keeping them safe,
following all of the current
investment policies and improve the return
on _~µ3_investment, but he basically _~Ľ1_was shut
down on that. Mr.
Maloy expressed he is willing
to work with the Board; however, he thinks the
policy should be scrapped and they should start over. He
referred to the letter from Mr. Londot
from the Florida Association of Clerks _~Ů2_and Comptrollers
and noted it basically reflects his opinion
that this policy would
put him in the position of being a
rubber stamp. He reiterated it would get rid of the checks and balances.
Mr. Applegate stated
if the Board asks the Clerk to invest in something that is illegal, the Clerk, as Custodian,
has the authority to not follow their direction.
Regarding
cooperation, Mr.
Applegate described the first time he was brought
into a meeting
with Mr. Maloy, Maryanne Morse, and lawyers.
He noted that at
the last meeting with Mr. Maloy, they said they hope they can work this
out. Mr. Applegate
emphasized staff has reached out to the Clerk and incorporated some
of the changes _€~1_that the Clerk has
suggested.
He then described a
previous meeting that the Chairman participated in. Staff thought they
were going to talk
about recommend_€°1_ations with the Clerk, but they
found out the Clerk
had hired PFM even though the
Board previously approved _€Ó2_using its
Financial Advisor under
the _€Ţ1_contract approved by the Board. Mr. Applegate stated in regard to cooperation, it is
important to note that the County
did try.
Chairman
Horan_31__41__51__61_ stated the
direction of the Board_>1_ was
to _A1_try to reach a consensual agreement. Staff tried hard
to reach a consensual
agreement, but they couldn't
reach it.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition to Agenda Item #15
and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Henley stated he would hate to think
this issue is going
to _‹2_divide Seminole
County when everyone _1_needs
to be working together_•1_. He explained he is in favor of checks _Ő1_and balances, and
the check and balance is on the BCC. There
is _ď1_no oversight of the Clerk
and he can decide what he wants
to do with $500 million
of the citizens’ money
without any input from anybody if he
chooses. He pointed out that every action the BCC takes _‚N1_has to
follow the Sunshine Law and discussed the benefits of
that. Commissioner Henley opined this is not a power grab because the Board already has
the _k1_power.
What the Board
is trying to work
out is how to share
that power with
the Clerk's Office in
a _„2_fairly amenable way.
As far as the
Investment Advisor that the
Board _1_has hired, he has
to _ź1_report to
the Board, not the _%_Clerk. The Board's
action, based on the Investment Advisor's
recommendations, is what is forwarded
to the Clerk_ş1_. Commissioner
Henley reminded that Mr. Maloy has already indicated he had no problem with
following the policy. He expressed if the Board and the Clerk can _Ő1_agree
upon the wording _Ú1_of the policy, the problem goes
away
and that is what has to happen. Commissioner Henley reiterated there is no
checks and balances on the Clerk
but there is on the Board. He
noted if they get the final wording worked out, this policy will show _„>1_that this
is _„A1_a joint
effort. Commissioner
Henley_#_ stressed the Board and the Clerk
need to work together to resolve this. Commissioner
Carey _…Ś1_noted this
has _…Ž1_been revised
several times partly in
response to some of the great ideas that came out of the PFM
presentation and also in
re_…«1_sponse to
some of the questions that
were asked about the
wording of the policy, such as
N(7).
She stated she does
not necessarily agree with N(7)
where it
says that the Chairman will have the _…Á1_authority. She thinks N(7) and O(13) need to be looked at. Commissioner
Carey explained O(13) was the policy when the _%_Clerk was in charge of the investment
by virtue that was given to the Clerk from the Board,
and _†.1_she does not think it
got worded properly.
From a practical matter, Commissioner Carey
stated she thinks
the Board is within their purview to adopt a Finance
Policy that allows the Board
to _†V1_hire a
pro_†Y1_fessional. Whether
it is the Board hiring a
professional or the Clerk
hiring a professional, she thinks everyone
agrees that there needs to be some advice from a professional; and an Investment _%_Advisor is the best thing for the citizens of the
county. She discussed the issue of investments being done in a
public format versus a private format in
agreement with Commissioner Henley.
Commissioner Carey mentioned the investment loss in 2013 that Mr. McMenemy referred to and noted the County's investment interest alone went from $2.7 million to
$382,000. She stated the report that the County receives from the Clerk's Office is a "laundry list" of what the
investments are, and it doesn't have what the original price was or what the
value is today.
Commissioner
Carey stated there are a lot of good things that staff can clean up
in _†ř1_this policy
before she is ready to vote on
it_‡(1_;
N(7) and O(13). Aside
from that, she supports the agenda item_‡/1__‡01__‡11_; but from
a _‡51_practical standpoint, she thinks it would be in the best
interest of the public if
the _‡G1_process of
hiring a Financial Investment
Advisor was done by
a _‡[2_committee that included
representation from the _‡f1__#_Clerk's
Office as well as
the _‡m1_BCC. Commissioner Carey pointed out that they haven't seen all
of the people that are experts in
this field and she thinks
they could come up with
something that would be
in the best interest of
all _‡¸2_concerned. She explained if the Board is making
a _‡Á2_recommendation based
off of the Financial Advisor_‡Ě1__‡Í1_ for the Clerk
to _‡Ń2_carry out, there _‡Ő1_needs to
be some trust from the Clerk's perspective in the person
that the Board has selected. A good way to handle it would be
to have the Clerk involved in
selecting the Financial Advisor.
Commissioner
Carey stated the Board started
talking about this item last February when Ms. Morse
announced
that she was going to
re_>1_tire.
The County
selected an Investment Advisor based
on the fact that they
already had a contract
in _U1_place that
would allow them
to do that and have
an expert to advise
the Board. She
referenced Item #19 on
today's agenda and pointed out the Investment
Advisor is recommending where the Board should allocate money.
Commissioner Carey opined that having this in a public
forum every quarter
is _¨1_a healthy thing for
the community
and _°1__±1_believes that this policy
brings everything to the forefront so
everybody will know what
is _Ă1_going on
with the money, where the money is, and how it's being
invested.
Commissioner
Carey reiterated she has an
issue with N(7) and O(13) and thinks there are a couple
of _đ1_other things
that they can clean up. She
stated the Clerk's Office and the Board do not both need to have Financial _%_Advisors, there just needs to be one that is paid
for by the BCC because the Clerk doesn't have the funds. She explained the Clerk does
have his own set
of _‰:2_money that
he_‰>1__‰?1_ has to invest
and _‰D1_he will
want a Financial Advisor; but if he's involved in
the process of selecting the Financial _#_Advisor, she thinks the Clerk will use the same one and it would be a good
solution. She reminded that the Board members that voted on the
1995 _%_Resolution stated they approved it because Ms. Morse, Clerk
at the time, had the experience and knowledge.
Commissioner Carey
stated times _‰Ć1_have changed,
and the County's portfolio is
no longer $190 million, it
is almost $500 million; and the Board
needs professional advice whether it's directly through the Clerk or through the Board. She
voiced she supports the policy with a couple of the changes that she has identified today. She
added she would like to see the policy adopted and suggested an RFP
go out to secure a
pro_ŠP1_fessional
Investment Advisor and that the Clerk _ŠZ1_be a
part of that process of
the selection and recommendation
to the Board for confirmation.
Commissioner
Dallari asked if Commissioner Carey wants the policy brought back
to the Board. Commissioner
Carey answered she wants it
to come back to the Board because she doesn't want to wordsmith it. Ms.
Guillet encouraged the Board to adopt the policy today because of what is contained in Item #19. She thinks that will have a significant impact on
the portfolio and would
like the Board to be able to
take action on that. The Board will need
to have this policy in place to take action on Item #19.
Commissioner Henley left the meeting at this
time.
In
regard to O(13) which references the Assistant Finance
Director and Finance Director, Ms. Guillet explained _"__Šŕ1__Šá1__Šâ2__Šä1__Šĺ2__Šç2_those are
positions that are within
the Clerk's Office. Staff
left that provision in there
because they anticipate that
the Clerk will be managing the day-to-day investment
activity so that his staff will
need to be able _‹'1__‹(1__‹)1_to be engaged
and _‹C1_review
the _‹G2_investments.
Commissioner Carey responded that she has an issue that if the Clerk is
not _‹u2_available, the Finance
Director is not available,
and the Assistant Finance Director is not available, it
gets down to the Review Supervisor
making the decision. She
suggested if the Clerk _‹˘1_is not
available or the Finance
Director is not
available, surely they
could find one or the other and not go so far down the chain of command. Commissioner
Carey read O(13) for the benefit of the public.
She stated she would like to see the responsibility be with the Clerk, the Finance Director,
or Assistant Finance Director
and _Ś}1_not see
it get down to a supervisor level when it comes to $500 million.
Discussion
ensued regarding striking some language in regard to O(13) and Ms.
Guillet stated staff will
strike "Revenue Supervisor."
Commissioner
Henley re-entered the meeting
at this time.
Commissioner
Constantine stated he doesn't
want to wordsmith the policy as they go through it. He
believes the Clerk has some
excellent suggestions and wonders if the Board can give him the comfort
level that the Clerk can come
back to the Board with his
suggestions and it will be discussed openly to see if they can work it out. He
opined the Clerk, staff and
the Board deserve that. Commissioner
Constantine agreed with Commissioner Henley that _"_this is
not _Ť“1_a power grab,
this is promoting more
openness and more checks and
balances, so he thinks it is the
right move. With regard to O(14), he discussed
all of the staff positions in
that section and
reminded they are all within the Clerk's
Office. Commissioner
Constantine pointed out that
the presentation the Board
received from the Clerk done
by PFM was very similar to the one the Board received from SunTrust. He
pointed out that they are arguing over the same thing and he wants them to work
together. Commissioner Constantine expressed that he wants a good relationship with the
Clerk's Office and wants the Clerk to feel like he can make
changes in this policy with the Board. He
announced he is ready to pass this item and Agenda Item #19 today and then come back
and make changes if they need to.
Commissioner Carey asked
staff if they could revise
some of the language that
she mentioned including striking the language
in N(7) that gives authority to the Chairman to issue an Executive _%_Order directing transactions. Commissioner
Dallari stated he would like
that removed as well. Ms. Guillet responded staff can strike that and bring back
an emergency provision. Commissioner Carey requested it be brought back
after the recess for the Board
to vote on when they reconvene. Commissioner Dallari stated
there needs to be more transparency
and opined they are not trying to
take anything _Źş1_away
from the Clerk. He
discussed Fiscal Year 2013
and noted that was a write-down of $1.9 million, 2014 was the write-down of $624,000, 2015 was the write-down of
$244,000, and 2016 was
the write-down of $494,000. Mr. McMenemy stated he doesn't have the numbers in front of
him but assumes that is accurate, and Commissioner
Dallari responded he just
received that information from his financial people (copy received and
filed). Chairman Horan
asked if those are unrealized
losses and Commissioner Dallari answered those are
write-downs. Mr. McMenemy
explained unrealized losses carry month-to-month; and at the end of the Fiscal
Year, they do mark-to-market, which is where the loss, if there is one, is
realized. He stressed in fairness to the Clerk’s Office and to
the prior Clerk, there will
always be fluctuation to the value; and depending on the timing, if it happens
near the end of the year, there could be a write-down that makes it appear
worse than it is. Mr. McMenemy
stated the point he was trying to make at the time was transparency under this
model would occur in a public forum and everybody would understand it. Commissioner
Dallari agreed and
Commissioner Carey added that talking
about it every quarter
in _—1_a public
for_›1_um with
the Clerk certainly _˘4_makes it
more accountable to the public.
Chairman
Horan_«1_ stated
he has been interested in this topic
ever since he started receiving reports _ľ1_from the Clerk's Office and he
didn't get any information
as _Ě1_to what investments were being made,
and _Ő1_then he learned that he had nothing
to do with it which
he found rather interesting. He
explained that is really what generated the notion that
the _ó3_governing body, which
is the BCC,
should be _‘#2_involved in setting the
investment policy,
the Clerk _‘01_should be
involved in executing it,
and they should be
working together _‘@1_with regard to that.
Chairman Horan asked if they could change_%_ the language and vote on this item this
afternoon. Mr. Maloy
suggested if the Board is
interested in the composition, they
could modify that part today
and discuss the other aspects
later. Commissioner Carey responded the Board
can change the policy at any Board
meeting; and once _‘—1_they hire
a new Investment Advisor_‘ˇ2_, the Board
may want to modify the policy based on the recommendations. Chairman
Horan _%_confirmed with Ms. Guillet
that Item #15 has to be
approved before approving Item
#19. Mr.
Maloy suggested the Board could modify
the _’43_portfolio composition
and _’:3__#_Investment Policy
and address other issues later. He stated he_’G1_ would
like to take issue on O(13) and O(14). It says "the Clerk has the authority," but in F,
staff inserted "when implementing
the _’e1__’f1__%_Board's investment decisions." He
opined that is a pass-through.
Chairman
Horan stated staff will make
changes during the break. He postponed the work session on
the Mid-Year Financial _%_Update until after the afternoon portion of the
BCC meeting. He tabled Items
#15 and #19 until the Board reconvenes. Commissioner Dallari requested staff present
those strikeouts during the recess and present them to the Board before the meeting
reconvenes. Ms. Guillet
stated that is what staff
is going to work on and they already have it marked up._Uî1_; and
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT
AGENDA
Clerk’s Office
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to approve the following:
23. Approve
Expenditure Approval Lists dated February 27 and March 6, 2017. (A-3370-17)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
The
Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk’s “Received and Filed”:
1. Maintenance
Bond #1053886 for Water and Sewer Systems in the amount of $32,233.46 and Bond
Rider increasing the amount of the bond to $44,702.73 for the project known as
Lukas Landing; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
2. Letter
of Credit #55108155 in the amount of $459,575 for the subdivision known as
Grande Oaks; Heathrow Oaks, LLC and Kolter Communities.
3. Bill
of Sale in acceptance of the Water and Sewer Systems within the project known
as Lukas Landing; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
4. Tourist
Tax Funding Agreements (4) with Nations Baseball of Greater Orlando for 2017
Spring Training Classic, Ides of March 2017, 2017 Find the Gold Baseball
Tournament, and 2017 Spring Break Classic.
5. Tourist
Tax Funding Agreement with Florida Collegiate Summer League for 2017 Florida
League High School Invitational.
6. Tourist
Tax Funding Agreement with Florida Half Century Amateur Softball Association,
Inc. for March 50s Senior Softball Tournament.
7. CDBG
Subrecipient Agreements (2) for Program Year 2016/17 with the Foundation for
Seminole County Public Schools, Inc. (Midway Safe Harbor Adult Services
Program) and with the State of Florida Department of Health and Seminole County
Health Department, as approved by the BCC on August 9, 2016.
8. Second
Amendment to the Leadership Seminole, Inc. Grant Agreement, as approved by the
BCC on December 13, 2016.
9. Parks
Contracts for Services with Grant Luker, Sarah Kempf-Flauta, and Derek Roth
Neumann.
10. Natural
Lands Contract for Services with Mark H. Lanaris.
11. Recording
of Plats and Title Certificate for Frost Estates Subdivision; Jeremiah W. and
Lindsey A. Frost.
12. Recording
of Plats for Lukas Landing Subdivision; M/I Homes of Orlando, LLC.
13. Letter
from Seminole County Attorney’s Office to Thomas J. Wilkes, Esquire, at
GrayRobinson regarding Engagement as Special Counsel for Litigation Services.
14. Florida
Public Service Commission Order #PSC-17-0060-PCO-EI, Order Suspending Florida
Power & Light’s Petition for Approval of a New Optional Pilot LED
Streetlight Tariff, Docket #160245-EI, issued February 24, 2017.
15. Exhibits
A and B to Tourist Development Tax Funding Agreement with Central Florida
Zoological Society FY 2016/17. The two
exhibits were not attached to the original agreement, which was approved by the
BCC on November 15, 2016; A-2890-16.
16. Work
Order #5 to PS-9742-14 with CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc.
17. Amendment
#1 to Work Order #1 to PS-0201-15 with Environmental Research & Design,
Inc.
18. Pet
Rescue Cooperative Service Agreement with VIP Rescue of Central Florida.
19. Change
Order #2 to Work Order #3 to CC-0559-15 with CFE Corporation.
20. First
Amendment to IFB-602510-16 with CM Engineering Services Florida PLLC.
21. Amendment
#6 to M-6607-11 with The Triece Company.
22. Closeout
to CC-0664-16 with Florida Safety Contractors, Inc.
23. Second
Amendment to IFB-602588-16 with Space Coast Fire & Safety, Inc.
24. Eleventh
Amendment to IFB-601516-12 with Bound Tree Medical, LLC.
25. First
Amendment to IFB-602510-16 with Parthenon Construction Company.
26. Amendment
#1 to Work Order #48 to PS-8047-12 with Tierra, Inc.
27. Amendment
#1 to Work Order #29 to PS-7643-12 with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping
Corp.
28. Work
Order #36 to PS-8186-13 with CPH, Inc.
29. Work
Orders #3 and #4 to RFP-0532-15 with Connect Consulting.
30. Change
Order #5 to Work Order #4 to RFQ-9093-13 with Wharton-Smith, Inc.
31. Work
Order #35 to PS-8186-13 with Atkins North America, Inc.
32. Bids
as follows:
IFB-602784-17
from Shannon Chemical Corporation; Hawkins, Inc.;
BID-602792-17
from Inwood Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Universal Contracting &
Construction, Inc.; Milborne, LLC; Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc.; Smithson
Electric, Inc.;
RFP-602771-17
from Global Vend Services, LLC d/b/a Blindster Refreshments; Compass Group USA,
Inc., by and through its Canteen Vending Services Division (with flash drive);
and
BID-602822-17
from Instrument Specialties, Inc.; HACH d/b/a OTT Hydromet.
-------
The Board recessed the meeting at 12:54 p.m.,
reconvening
at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials with the exception
of Deputy Clerks Kyla Spencer and Terri Porter, who were replaced by Deputy
Clerk Jane Spencer, who were present at the Opening Session.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
Agenda
Items #15 (A-3229-17) and #19 (A-3402-17)
(continued
from the morning session)
Chairman Horan advised they are going to continue the discussion
on Items #15 and #19 from this morning.
He confirmed with Ms. Guillet that there is now additional language
(copy received and filed). The Chairman
asked if everyone has had an opportunity to review the new language. Ms. Guillet explained that three sections
were revised. The first section that was
revised is Section D, the last paragraph.
That paragraph originally read that the Investment Advisor would be
selected in conjunction with selecting the CFA.
They have added language to say that it will be done “at that time or as
otherwise directed by the Board” because there seemed to be an inclination to
maybe go out for a separate procurement of an Investment Advisor.
Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Court, stated he would be in favor of
an RFP for an Investment Advisor that they both agree on. Mr. Maloy stated he would like to know the
details of that process because usually what other counties have done is have a
committee. He would be interested in
exploring that idea and coming up with something they could agree on. He advised that one of the problems that
happened here is the County went one direction so he decided to go another
direction so he could have some trust in his own ability to do his job with the
right person.
Chairman Horan stated with the time and proper communication
between each other, they can have a committee made of County people and Clerk
people and they can go ahead and have a selection committee.
Mr. Maloy stated he does need a clarification. He referred to Section F, Authorized
Investments, and stated maybe he is looking at a word differently than the
County because in the back of the policy, the County is talking about ultimately
his staff would make the investment decision but as he reads Section F, when
the language is inserted, “the Clerk when implementing the Board's investment
decision,” what does that look like. Is
that to say we need 10% CDs or does that mean to say you will buy the SunTrust
CD at this rate on this date?
Ms. Guillet stated if they look at Item #19, that is exactly how
they contemplate that provision working.
The Board would be given a set of recommendations from the Investment
Advisor and then the Board would act on those recommendations.
Mr. Maloy asked about the specific transaction. Commissioner Dallari responded no. Commissioner Carey stated it is the
category. Mr. Maloy remarked the
category is one thing but what about a specific transaction. Chairman Horan stated the direction would
look like the exhibit that is on Agenda Item #19. Commissioner Carey added that she believes
that is the importance of Mr. Maloy and his staff being involved in the
selection of the Financial Advisor so that he has some confidence so he could
say to the Advisor if I need to be 30% in treasury, what do you think that I
should buy.
Ms. Guillet pointed out that some of the recommendations from
the Board may be very specific. They may
say buy specifically this. They may give
more general direction like a percentage in federal agencies. Mr. Maloy stated that is where he has the
disagreement. If it comes down to the
micromanagement of every little decision, he believes that is the overreach of
the day‑to‑day transactions.
Commissioner Carey stated that in the beginning there will
probably be more discussion about details than in the future as everybody gets
comfortable with the process since it is a new process for the County too. She stated she would be looking for some
input but believes Mr. Maloy is going to be looking for that input too. He will be looking for it she imagines in
more detail, which is why she thinks if they are jointly hiring the Financial
Investment Advisor, then Mr. Maloy could rely on their recommendations to him
in what he actually acquires in these categories. Commissioner Carey stated that the direction
today for Mr. Maloy is to change the way this is right now.
Mr. Applegate stated the actual hiring will have to be by the
Board of County Commissioners since it will be coming out of their budget. The Clerk and whatever policy or staffing for
this committee comes up with, they will be involved in the actual decision
making on who that Investment Advisor will be.
Commissioner Carey stated it will be an RFP selection committee
just like the County does on every other major contract. Mr. Applegate stated the great thing about
having the Investment Advisor is that when the recommendations come to the
Board, it will be in a public forum where the Clerk will have an opportunity to
say I have a problem with this or I want to do this.
Commissioner Carey told Mr. Maloy that theoretically, the Board
at any given time could say they don't think that they should be in the market
at all and want all of the money in the bank, and he would have to take that
money and put it all in the bank. So
again, they ought to be working together on this because they are in charge of
the money. The Clerk's job is to invest
it based on the direction of the Board and she does not know how he does that
without working pretty closely with them.
Ms. Guillet pointed out there is another provision in the
revised policy that requires the Investment Advisor to meet with the Clerk
quarterly to facilitate additional coordination. Commissioner Carey reminded everyone that the
Clerk has his own funds that he also will be investing; and if he is involved
in the process of selecting the Investment Advisor, she does not see him hiring
another Investment Advisor to help advise him on that issue either.
Mr. Maloy stated he would love to talk about an RFP and what
that looks like and move forward with that process. He would be happy to approve these
composition portfolio changes that the Board is talking about and work on
making some changes on Item #19 because that is definitely within the Board's
responsibilities. He believes they have
made it better by removing the Chairman acting alone and there has been some
improvement. He added he has only had
about 15 minutes and has not done a thorough review of the changes to dig into
them further. He still has some serious
concerns. There are over a dozen times
throughout the entire policy where the Clerk is struck out and County Investment
Advisor is replaced. To him, that really
gets down to the control issue. If they
are talking about the categories and the goals, that is good; but if it is the
day‑to‑day operation of his office, then he thinks that is going
too far.
Commissioner Carey advised that the County's policy was written
the way it was and the reason it is struck is because they are amending
it. She emphasized that the Board of
County Commissioners had given that empowerment and authority to the Clerk and
now they are taking it back to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Maloy stated they have already discussed it and the law says
what the law says. The Constitution and
State law says what it is and he does not know what bearing what happened in
1995 has based upon the law and the Constitutional authority of each
Constitutional Officer. Commissioner
Carey stated she guesses that if everybody disagrees on the law, they will end
up in court; but they are hoping that is not where this is going.
Chairman Horan asked if everyone had read the revisions to Item
#15.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt appropriate
Resolution #2017‑R‑47 amending Section 3.35 of the Seminole County
Administrative Code (with the final
three edits that were presented) by establishing that the County's
Financial Advisor is to implement the County's Investment Policy by determining
how the County's public funds are to be invested and to develop strategies
related thereto; requiring the Financial Advisor to submit quarterly reports to
the County; establishing criteria for the selection of the County Investment
Advisor; establishing protocols with the County Clerk's Office as custodian of
the County's funds; providing for an effective date.
Under discussion and at Commissioner Constantine's request, Mr.
Applegate reviewed the changes. He
explained that per the Board's discussion this morning, they deleted Section 7
as found on page 3.35‑8, which stated "In rare instances in which
financial market conditions are extraordinarily volatile and investment
decisions require a rapid response, the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners may, on the advice of the County Investment Advisor, issue an
Executive Order directing transactions necessary to protect the County's
financial assets. In these emergency
circumstances, Board approval is not required prior to conducting transactions,
provided Investment Policy provisions and procedures are followed, and the
action is reported to the Board at the next scheduled meeting."
Mr. Applegate explained that the second change that was discussed
at the morning session is in Section 13 under Internal Controls on page 3.35‑9. It now reads "All daily investment
activity will be coordinated and reviewed by the Assistant Finance Director and
the Finance Director. Investment
activity must be approved by the Clerk, Chief Deputy Clerk or Finance
Director." Mr. Applegate advised
there is a change on page 3.35‑3, the second line. The first two lines now read "The County
Investment Advisor shall be selected in conjunction with the procurement of the
County Financial Advisor services unless otherwise directed by the
Board."
Mr. Maloy stated that he is very good with these changes that
have been made. He is very good with
moving forward with the RFP. He is very
good with the compositions; and actually, those were recommendations that his
office had made. Mr. Maloy stated
overall he still opposes the portions of the changes that involve removing the
Clerk from the policy and inserting the Investment Advisor or the Board under
the direction of the Investment Advisor.
Commissioner Constantine addressed the Clerk to state they are
trying to come together here and went halfway but he still does not like
certain things. He asked Mr. Maloy if he
acknowledges that the Board is trying to work this out and that the Clerk will
continue to work with County staff on anything else that needs to be
approved. Mr. Maloy stated he is always
happy to work with the County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey stated that before they move off this item,
she would like to get the consensus of the Board to direct the County Manager
to immediately start the RFP process to hire an Investment Advisor to advise
the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk and that the selection
committee process be made up of representatives of both the County Commission
employees and the Clerk and the Clerk employees. Chairman Horan asked if there was consensus
and no objections were voiced.
Motion by Commissioner
Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve and accept the County
Investment Advisor’s recommendation and authorize the Clerk, as custodian of
the County funds, to implement the investment decision as soon as practicable.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
PROOFS
OF PUBLICATION
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize the filing
of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into
the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
NUSIANCE
ABATEMENT/4571 Orange Boulevard
Agenda Item #24 – A-3250-17
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of a Resolution issuing an
Order: to declare the existence of a Public Nuisance at 4571 Orange Boulevard,
Sanford, Florida; to require corrective action by May 27, 2017; and to
authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance
is not abated by the record owner, received and filed.
Liz
Parkhurst, Building Department, addressed the Board to present the request as
outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. Ms.
Parkhurst stated that the Board issued a Notice of Determination of Public
Nuisance on January 24, 2017 that required corrective action be taken; and to
date, no corrective action has been taken.
She explained that the purpose of today’s Public Hearing is to provide
the record property owner the opportunity to appear before the Board to state
why the structure does not create a public nuisance and why the property should
not be abated. Notice of this hearing
and Summons to Appear were posted on the property and published in the
newspaper for four consecutive weeks.
Staff is recommending the Board issue an Order declaring the unoccupied
structure a public nuisance and require corrective action be taken by May 27,
2017; and if corrective action is not taken by May 27, the Board direct staff
to abate the public nuisance.
It
was determined that the owner of the property was not present.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2017-R-48 issuing an Order: to declare the existence of
a Public Nuisance at 4571 Orange Boulevard, Sanford, Florida; to require
corrective action by May 27, 2017; and to authorize necessary corrective action
by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owner, as
described in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
ESTATES AT
WELLINGTON PD REZONE/Jim Mehta
Agenda Item #25 – PH-2016-539
Continuation of a
public hearing from March 14, 2017, to consider a request for a Rezone from A-1
(Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for a 24-lot, single-family
residential subdivision on approximately 36.79 acres, located on the south side
of Mikler Road, approximately one mile south of Red Bug Lake Road, as described
in the proof of publication; Jim Mehta, Applicant.
Matt
Davidson, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to request a
continuation of the item until April 25, 2017.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition to the continuance and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to
continue to April 25, 2017, a request for a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD
(Planned Development) for a 24-lot, single-family residential subdivision on
approximately 36.79 acres, located on the south side of Mikler Road,
approximately one mile south of Red Bug Lake Road, as described in the proof of
publication; Jim Mehta, Applicant.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman
Horan advised that the work session scheduled for the end of the morning
session will be rescheduled for April 11, 2017.
VASANT VATIKA
SMALL SCALE LAND USE
MAP AMENDMENT
AND REZONE/Babuji Ambikapathy
Agenda Item #26 – PH-2016-315
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Future Land Use Map
Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Planned Development (PD) and a
Rezone from R‑1A (Single‑Family Residential) to PD (Planned
Development) for an age-restricted, 40-unit senior living community on 6.45
acres, located on the south side of Center Drive, approximately 600 feet east
of Sunset Road, Babuji Ambikapathy, received and filed.
Brian
Walker, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the
request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.
Mr. Walker advised that the Applicant is requesting a Small Scale Future
Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone to Planned Development (PD) in order to
develop the subject property as an age-restricted, gated, senior living
facility with a maximum density of 6.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre,
and a maximum of 40 lots with a minimum lot size of 3,850 square feet. Each
lot will be fee simple and each unit will have its own garage for parking. Mr. Walker pointed out that in the Agenda
Memorandum there is a Future Land Use and Zoning Designation portion as well as
a site analysis.
Mr.
Walker advised that Seminole County Public Schools has determined that the
project is exempt from school concurrency requirements because it is an age-restricted
senior living facility. He explained
that the request is consistent with the Land Development Code. The proposed project supports the objectives
of the Planned Development Zoning designation, provides the required minimum of
25% open space, and provides adequate buffering to maintain compatibility
between the proposed 40 units and the surrounding home sites. He further explained how the request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.
Walker stated the proposed development will have a maximum of 40 age-restricted
dwelling units for seniors. At 6.5 units
per net buildable acre, the development proposal would exceed the densities
permitted in adjoining areas with the Low Density Residential Future Land Use
designation. He pointed out that despite
this difference in density, the development proposal adequately buffers
neighboring properties consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies related to
land use compatibility; has no impacts to public schools; and would generate
less traffic than a traditional single-family residential subdivision.
Mr.
Walker explained that the Applicant has coordinated with the adjacent property
owners through a community meeting and community outreach. As a result of community input, the Applicant
made several changes to the plan and layout including, but not limited to,
reducing density and moving parking to the interior of the development. In addition, the Applicant is proposing
fences and a wall to mitigate for the increase in density, and has reduced the
size of the proposed clubhouse. The
Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial. Staff is recommending approval of the
request.
Miranda
Fitzgerald, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed Law Firm, addressed the
Board to state she is representing the Hindu Society of Central Florida. Ms. Fitzgerald advised that she, along with
some of their representatives, met with each of the Commissioners. She then began a PowerPoint presentation
entitled “Hindu Senior Living Community” (copy received and filed) and
displayed the Rezone from R1-A to Planned Development slide. She advised there will be 20 buildings, 40
units, and a 3,500-square-foot clubhouse.
She next displayed and discussed the Location of Site in Relation to
Temple on Lake Street map. Ms.
Fitzgerald indicated on the map the location of the Hindu Temple and explained
that for this community, having the temple that close is a tremendous asset,
tremendous benefit, and is the center of the community. She discussed what the temple being within
walking distance of the proposed site means to the Hindu Society.
Ms.
Fitzgerald displayed a photo of the temple, which is on Lake Drive. She next discussed the Neighborhood Meetings
that have been held. With regard to More
Neighborhood Outreach, Ms. Fitzgerald described several more informal meetings
and numerous phone calls to the neighbors.
Neighborhood concerns that were addressed in the revised plan include
traffic, school kids, two-story homes, value of existing properties, and cars stacking
at the gate.
Ms.
Fitzgerald displayed the Revised Development Plan and pointed out the large
blue areas close to the front of the property.
She stated these areas are intended to be large landscaped retention
areas. The idea is to have lush landscaping
and an entry feature coming in. She
pointed out that before you get to the gate, there will be stacking for at
least two cars. She noted the plan has
been revised from the earlier concept so now there is a Center Drive and no
direct access onto Center Drive from within the community. She indicated on the rendering where the
compensating storage, which will be open space, and the clubhouse will be.
Ms.
Fitzgerald stated there will be a solid wall on both the east and west sides
(the top and the bottom of the rendering) and a brick wall on the frontage
adjoining the gates. Commissioner Carey
clarified with Ms. Fitzgerald that there will be a solid wall, not a fence, on
both the east and west sides. Ms.
Fitzgerald added it will be a six-foot wall and it will also be on the south
side (which is to the far left in the rendering). It will be a completely gated community and
three sides will be walled.
With
regard to concerns about traffic congestion, Ms. Fitzgerald introduced Babuji
Ambikapathy, and submitted his resume (received and filed) into the
record. Mr. Ambikapathy, Principal with
VHB, addressed the Board to continue the PowerPoint presentation. He displayed the Traffic Comparison slide and
compared the 304 daily trips in the current zoning to the 140 daily trips in
the proposed zoning.
Ms.
Fitzgerald reviewed the Comparative Analysis of Other Impacts for 40 Villa
Units versus 26 Single-Family Homes chart.
She displayed the Conceptual Front Elevation rendering.
Suresh
Gupta, Park Square Homes, addressed the Board and continued the
presentation. Mr. Gupta stated his
company has built over 9,000 homes in Central Florida over the last 33
years. Park Square Homes will be
building the villas and the villas will be built with identical quality and
materials that are found in single-family detached homes. He discussed maintenance and the HOA. Commissioner Carey asked if the surrounding
subdivisions have mandatory Homeowners Associations like the ones that are
required today or do they have voluntary HOAs because of the time when they
were developed. Ms. Fitzgerald stated
she did not know the answer but she is sure someone present here today will
know the answer and provide it.
Ms.
Fitzgerald displayed the Floor Plan rendering of the proposed villas. She pointed out that the square footage in
each of the units is almost 1,600 square feet, which is larger than the
required minimum house size in the existing zoning district. Ms. Fitzgerald stated there were concerns
from the residents during the meetings that because this is a different
product, a different type of unit, it is going to affect adversely their
values. She submitted Harry Collison,
Jr.’s resume (received and filed) into the record.
Mr.
Collison, Consortium Appraisal, Inc., addressed the Board to continue the
presentation with regard to Valuation Analysis.
He stated he was retained to provide an independent opinion regarding
the market’s impact of three specific things relative to this project. The first item is whether building a
one-story residence next to a two-story residence would result in a diminution
in value. The second item is whether
faith-based, age-restricted residences near non-restricted residences would
have an impact on value. The third item
was in regard to villas of over six units per acre near single-family homes at
roughly two and one-half units per acre or less and whether the market would
react to that.
Mr.
Collison explained that he researched the Orlando area to identify a similar
situation. He then displayed the Study
Aerial and discussed Winter Park Towers and Waterbridge. The Westminster Winter Park Campus Map was
displayed. Mr. Collison explained that
the central tower at Westminster is a 207-unit structure and 8 stories in
height. It is built at a density of
about 20.9 units per acre. He pointed
out that the central tower is surrounded by lower density residences, which is
what he focused on. They are located to
the north and south of the tower. These
include duplexes, triplexes and quadruplexes within Waterbridge and the units
are both one and two stories. He stated
that the Waterbridge units are associated now with Westminster Towers. He displayed and discussed the Waterbridge
Plat Map.
Mr.
Collison displayed a photograph of the view northerly along Serena Drive within
Waterbridge showing “The Towers” Building at Westminster Winter Park in the
background and noted that Serena Drive is the center drive of the
development. He noted that in the
foreground you can see the duplex, triplex and quadruplex residences. Those are both one- and two-story
configurations.
Mr.
Collison stated he analyzed sales data within the Waterbridge
neighborhood. He first compared what are
referred to as “matched pairs” which is where an appraiser looks at one
property with a condition versus another property without a condition to see if
there is market recognition for whatever is being looked at. He displayed and discussed Example 1, which
was in Waterbridge and compared the sale of a one-story residence behind a
two-story residence and the sale of a one-story residence not next to an
age-restricted residence. He next
displayed and discussed Example 2, where he compared the sale of a one-story
residence behind a two-story residence within Waterbridge to the sale of a
one-story residence in Quail Hollow, which is located about a mile away.
Mr.
Collison reviewed the Density Comparison chart and explained that the chart
compares the different types of developments that he was looking at because
they are very similar in many ways. With
regard to Conclusions, he stated there is no measureable value difference
between a one-story residential unit adjoining a two-story residential unit and
a one-story residential unit adjoining a one-story residential unit; there is
no measureable value difference for a non-age-restricted unit adjoining an
age-restricted unit; there is no measureable value difference for a
single-family home at 1.9 units per acre next to attached townhomes at over 6
units per acre; and there is no negative value reflected by attached villa
designs and restrictions for senior living on adjoining homes.
Mala Karkhanis, President of the Governing Council of the Hindu Society, addressed the Board to state their vision for the seniors is for them to live within walking distance from their place of worship. This will allow them to conveniently participate in social and faith-based activities well into their later years. She stressed that this is not intended to be an assisted living community but merely a place for elderly residents to have a simpler lifestyle without all the expenses of having a huge single-family home and yard to keep up. They will be close to the temple where they can remain mentally, physically, and socially active for many years and have a good life. Ms. Karkhanis discussed how their seniors currently raise funds for charity and emphasized that as devotees of their society, they actively participate in the community around them. She stated they hope that this involvement in serving others and being able to participate in activities within walking distance will allow their seniors to have a peaceful, dignified way to a healthy life.
Ms.
Fitzgerald concluded her presentation by discussing the legal basis for asking
the Commission for their approval. She
stated the staff report already deals with Comp Plan policies. The two things that are important when asking
for a change in the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning is to show that the
proposal is consistent with the Comp Plan as it is adopted and that it is
compatible with the surrounding area.
She pointed out that the findings in the staff report list a number of
the Comp Plan policies. The conclusion
from County staff is that this is consistent with those policies. The test is not complete identical
densities. In the County's plan, there
are housing policies. There are policies
that create flexibilities. The County
has recognized the need for a variety of housing types and a variety of housing
lifestyles. As the population is aging,
all of the baby boomers are looking forward to a different lifestyle perhaps
than they have had over the last few years; and Seminole County is no different
than any other county in a lot of ways in that they are looking for
opportunities for diverse housing options.
This is one of them. Seminole
County's housing policies do promote that wide variety of housing types and
recognize there are different needs for different age groups and different
lifestyles in the community.
Ms.
Fitzgerald described how the project is compatible and pointed out that even
though there is a slightly higher density, it is well designed and is
gated. It will look attractive. It will be heavily landscaped. It won't have school children. She emphasized that those design criteria
make it compatible with the neighborhood that it will fit into. Ms. Fitzgerald stated they believe they have
met the test of having both compatibility and consistency with the Comp Plan. This is a project that deserves the Board's
attention and deserves to be approved.
Ms.
Fitzgerald stated she has four letters (copies received and filed) in support
from residents in the area who could not attend today.
Subhash
Miglani, 4932 Southfork Ranch Drive, addressed the Board to state that the
reason he likes this project is because it is so close to the temple. It is a walkable distance. There is peace and quiet. Mr. Miglani remarked that it is an amazing
proposal and he loves it.
J.
Patel's name was announced and it was determined that he was not in attendance.
Pardeep
K. Vedi, 1819 Valley Wood Way, addressed the Board to state he has been a
resident of Seminole County since '97.
Mr. Vedi stated he is an active member of Seminole County and takes part
in a lot of activities. He discussed
being a Rotarian and how they do a lot of good work for the community and
charity. He talked about raising his
children, who have now left, and how it is just him and his wife at home. He spends a lot of time in his temple; and as
time has progressed, he would like to live closer to his temple so he can walk
there. He believes what makes Seminole
County great is that those of all faiths live a nice life. Mr. Vedi humbly requested the Board approve
the project for people like him.
Dr.
Mohan Saoji, 290 Hibiscus Road, addressed the Board to state he practices
dentistry. Dr. Saoji pointed out that he
has been here since 1979 and knows the community well. He noted there has been growth in the
community and he has seen a lot of changes.
He talked about his family. He
suggested that this project is going to be beautiful for the community, for
him, for his parents, and for everybody else.
It will be the jeweled part of the community.
Chandnika
Shah, 3732 Idlebrook Circle, addressed the Board to state she moved here from
another state recently. Ms. Shah stated
she would like to do more with the community.
Being a senior by herself, she is looking to stay in a place that has a
safe environment where she can enjoy her life and have nice neighbors and nice
activities. She supports the kind of
activities that they are used to doing since they were small children and for
their whole lives. She stated if she
lives in this community, she will be happy with her own future life.
Karen
Deo, 3901 Orange Lake Drive, addressed the Board to state she is a retired
teacher and her husband is a professor of computer science at UCF. They have lived in Central Florida for over
30 years. Ms. Deo stated they were
founding members of the Hindu Temple and are members of the senior group, which
they call the New Age Group. She
expressed her support and confidence in this project put forth by the
temple. They have in their community expert
builders, architects, and planners who have put time and effort into making
this a good working project. Because of
the location, the plan to build senior homes works well for their community and
is something on the order of Luther Haven (which already exists in Seminole
County). It is a win‑win plan for
Seminole County with all of the added property tax and no classrooms to have to
add to the budget. The Hindu community
has shown that they are willing to work with their neighbors to resolve any
issues.
Danny
Campos, 271 Tinder Place, addressed the Board to state he is the Hearth Place
HOA president and speaking for the board of Hearth Place. Mr. Campos answered Commissioner Carey's
previous question and advised they are a mandatory community HOA. He advised that he supports this
project. He talked about growing up in
Tampa and saw what happens with uncontrolled growth and complimented Seminole
County on their level of growth and the control that he has seen since he has
been here for the past 15 years. With
regard to property values, he sees there will be no measurable difference which
makes him happy as a homeowner.
With
regard to traffic, Mr. Campos pointed out that with this development, the
community does not have the perpetual traffic increase that you would have with
a typical family home as children start to age and you go from two cars to four
cars in one home. Mr. Campos talked
about the speeding currently on Center Drive and does not believe the seniors
will be driving 50 to 60 miles an hour down Center Drive. He is in favor of this project for the
reasons that he has already stated and believes that the impact on the area
will be much less than it could be if it was single-family and multi-family
homes. Upon inquiry by Commissioner
Carey, Mr. Campos indicated the location of his subdivision on the displayed
map. He added that there are about 80
homes in his community.
Ish Aneja, 451 Plumhollow Lane, addressed the Board to state he has lived in his home in Altamonte Springs for the last 33 plus years. Mr. Aneja advised that he has been enrolled in the temple from the very start 30 years ago. He has also been active in the New Age Group, which is a senior group of their community. They have felt that they need someplace where they can get together or stay together and have a social life. Staying scattered all around the county doesn't give them that opportunity. Mr. Aneja stated this project will give them a facility where they are all together and where, in their later years in life, they can actively participate in the temple as well as their social activity. He strongly supports this project.
Ms.
Fitzgerald stated that with the Board's permission, she needs to make a
correction. With regard to Commissioner
Carey's question about a solid wall, Ms. Fitzgerald stated she misspoke. She clarified that staff is recommending that
there be a solid fence on the east, the west, and the south and a six-foot high
brick wall on the frontage, right on Center Drive adjacent to the gate.
Chairman
Horan recessed the meeting at 2:48 p.m., reconvening it at 2:54 p.m. with
Commissioner Constantine returning late.
Rosalie
Bouley, 1936 South Drive, addressed the Board to state that she and her husband
have been residents of the area surrounding this proposed community for 25
years. They have been residents of Seminole
County for 35 years. Her husband was a
teacher in Seminole County for 31 years and she is retired from Lockheed
Martin. Ms. Bouley discussed the motion
that was made at the Planning & Zoning meeting on April 6, 2016 and advised
the motion was denied.
Commissioner Constantine re-entered the meeting at this time.
Ms.
Bouley remarked that at the time of the hearing, P&Z Commissioner Matt
Brown stated these are duplexes in the middle of a residential area. He added that it was a great plan and a great
concept but in the wrong location. Ms.
Bouley stated that she, along with the residents from the surrounding
neighborhoods, have attended every single meeting that was had to discuss this
senior development for the Hindu people.
Their thoughts and sentiments have been repeated over and over again but
today, she feels it is necessary to approach all of the Commissioners with
something very simple. She distributed
a photograph (received and filed) of the area and pointed out that
this aerial view of their peaceful and beautiful community of single-family
homes and horse farms on Center Drive and Sunset Road will portray exactly what
they are trying to convey. Ms. Bouley
indicated on the photo the location of where the proposed senior development
would be. She urged the Board to keep in
mind there would be 20 duplexes on this property, which really totals 40 homes,
surrounded by a concrete paver jungle for minimal upkeep and room for roads and
water retention.
Ms.
Bouley discussed the three horse farms to the left of the strip of land where
the proposed development would be. To
the extreme right of the strip of land is the gated Brookwood subdivision,
which has only single-family homes. She
believes the proposed development is a non-compliance issue, and it does not
fit. As a representative for all of the
surrounding residents of their lovely community, Ms. Bouley implored the Board
to consider the situation and how grossly it will affect the community, their
lives, and the value of their homes. She
urged the Board to leave the present zoning in place for single-family homes
only on this tract of land.
Michael
Crawford, 228 Bluestone Place, addressed the Board to state he lives in the
subdivision adjacent just east of the property.
Mr. Crawford advised if they overlaid the housing development on that
property like the subdivisions that are surrounding it, the Board would see the
density and the impact. The area is not
zoned for a duplex-congestion area. If
they look at the surrounding area, the proposed development doesn't fit
in. Mr. Crawford urged the Commissioners
to stop something that doesn't need to happen in their neighborhood.
Lorisa
Lewis, 1900 Center Drive, addressed the Board to state she lives on the
7.5-acre property approximately 400 feet to the west of this proposed
project. Ms. Lewis explained that her
property is a horse farm with a single-family residence of approximately 4,000
square feet along with a barn. She is
requesting that the Board uphold the recommendation that was made on April 6,
2016 by the P&Z Commission for denial.
She advised that at that meeting, P&Z Commissioner Wolf stated it
was a great plan and a great concept but it is simply in the wrong location. Her concern and her family's concern are not
with these lovely people; it is not with having seniors living in the
community. There are a lot retirees and
a lot of seniors; she is one of them.
They have seniors of multiple faiths living in the community. They have a lot of diversity in the
community.
Ms.
Lewis emphasized that what they have are a lot of single-family homes and
absolutely no duplexes. They are a
community of single-family homes in boutique neighborhoods running off of
Center Drive. Those homes' values range
from $300,000 to approximately $700,000.
She stated she thinks this is a wonderful plan and thinks it is
something that is needed. She believes
these are lovely people and she supports them having this but just not
here. They currently have absolutely no
duplexes. There have been many
"fits and starts" and revisions of this plan but the thing that has
remained consistent is this is a community of high density duplexes surrounded
by a community of single-family homes.
She thinks it is pretty clear that this is not compatible in terms of
the zoning.
Ms.
Lewis stated they are also concerned as neighbors about potential
encroachment. Most of them have already
been approached privately by these particular principals in an attempt to buy
their properties. They are very
concerned about that. She explained that
in her case, this is where she is retiring.
Many of the neighbors have a lot of their life savings in their
properties. She talked about her
daughter and son-in-law relocating into the Brookwood subdivision immediately
to the east of this project and the Realtor advising them not to look at
anything in Brookwood at this point pending whether or not this development
goes through because the anticipation within the realty community is that those
homes will no longer be valued very high.
That will be a drastic change for that community. Ms. Lewis discussed her concerns about the
environmental impacts. She asked the
Board to please consider their lifestyle and uphold the recommendation of the
P&Z Commission to deny this item.
She asked that this wonderful project simply be put someplace else where
it is more compatible.
Hubert
Herring, 1818 Center Drive, addressed the Board to state that he has maintained
a residence here for 38 years. Mr.
Herring noted that his community (which is bordered by Lake Avenue to the
north, Lake Avenue to the east, Deer Run to the south, and Deer Run to the
west) became a community back in the mid-70s.
He discussed how the property, which was 200 acres, was broken up into
18 parcels and started selling in the mid-70s.
He purchased his property in '77 and what drew him to the area was the
low density country-style living. They
have a home that is on the backside of the proposed project. They are the furthest point of which you can
transverse the road to get out of the area.
One thing that all of them as a community, which is 200 plus houses,
share is that they are all single-family residences with the exception of two
religious societies that have 25 acres of property in this community.
Mr.
Herring stated he heard from the proponents of the proposal that it was a
lifestyle they were looking for. He
heard that it was their values. He noted
that in addressing the values, they don't have "skin" in the
game. With regard to both religious
organizations on their 25 acres, $4 million was tax exempt last year for
2016. He is not sure who is going to own
the property here, whether it would be the church and have the exemption or
whether it will be the duplex owners and they will pay taxes. Regardless, they have an allegiance to their
religious society so that anything that is proposed for the community, their
allegiance would be there; so they don't have "skin" in the
game.
Mr.
Herring sated that when they talk about values, his value is a low density,
easy, laid-back lifestyle. He stated the
community is very diverse. There are
homes that are $40,000 and homes that are approaching $1 million. That doesn't concern him. His concern is to lay back as he gets older
so he has a lifestyle where he can enjoy a walk down the road and that it is
not in jeopardy. Both religious
organizations have only been in existence on their properties since 2005,
unlike him, who has been there 38 years.
He stated that he is not trying to rewrite the tax code or anything like
that; but with the Board's vote to approve the higher density, they have five
acres that have yet to be developed on Center Drive. Does that lead to a precedent to offer more
high density homes or projects? He
doesn't know but questioned why should they take the chance. He asked why disrupt 200 people, 200
lifestyles for the sake of 40. To him,
it doesn't seem fair.
In
rebuttal, Ms. Fitzgerald stated this is an urban area of Seminole County. It is not a designated rural area but is an
urbanizing area and hasn't completely changed to urban. She explained that they are suggesting that
there can be a lifestyle that these residents can continue to enjoy and this
project will not be disrupting that.
They have a slightly different lifestyle, which is compatible and
contiguous to the existing residences; and Seminole County's Comp Plan supports
that. It will be compatible and
consistent based on the requirements that staff has imposed through its
suggested recommendations and that they are willing to abide by.
Ms.
Fitzgerald stated they have had some discussion with Commissioner Dallari about
some thought that they could reduce the density. She advised they are willing to discuss
that. She stated this is an appropriate
development for this area and believes you can't just continue to say we are
going to ignore an aging lifestyle. Not
everybody in Seminole County can live in this area and afford to live in this
area. There really is need for a change
in lifestyle over time. This property is
unique because it is so close to the temple and that creates advantages for the
neighborhood as well because of the ability to walk and have even fewer trips
on the road. Ms. Fitzgerald stated they
would very much appreciate the Board's support and they disagree with the neighbors
that their lifestyles will be interrupted in any way.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner
Dallari submitted his ex parte communications (received and filed) that he has
had for this item. He also noted for the
record that he has met with various homeowners.
He attended several community meetings at the temple. He stated that in meeting with the residents,
he understands a lot of their concerns as well as the concerns that were
presented by the Applicant. He feels
that the project is just a little too dense and would be looking for something
a little bit less than 6.5 units per acre.
He believes that they are making a lot of steps in the right
direction. He was really impressed when
they went to an age-restricted community.
To him that holds value because it reduces not just the school issue but
also the transportation issue.
Commissioner Dallari stated he doesn't really like to pick apart
development orders from the dais but he is wondering if Ms. Fitzgerald would be
willing to reduce Item B, the 6.5 units per acre, to 6.0 units per acre
voluntarily. Ms. Fitzgerald advised that
she has discussed that with her client and they would accept that
proposal.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to
change Item B of the Development Order from 6.5 to 6.0 dwelling units per net
buildable acre; adopt Ordinance #2017-9 enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use
Map Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Planned Development (PD);
and adopt Ordinance #2017-10, enacting a Rezone from R‑1A (Single‑Family
Residential) to PD (Planned Development) for an age-restricted, 40-unit senior
living community on 6.45 acres, located on the south side of Center Drive,
approximately 600 feet east of Sunset Road, as described in the proof of
publication, along with the changes presented today as well as the
age-restriction that was presented; Babuji Ambikapathy, Applicant; Development
Order.
Under
discussion, Commissioner Carey asked Commissioner Dallari if he would consider a friendly amendment that
would require the six-foot fences to be walls.
Commissioner Dallari stated he would consider the friendly amendment as
presented by Commissioner Carey.
Chairman Horan clarified that the six-foot fences on the east, west, and
south would be walled, not fences. Commissioner Henley, as the seconder, agreed to the amendment.
Commissioner
Carey stated she also had ex parte communications (received and filed), which
she submitted into the record. Chairman
Horan advised that he has ex parte communications with the attorney for the
Applicant, several of the people who were involved in the community and of
course, received all of the emails. He
stated he will make his decision based on the evidence that comes in front of
him today.
Commissioner
Henley stated he met with three of the Applicants in a short discussion. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms.
Fitzgerald stated the age restriction is 55 plus. Commissioner Dallari advised that he is
making his decision based on the testimony that was presented today. Commissioner Constantine stated he had phone
calls with the attorney and met with a number of residents from the Hindu
Temple but is making his decision based on the evidence that was presented here
today.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
LEGISLATIVE
UPDATE
Agenda
Item #27 - A-3398-17
Meloney
Lung, Assistant County Manager, addressed the Board to present her Legislative
Update. Ms. Lung advised that at the
March 14 BCC meeting, the Board directed staff to develop some resolutions
opposing certain bills. Referring to the
three resolutions in the Agenda Memorandum, Ms. Lung explained that two of the
resolutions are for the super preemption bills (HB 17 and SB 1158) and the
third resolution is opposing any bill that challenges Home Rule or imposes
unfunded mandates.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt appropriate
Resolution #2017-R-49, directing County Management to make opposition to Senate
Bill #1158; appropriate Resolution #2017-R-50,
directing County Management to make opposition to House Bill 17; and appropriate Resolution #2017-R-51, directing County Management to make
opposition to bills challenging Home Rule or imposing unfunded mandates on
counties and cities.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ms.
Lung reviewed the BCC Legislative Update document (copy received and filed)
that was distributed to the Board. She
discussed the following five appropriation bills: HB 3475, HB 4223, HB 4221, HB 4225, and HB
4247. She stated that HB 17 does not
have a companion bill yet. She discussed
SB 596/HB 687 regarding cell towers and advised they continue to move quite
strongly.
Ms.
Lung discussed SB 1774, which is the extra $25,000 exemption. She stated that this bill is now in the
Appropriation Subcommittee on Finance and Tax.
It does not have a House sponsor yet but there might be something
tomorrow. Commissioner Dallari requested
that Ms. Lung get a list as to how the bill affects not just the County but
also the seven cities. Ms. Lung
responded that that information was going to be part of the postponed work
session. Ms. Guillet stated that for the
County it is a little over nine to the General Fund. She advised that the Property Appraiser,
David Johnson, is working on those figures for the cities. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Lung
advised that the Florida League of Cities and Florida Association of Counties
are adamantly opposed. Ms. Guillet
stated those organizations are trying to engage the business community and
business interests to help work against this because if residential property
taxes are decreased, commercial property will have to subsidize even
further. They are trying to get the
business community engaged by saying if there is an additional exemption for
residential properties, be prepared because your taxes may be increased to make
up that shortfall. Discussion ensued
with regard to millage rates and the business community.
Ms.
Lung announced that the Constitutional Revision Commission is meeting at UCF
tomorrow night from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Citizens can attend and give their input. Commissioner Constantine noted that one of
the members of that is on the FPSC, Jimmy Patronis. Commissioner Constantine stated he is
planning on being there and telling Mr. Patronis how much Seminole County hates
the Utilities, Inc. increase.
With
regard to the extra exemption, Commissioner Dallari requested that when County
staff is putting numbers together of what the shortfall is from the cities and
county that they also put together what the shortfall would be for the
CRAs.
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
District
3
Commissioner
Constantine reported that he attended the Central Florida Zoo board meeting and
the zoo has been approved by the AZA until March of 2021, which is great news
for the zoo. He further reported that
the Florida Association of Counties will be meeting on April 4, 2017.
Motion by
Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to
appoint/reappoint James Depoy (Electrical Contractor) and Matthew Bark
(Consumer) to the Contractor Examiner Board; to appoint Dudley Bates and
Kimberlee Riley to the Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee; to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2017-R-52 in appreciation of Fonda Ryan Cerenzio’s
service on the Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee; and to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2017-R-53 in appreciation of Marty Chan’s service on
the Contractor Examiner Board.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Commissioner Constantine stated he believes staff has been
working on an anti‑fracking resolution which supports Representative
Miller, a Republican, and Dana Young, a Republican Senator, who are supporting
anti‑fracking statewide.
Commissioner Constantine pointed out the Board has taken that stance
before and he would like to see them support those individuals and be on the
right side of this particular issue. He
requested that staff bring this up at the next meeting. No
objections were voiced.
-------
Commissioner Constantine pointed out that two years ago they
looked at a net density change that was requested of the County by a building
group regarding right-of-ways and wetlands and that they would include them as
part of density. He stated he believes
they are in a situation now that they should relook at that. It has been an average of about 15%. In today's agenda item, the units would have
been 20%. He does not believe the
citizens of this county want to see 15% more transportation guaranteed or 15%
more school guaranteed. He stated he
believes staff should look at that again.
It was a three-to-two vote and he believes that now they have a
different situation and circumstances.
Cities mostly used that density, not counties. He requested that staff relook at that and
maybe bring back a recommendation. No objections were voiced.
Commissioner Constantine left the meeting at this time.
District
5
Commissioner
Carey reported that at the March 16th Women on the Move luncheon sponsored by
Onyx Magazine she presented the Women's History Month proclamation that was
approved at the last Board meeting on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners. It was very much
appreciated and well received. She
reported on the State of the Cities luncheon sponsored by the Sanford Chamber
that she recently attended with Mayor Triplett and Mayor Mealor.
-------
Commissioner
Carey stated she had a request from the Central Florida Expressway Authority
for a resolution in support of the purchase for the DOT expressway toll
road.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by
Commissioner Dallari, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2017-R-54 to support the
Central Florida Expressway purchase of the portions of SR 528, SR 429 and SR
417 owned by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Districts
1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by
Commissioner Dallari, to appoint Jean Miller to the Planning & Zoning
Commission for an unexpired term ending January 2019; and to adopt appropriate
Resolution #2017-R-55 in appreciation of Mya Hatchette for her service on the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Districts
1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
District
1
Commissioner Dallari reported that
at the SunRail board meeting, they approved bringing back to each one of the
funding partners the contract for the transition team. He knows that it is going to be on an
upcoming agenda and inquired as to when that is going to happen. Ms. Guillet stated they intend to bring it to
the Board for consideration on April 11.
-------
With regard to MetroPlan, Commissioner Dallari advised that they
have adopted a pretty strong priority called Complete Streets. They will be partnering not just with the
MetroPlan board and the staffs of the cities and the counties but also with the
regional planning board to get a form of that adopted by all of the local
entities in the MetroPlan region almost similar to what happened with “How
Shall We Grow.”
District
2
Chairman
Horan discussed speaking at the Oviedo-Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce on
March 22 regarding Sports Tourism.
Chairman Horan stated he met with the YMCA downtown, a group that does
the after-school program. They have
three after-school programs that are financed through state funding in Seminole
County. They want to promote more. After the legislative session, he is going to
get together with the sheriff and the YMCA people and see if they can put
together a couple more programs to serve those needy communities like Midway
and others that really need after-school programs. YMCA has a more mobile program and a little
more flexible program than Boys and Girls Clubs where they actually use the
school facilities; and they have been very successful.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORTS
Chairman Horan advised that he had an interesting meeting at the
Winter Springs incubator, the UCF incubator, with a business called
Datanautix. The principal of the
business is Sanjay Patel. He described
the business, which has to do with artificial intelligence, and offered to
forward the Commissioners some information about it. He noted that Datanautix has contracts with
Seminole State College, Seminole County Public School system, and Greater
Orlando Aviation Authority. When talking
about social media and technology in terms of marketing, he believes this is
the kind of company that is out there on the cutting edge and could do surgical
analysis about what people like and don't like and they do it on a real-time
basis.
-------
With regard to the Wekiva River Basin meeting on Thursday,
Chairman Horan questioned if they are sending a representative. Ms. Guillet responded that she is not
sure. Ms. Lung stated that Kim Ornberg
usually goes. Chairman Horan stated he
just wants to ensure that they have a representative there.
-------
Chairman Horan announced that the County's procurement
department has received the Award of Excellence in Public Procurement for
2017. He added that Mr. Hooper and his
purchasing department have done a great job.
-------
Chairman Horan referred to a letter from Joel Greenberg, Tax
Collector, which stated that the budget has been amended. Ms. Guillet advised staff is getting more
information. Chairman Horan stated the
bottom line is that the Tax Collector is hiring 19 more people to the tune of
$520,000, which will be $520,000 less coming back to the County. Ms. Guillet stated there is not a lot of
information in the letter and they are trying to get more information so they
can better explain to the Commissioners what that means to the budget. Commissioner Carey stated they can't take dollars
in their budget and various lines and apply it to personnel so they have to go
back and get that personnel line amended.
Ms. Guillet stated they have to have any budget amendments approved
through the Department of Revenue.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports
were received and filed:
1.
Letter
dated March 10, 2017 from Julie Brown, Chairman of the Public Service
Commission, to Chairman Horan re: Docket No. 160101-WS, Application to increase
water and wastewater rates in Seminole County by Utilities, Inc.
2.
Letter
dated March 13, 2017 from Sine Murray, Chief, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, to Chairman Horan re: Wekiva River Basin State Parks
Advisory meeting to be held on March 30, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., at
the Youth Camp Recreation Hall at Wekiwa Springs State Park.
3.
Letter
dated March 13, 2017 from Bob Brown, President of Central Florida Continuum of
Care (CoC), to Chairman Horan re: approval of new CoC bylaws.
4.
Letter
dated March 14, 2017 from Ray Eubanks, Administrator, Plan Review &
Processing, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, to Chairman Horan re:
Expedited State Review process of amendment package Seminole County 17-1ESR.
5.
Letter
dated March 15, 2017 from Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs to Chairman Horan
re: Continuum of Care Jurisdictional Meeting to be held in the Orange County
Administration Building, Orlando, on April 17, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
6.
Notice
received March 16, 2017 from Angela Cardona, Seminole County Public Works
Engineer, regarding a Neighborhood Meeting to be held on March 30, 2017, from
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Sanford Civic Center re: Lincoln Heights
Subdivision Sidewalk Improvements.
7.
Letter
received March 20, 2017 from Brett Scharback, President, Lake Forest HOA, to
BOCC, Staff and News Media re: Hattaway Billboard issue.
8.
Letter
from Chairman Horan to be included with a bid for Tourism re: FCSAA State
Softball Tournament.
9.
Correspondence
dated March 23, 2017 from Joel Greenberg, Seminole County Tax Collector, to
Chairman re: budget amendment.
10.
Notice
of Public Hearing dated March 23, 2017 from the City of Casselberry Planning
and Zoning Commission re: a hearing to be held on April, 12, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
regarding Front Yard Fences.
-------
There being no further
business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned
at 3:46 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
ks/js